Published on: August 11, 2026
A NABITA Tip of the Week by Tim R. Cason, M.Ed., and Aaron L. Austin, Ed.D.
Student Conduct and Behavioral Intervention Teams (BITs) often work with the same students, but they serve different purposes. When these offices collaborate effectively, sanctions become part of a broader institutional response that promotes accountability, encourages behavioral change, and helps to reduce future concerns while preserving the distinct roles of each process.
We recently explored this topic during a Talking BITs event. Below are key takeaways from that conversation to help you move from insight to action. Watch the recording.
Collaboration Works Best When Roles are Clear
BIT and Student Conduct functions complement each other, but it is important to keep the roles of each separate and clearly defined. Student Conduct determines whether institutional policies have been violated, administers established conduct procedures, and assigns sanctions when appropriate. BITs gather information from multiple sources, identify patterns of risk, and coordinate ongoing voluntary intervention.
Maintaining these distinctions allows each office to contribute without unnecessary overlap. Both areas benefit from sharing information that helps them gain a full picture of a student’s circumstances. However, this communication doesn’t shift responsibility for key decisions from one office to the other.
Effective Sanctions Begin with Purpose
Sanctions work best when designed to shape future behavior rather than simply responding to past conduct. Well-designed sanctions encourage reflection, skill development, and meaningful engagement with resources that may help to prevent recurring issues.
Rather than only asking what consequence fits a policy violation, practitioners should also consider responses that address the underlying behavior. Student conduct professionals should ask themselves:
- What behavior are we trying to change? Examples may include impulsivity, aggression, or escalating fixation.
- What risk factors are present? Examples may include lack of insight, substance misuse, or grievances.
- What sanctions could reduce future risk?
Educational assignments, restorative opportunities, case management referrals, mentoring, and similar interventions can be effective when deliberately connected to the behavior that initiated the conduct process.
Strong Communication Leads to Better Decisions
Conduct issues may intersect with mental health, academic performance, disability-related needs, housing, or threat assessment. These issues may require cross-functional collaboration with your BIT.
Working together allows sanctions, support measures, and behavioral interventions to reinforce rather than contradict one another. Seeing the whole student beyond a single incident often leads to responses that are more thoughtful, individualized, and effective.
Effective sanctions are not measured solely by whether they resolve a conduct matter. Their broader value lies in helping students change behavior, supporting institutional safety, and demonstrating that accountability and care are both essential to student success. BITs have these same goals in mind, which makes BIT and Student Conduct great partners.
Behavioral Agreements Should Not Become a Shadow Conduct Code
Some BITs may use behavioral agreements to document expectations for a student’s behavior, identify available resources, and establish plans for follow-up outside the formal conduct process. Although they may appear to offer a clear and structured intervention, and are usually created with good intentions, practitioners should approach their use with caution or ideally avoid them altogether.
A central challenge is that behavioral agreements are often initiated for students whose concerning behavior is persistent or recurring, including students experiencing chronic mental health, behavioral, developmental, or other conditions. In these circumstances, an agreement may do little to address the factors contributing to the behavior. Simply requiring that a student promise that a symptom, behavior, or pattern will not recur does not necessarily make recurrence less likely. In fact, what is often created is a mechanism for documenting the student’s failure to comply.
Behavioral agreements often create due process or fundamental fairness concerns. When an agreement imposes restrictions (“Don’t talk about suicide”), mandates treatment or other actions (“You have to see a counselor”), establishes behavioral conditions (“You must take your medication”), or identifies consequences for noncompliance (“If you don’t, you can’t remain a student”), it begins to function like a disciplinary sanction without providing the procedural protections associated with the institution’s formal conduct process. A student may perceive the agreement as mandatory even when it is characterized as “voluntary” or “collaborative,” particularly when institutional officials pose it in response to concerning behavior.
These concerns are especially important given the limited evidence that behavioral agreements, standing alone, are effective at changing behavior or reducing future risk. Documentation and clarity are valuable, but they should not be confused with intervention effectiveness. Most behavioral agreements are written as very one-sided, and administrators framing them often do not realize they may be creating contractual obligations that might at some point invite a court to question whether the institution upheld its end of the bargain. If you don’t have authority to bind your institution contractually, it may be time to rethink this practice in terms of expectations, not agreements.
When there are disciplinary expectations, they should be addressed through established conduct procedures rather than creating a parallel disciplinary process via behavioral agreements from the BIT. The outcomes from the conduct process should be communicated with clarity about their purpose, the authority of the office, and the consequences for failing to comply.
BITs should identify the underlying concern and initiate interventions responsive to the student’s circumstances and the presenting behavior. These supportive, voluntary interventions should focus on connection to resources, problem-solving, harm reduction, and strategies reasonably likely to improve the situation.
Build your team’s capacity to develop cross-functional partnerships with Behavioral Intervention Team Standards and Best Practices or Collaboration and Support: Addressing the Intersection of BIT, Conduct, and Disability Support.
NABITA members have access to members-only Talking BITs events and recordings, practical resources, and expert guidance designed to strengthen behavioral intervention and institutional response. Become a NABITA member to explore the full library of member-exclusive content.