Published on: November 5, 2026
A NABITA Tip of the Week by W. Scott Lewis, J.D.
Every school and college Behavioral Intervention Team (BIT)[1] asks the same question: “Are we doing this right?”
The answer goes beyond the entire team completing annual training, such as BIT Standards & Best Practices, or knowing how to use the NABITA Risk Rubric. It shows up in the team’s day-to-day practice: consistently evaluating cases, applying appropriate interventions, involving the right people, and documenting decisions in line with best practices.
Increasingly, institutions are using custom training to take a closer look at those practices. The initial request may be straightforward:
- A community college embracing a proactive model of care
- A large K-12 school district supplementing its PBIS framework with robust training
- A community college district building a unified framework for Title IX and behavioral intervention
In a custom training, NABITA consultants start by reviewing current structures and work through “hypothetical” scenarios. Then, inevitably, something interesting happens. BIT members start thinking about their own cases and comparing them to the best practices we’re recommending. Soon, they are asking our consultants to examine how their team actually operates at every meeting: how decisions are made, whether risk is being assessed consistently, which interventions should be selected, who should be involved, and what should be documented along the way.
The training becomes less about receiving new information and more about testing and refining existing practices. I’ll let you in on a secret: we’re always hoping the training steers in this direction—real application to what teams are addressing week to week.
From Training to Calibration
In one recent custom training, the community college spent part of the day walking through some of their actual cases exactly as they unfolded. Rather than starting with the outcome, the team presented information in the same sequence they originally received it.
As each new piece of information emerged, we discussed the appropriate D Scale and E Scale ratings on the NABITA Risk Rubric, identified relevant behavioral indicators, considered and suggested interventions, and examined how the assessment should evolve as the facts changed.
We followed a deliberate process:
- What facts do we know?
- What behaviors are we observing?
- How do we rate those behaviors in our risk assessment?
- What interventions are appropriate based on the information available today?
Behavioral intervention is rarely about finding one right answer. It is about applying a consistent methodology that can be explained, defended, and repeated from case to case. This team wanted us to walk through that methodology with them, step by step, giving feedback on the kinds of decisions they actually make. That’s where training becomes calibration.
Different Institutions, Different Goals
Not every institution needs the same outcome from custom training. Large universities managing thousands of active cases may want to improve efficiency, refine workflows, sharpen triage protocols, or evaluate how responsibilities are distributed across departments. Other institutions may want an outside perspective on whether the right people are consistently participating in BIT meetings, and help with deciding which individuals are core, inner, middle, or outer circle.
Sometimes staffing emerges as part of the conversation. Teams discover that the distinction among the BIT’s core, inner, middle, and outer circles has blurred, with broader campus partners participating regularly even though their expertise is needed only for particular cases. Other teams use custom training to strengthen collaboration between BIT and Student Conduct or Title IX, clarify overlapping responsibilities, improve referral pathways, or address communication gaps across departments.
These operational questions can be difficult to evaluate internally. Team members bring institutional history, established habits, organizational dynamics, and assumptions about “how we’ve always done it” into the conversation. Sometimes it takes someone from outside the institution to ask why, to help fine-tune practices to enhance the precision of both risk evaluation and intervention.
The Value of an Outside Perspective
Because an outside expert isn’t part of the institution’s internal dynamics, the conversation can focus on process rather than personalities. Instead of asking who made a particular decision, teams can examine whether the information available at the time supported it:
- Does the documentation demonstrate the team’s reasoning?
- Was the risk assessment applied consistently?
- Were the interventions appropriate to the identified level of risk?
- Would the team follow the same process if a similar case arrived tomorrow?
Those questions often accomplish two things at once. They validate practices that are working while identifying targeted adjustments that can make future decision-making more consistent and defensible.
Sometimes the most valuable outcome of training is not learning something entirely new. It is knowing which practices to keep, which to adjust, and why. Training teaches principles. Debriefing your own cases with an expert in the room reveals whether your team can consistently put them into practice.
Ready to train your team using your own cases as examples? NABITA can deliver custom training to your school, district, or institution at any time. Contact us at inquiry@tngconsulting.com.
[1] School-based BITs are also called BTAMs in many schools, for Behavioral Threat Assessment and Management, or PBIS, for Positive Behavioral Intervention Systems.