Published on: July 8, 2025
A NABITA Tip of the Week by Aaron Austin, Ed.D., and Linda Abbott, L.M.H.C.
In 2025, it is more crucial than ever to be intentional and grounded in our behavioral interventions and threat assessments. At NABITA, we’ve long promoted a structured and equitable approach, and while recent federal Executive Orders (namely, this and this) make it clear that the vocabulary may change, the core of our work need not.
We must remain steadfast in communicating our mission, maintaining the effectiveness of our teams, and providing unwavering support to the individuals and communities we serve, especially those who may now feel most vulnerable. Below, we shed light on how the new directives affect our work and how we can go above and beyond to protect fairness and effectiveness.
What the Executive Orders Say
Two federal Executive Orders have fundamentally altered the language landscape for institutions of higher education and public agencies. The first eliminates federal funding for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs, while the second mandates the recognition of only two official sexes—male and female—in federal terminology.
While the White House has stated that it did not issue a banned words list and has left implementation to federal agencies, campuses are left unclear about what “divisive concepts” are acceptable and what are not, what divisive even means, and how this impacts campus life versus in-class instruction and topics. This leaves institutions to navigate unclear boundaries, where even terms like “belonging” may now be subject to varying interpretations depending on state-level laws.
Let us be clear: individuals who may be less protected within these narrowed frameworks have not disappeared, and they may now need more robust support as a result. The unique experiences of Black students on predominantly white campuses, and/or LGBTQIA+ individuals, remain as real and relevant as ever. These individuals still need and deserve support. The challenge is learning how to continue that support under new constraints, without compromising our professional standards. The implications of these orders for BITs and case management are unclear, but we know they will have an impact.
What an Objective Behavioral Intervention Process Looks Like
Our approach at NABITA has always been about having an objective, structured, and repeatable process. The three-phase framework remains the same: gather information, analyze data, deploy interventions. Each phase is designed to reduce subjectivity and improve consistency, regardless of who implements the process and for whom it is used.
Below, we outline best practices for each phase, regardless of the administration in charge in Washington, D.C.
Phase 1: Gathering Information: Educating the Community to Increase Fairness in Referrals
The work begins before the referral is even made. We must teach our communities how to identify and refer behaviors using objective, observable language, avoiding diagnostic speculation, opinions, stereotypes, or emotionally charged descriptions. Training includes a shift away from generalizations or assumptions, encouraging those submitting referrals to ask themselves: Would I still be concerned if a different individual had done the same thing?
We want more referrals, not fewer. However, we also want them to be useful and not used to target individuals on the basis of protected characteristics. That means investing in community education, which involves not only instructing people on how to refer individuals but also teaching them how to do so fairly and effectively.
Phase 2: Analyzing Data: Using the Risk Rubric Every Time
Once a referral is received, the next step is to assess it using a standardized risk rubric. This is mandatory for all referrals to maintain objectivity. When teams only apply the rubric to “serious” or “complicated” cases, they introduce subjectivity into a process designed to eliminate it. This undermines the tool and compromises outcomes. Fortunately, risk rubrics have never relied on DEI-based characteristics, nor do they prescribe or mandate differential treatment based on demographics.
Risk must be assessed based solely on behavior, not on how well we know the individual, their diagnosis, or our instinct. Teams may be tempted to minimize concerns about an individual they perceive as “harmless,” or to discount behavior based on a diagnosis such as autism spectrum disorder. But behavior is behavior. The action occurred, and its risk should be assessed on that basis.
The best assessments occur through collaborative discussions within the multidisciplinary team, where varying professional perspectives and life experiences provide a balance. Our goal isn’t to punish; it’s to intervene early, appropriately, and effectively.
Phase 3: Deploying Interventions: Cultural Awareness and Practical Support
Finally, when it comes to action, the team must consider the whole individual. While identity-related factors are intentionally excluded during Phase Two’s risk assessment, they re-enter the conversation in Phase Three, where we determine how to intervene. Again, as long as interventions do not vary disproportionately based on protected characteristics, the objectivity of the process is preserved and should not run afoul of federal directives related to DEI or other facets of inclusion.
Who delivers the message matters. Individuals are often more comfortable sharing difficult challenges with someone they feel a connection to, whether through a shared background or an established rapport. A team that reflects the community it serves is better equipped to build those bridges. We also consider practical questions: Who is best positioned to connect with the individual? Who has subject-matter expertise? Who is already a trusted contact?
This phase draws on both structure and intuition. However, the team’s foundation in objectivity ensures that flexibility is used intentionally, rather than reactively.
Beyond Compliance, Let’s Raise the Bar
If NABITA’s process stays the same, what does it mean to both align with and move beyond compliance with federal expectations? It means prioritizing community education, refining messaging, and providing direct, meaningful support to individuals, particularly during difficult times when identity-focused offices are being shuttered.
Best practices include intentional community education. Many teams market their existence to generate referrals, but fewer take the next step: teaching what a good referral looks like. Incorporating this content into training, passive communications (such as flyers), and one-on-one conversations can significantly improve referral quality and diminish reliance on identity-based exceptionalism. Targeted training for departments that submit incomplete or problematic referrals is efficient, but it is only possible if you’re tracking your data.
It also means reevaluating our messaging. If the word bias sets off alarms, reframe it. We are increasing fairness. We are improving objectivity. The work remains unchanged, but our language must adapt to the moment without compromising integrity.
Lastly, in a climate where identity-focused offices are being shuttered, we must communicate directly to affected individuals: We are still here for you. If affinity groups such as Greek letter organizations, identity-based student organizations, or informal support networks still exist, reach out to them. Let them know who you are and what you do. This is how trust is built, even as institutional structures shift or realign.
Already Following Best Practices? Keep up the Great Work!
If you’re already following NABITA’s standards, you’re likely doing a fantastic job. Use the Risk Rubric for every case. Collaborate within your multidisciplinary teams. Focus on behavior, not identity, during assessment. Then, tailor your support with thoughtful, human-centered interventions.
Watch the Talking BITs on how to keep your processes fair, standardized, and objective.
If you’re struggling to implement or translate NABITA’s Standards into your institution’s current policy and practices, we’re here to help.