Published on: October 28, 2026
A NABITA Tip of the Week by Linda Abbott, M.S., LMHC, and Makenzie Schiemann, Ph.D.
Schools and colleges commonly protect their communities from violence through industry standard threat assessment and behavioral intervention approaches (e.g., TATs, BTAMs, BITs, etc.). Well-trained multidisciplinary teams rely on accurate tools to help assess violence risk accurately. Those tools are part of what is termed a violence risk assessment (VRA). Clinicians bring valuable skills to performing VRAs, including building rapport, asking difficult questions, listening for what isn’t being said, managing their own emotional responses during challenging conversations, and engaging individuals who may be hesitant to participate.
While VRAs can be performed by anyone trained to administer one, Behavioral Intervention Teams (BITs) may turn to clinicians when they need to better understand an individual’s risk, sometimes mistakenly assuming that assessing harm to others in a structured, research-based way is a standard component of clinical training. It isn’t.
Clinical experience provides a strong foundation, but a VRA has a distinct purpose: to gather and evaluate information to identify risk and protective factors and determine how to mitigate risk. The approach should remain empathetic and respectful, but clinicians must keep that purpose at the forefront throughout the assessment and rely on a structured approach and objective tool to complete the VRA.
Start With the Question You Need to Answer
For each referral, BITs should use an evidence-based, objective risk rubric to triage risk and determine whether additional assessment is necessary. When risk is triaged at a heightened level, such as “elevated” or “critical” on the NABITA Risk Rubric, additional assessment is needed.
The type of assessment should match the question the team is trying to answer. What is the nature and severity of the concern? Is there an urgent, credible, and actionable threat requiring immediate intervention? What factors contribute to the risk, and what interventions could help mitigate it? If these are the questions the team seeks to answer, a VRA is the appropriate risk assessment type. Defining the question and the appropriate assessment type helps determine what information the assessor needs to gather and how the assessment should proceed.
Shift From Therapeutic Exploration to Purposeful Information Gathering
Clinical assessments occur between clinicians and clients as part of therapeutic relationships. In these assessments, the clinician often allows the client to guide the pace of the conversation. The client can explore emotions, experiences, relationships, and patterns as they emerge, which then inform the clinician’s diagnosis or treatment planning.
VRAs occur between an assessor and an individual and require a different focus. Here, the clinician acts as an assessor, outside of a therapeutic relationship. As an assessor, they gather information to determine risk and inform intervention. That means using structured pacing, asking deliberate questions, and paying close attention to credibility, actionability, and both risk and protective factors.
Empathy and rapport still matter, but they serve the assessment’s purpose. Active listening, clarification, curiosity without judgment, emotional attunement, motivational interviewing techniques, nonverbal observation, reflective responding, and trauma-informed approaches all potentially increase the accuracy of a VRA. The difference is that the assessor has a defined destination. When the discussion moves away from information needed to assess and mitigate risk, the assessor redirects it.
Create Clear Boundaries Between Clinical Care and Risk Assessment
The interview’s setting and framing also matter. Conducting a VRA in a counseling center or other clinical setting can create confusion about the assessment’s non-clinical purpose. NABITA recommends settings such as a Dean of Students’ office, a neutral conference room, a human resources office, or a campus safety setting instead. The clinician may bring clinical skills into the room, but the interaction itself is not therapy.
Assessors should communicate that distinction directly by explaining their typical professional role, how it differs from their role in the VRA, the role of the BIT or CARE team, and how they will share assessment results. Clinicians should also not conduct a VRA for a current or former client, especially when that relationship raises concerns about objectivity, confidentiality, or role boundaries. It is expected that VRA results will be shared with the BIT, and thus are not confidential, though they are often protected by federal student records privacy statutes.
Consider who is in the room, too. A one-on-one interview can make rapport easier to establish and reduce the likelihood that the individual feels outnumbered. If another person needs to attend, such as a note-taker, explain their role clearly.
Clear Questions Can Support Rapport
Clinicians may worry that becoming more directive or asking difficult questions will damage rapport. In a VRA, thoughtful directness can do the opposite. Being clear about why the conversation is happening, what information is needed, and why certain questions are being asked can build trust and make the process feel more transparent.
An interview that wanders without direction can create confusion or leave the individual wondering where the conversation is going. The same is true when an assessor avoids difficult questions because the subject is uncomfortable. VRA requires clear questions about concerning thoughts and behaviors, potential targets, intentions, planning, access to means, grievances, suicidality, stressors, and other factors relevant to understanding risk.
Direct does not always mean closed-ended. Open-ended questions can invite the individual to tell their story and provide important context, while more focused questions can clarify specific behaviors, intentions, or plans. The assessor should move between the two intentionally based on the information needed.
Empathy and directness can also exist in the same question sequence. For example, an assessor can acknowledge the pain of a relationship ending while still asking about recent contact with the former partner, actions the individual has taken, thoughts about confronting them, and what the individual hopes will happen next. Acknowledging the emotion does not require avoiding necessary questions about the behavior. In a VRA, rapport should help the assessor ask the questions that need to be asked.
Build the Assessment Beyond the Interview
What the assessor learns during the interview should be considered alongside available records, collateral information, observable behavior, contextual factors, and other relevant evidence submitted to or gathered by the BIT.
The same practice applies to documentation. Record what the individual reported, what was observed or corroborated, and what evidence supports identified risk and protective factors. Avoid presenting assumptions about intent as fact.
Clinical skills also help when documenting a VRA, but practitioners must adapt them to the assessment’s distinct purpose. NABITA’s Violence Risk Assessment Report Writing Workshop helps practitioners craft robust reports, clearly articulate findings, and develop recommendations to mitigate risk.
Continue the Conversation
This Tip of the Week is based on Talking BITs: Clinical Skills in Violence Risk Assessment. Watch the recording or access it through My NABITA.
Want to explore how clinical skills can support effective VRA interviews and assessments? Become a NABITA Member to continue the conversation.