By JULIE ALEXANDER, Ph.D., NCSP
THREAT ASSESSMENT HAS BECOME a top priority for school and public safety officials following several widely publicized school shootings that have garnered the media spotlight. Schools have focused a great deal of energy on developing a process to identify students at risk of becoming violent prior to causing harm. While this effort is necessary, implementing it is difficult because the prevalence of this type of act is low. Schools, however, must be educated on how to assess risk, work to develop a structured system to prevent the occurrence of violence, and intervene when the risk presents itself.
First Steps
Preventing school violence requires a comprehensive approach that creates a safe and connected school climate. The importance of actively listening to
students is paramount because in most cases, there was prior knowledge of the attack. Fostering a climate of reciprocal respect between student and teacher is important: it promotes trust, essential when a youth reveals sensitive
information. It is also essential that school systems actively promote programs and procedures to stop bullying as part of their prevention efforts. Bullying pro-grams are available commercially or may be designed using research-based information. It is also important to advocate for more mental health ser-vices for bullied children, including suicide prevention programs. These
services can be obtained through school counselors, school psychologists, or community-based programs.
Despite comprehensive prevention programs, the chance is high that at some point, schools will have to intervene after an occurrence or threat of violence. Investigations of past school shootings have identified information that can help with efforts to prevent school-based attacks. While there is no reliable demographic predictor for student violence, there are several typical precursors. Most attackers have acted in some behavior prior to the incident that caused others concern or indicated a need for help. They also may have difficulty coping with significant loss or personal failure and many have considered or attempted suicide. Many felt bullied, persecuted, or injured by others, and most had access to and had used weapons prior to the attack.
Complexities
Identifying an individual who is at risk, however, is not as easy as identifying common characteristics. Statistically, the small percentage who will engage in lethal violence makes it a very rare occurrence. Linking targeted violence to any one characteristic actually increases the chance of misidentifying an at-risk individual. To illustrate this point, note the large percentage of youth who observe violence on television, but will never be at risk of a homicidal threat or attempt. There is an extremely small percentage of youths who observe TV
violence that threaten or attempt homicide. The same applies for suicide risk. Approximately, there
are 30 suicide attempts for every completed suicide, so even a suicide attempt alone is a weak predictor of suicide. In fact, 99.9% of people with depression do not commit suicide.
To add to the difficulty of identifying at-risk individuals, there are also those who are a real threat, but do not demonstrate a prescribed level of risk based on simple characteristics.
Coping with this issue
Structured Professional Judgment has been determined to be the most effective method for this problem.
It utilizes a checklist of factors based upon existing professional literature. Each has a form of rating criteria that have a demonstrated relationship to violent recidivism. Not only will identification be
enhanced, but in this highly litigious time, it is imperative that the process be well-documented. 
Dr. Julie Alexander is PAR’s Clinical Assessment Consultant and is available as a PSI Expert. Her programs and services are online at www.psi-solutions.org/experts.