Published on: June 12, 2025
A NABITA Tip of the Week by W. Scott Lewis, J.D.
At NABITA, we are often asked whether a Behavioral Intervention Team (BIT), CARE team, Behavioral Threat Assessment and Management (BTAM) team, or, in some instances, the Threat Assessment Team (TAT) has the authority to mandate risk assessments and, if so, where that authority originates. The answer is that teams derive their authority from institutional policies and charters, much like how a dean oversees Student Conduct in higher education or a school principal manages discipline and student safety in K-12 settings.
This authority is rooted in law (e.g., negligence law, disability law, employment law) and is vested in the institution’s president or school board/superintendent, by virtue of their responsibility to ensure campus safety, and is delegated to administrators, accordingly. Thus, it is often embedded in the team’s mission and should be clearly outlined in the policy and/or procedures manual for the school, district, or institution.
In the first installment in this three-part Tip of the Week series, we explore what a mandated risk assessment entails in both higher education and K-12 environments. We also discuss how the authority to require such assessments can be effectively communicated to ensure clarity and understanding across the institutional community. (For ease of reading, we use the term BIT to refer to all forms of BIT/CARE/BTAM/TATs.)
Mission Statement
The primary purpose of a BIT is to address concerns at the earliest levels possible, to support the individuals referred, and to assess risks to the community. As part of its mission to assess these risks, the team holds the authority to require a risk assessment to evaluate an individual’s risk level of harm to themselves or others. This authority is central to the team’s mission of care, support, and prevention.
Stated with precision, a team cannot actually mandate an assessment, but it can create consequences (usually administered under a conduct code) for failure to comply with a directive to be assessed and to cooperate fully in that assessment. An assessment is thus mandated, in effect, though a student or employee could choose to refuse to cooperate, and accept the consequences for doing so (which could be suspension until they cooperate or demonstrate they are safe to return).
Every day, student affairs staff, administrators, and counselors have informal conversations with students to assess their academic and personal well-being. These generalized assessments are part of their responsibility to gather data and assess risk, and they are not mandated.
When an Individual Presents a Higher Risk
In instances where an individual presents a more profound risk to themselves or others, a BIT uses a tool like the NABITA Risk Rubric. NABITA’s tools use exacerbating, mitigating, and protective factors to apply a risk level to each individual assessed. Using objective risk rubrics and tools ensures that the process is fair and unbiased and that the assessment is based on clear behavioral criteria, to avoid both stigmatizing mental health and disability and to minimize the risk that certain populations might be disproportionately subject to assessment. This enables the team to match behaviors with corresponding risk levels and determine the most appropriate interventions.
When an individual scores a risk rating of elevated or higher on the NABITA Risk Rubric, this can trigger a more intensive and specific intervention or assessment. Mandated assessments at this stage of intervention include NABITA’s Structured Interview for Violence Risk Assessment (SIVRA), which assesses the risk of harm to others, and NABITA’s Non-Clinical Assessment of Suicide (NAS), which evaluates suicidality. BITs can also mandate psychological assessments, but those are mainly used for diagnosis and treatment plans, or threat assessments, which only assess the risk of the specific threat.
Policies and Procedures Manual
The authority to mandate an assessment should be written into established policies and procedures to add clarity, transparency, and credibility. Our advice is to formalize a BIT’s authority to mandate risk assessments in the institution’s policies and/or procedures, reference that a risk rubric may be used, and that certain risk levels may merit mandated assessment. BITs will want to emphasize that a risk assessment is not a punishment but rather a measure intended and designed to mitigate risk and ensure safety for both the community and the individual.
Getting Trained
NABITA offers comprehensive certification training designed to teach the core principles of team structure and the types of concerns it should address. In this course, participants learn how to implement NABITA’s Risk Rubric, conduct mandated assessments, and deliver effective interventions:
Team Standards & Best Practices Training:
NABITA’s tools are designed to assess threats, evaluate the likelihood of violence, and measure an individual’s risk of self-harm. Certification courses are available for higher education, K-12, and advanced audiences:
Risk Rubric Training:
SIVRA Training:
NAS Training:
Stay tuned for the second part of this series, which will offer strategies for conducting mandated risk assessments in higher education settings. Then, look out for part three, which will be focused on K-12 environments.