Dearborn Police

Department

Law Enforcement

and Mental Health

Intervention Model

Chief Ronald Haddad

“One Team - One Mission - One Dearborn”

- 1 -

LAW ENFORCEMENT & MENTAL HEALTH INTERVENTION MODEL

An active shooter is defined by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security as an

individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a confined and

populated area; in most cases, active shooters use firearms and there is often no

identifiable pattern. Victim selection varies across incidents with some persons being

specifically targeted and others being more incidental while others may have symbolic

meaning known only to the perpetrator. Within the last five years there have been at least

15 prominent, high casualty producing active shooter incidents and numerous non-high

casualty incidents.

Experts who have studied active shooter and school violence incidents agree that these

incidents are products of understandable and often discernible processes of thinking and

behavior. Their conclusion is that we should be paying more attention to pre-attack

behaviors. These pre-attack behaviors are often times closely linked with mental health

disturbances or socio-emotional disturbances. Despite the many advantages afforded by

a properly implemented and resourced prevention/preemption, mental health focused law

enforcement intervention model, many limitations currently exist. These limitations

include civil liberty concerns and privacy considerations as well as resource availability.

A mental health focused law enforcement model can be designed and implemented which

respects these limitations. The United States Department of Justice maintains that the

ability to identify or rehabilitate potential active shooters is the optimal method for

mitigating or preventing the effects of an active shooter.

The increase in active shooter incidents1, especially since Columbine High School in

1999, has caused a paradigm shift in law enforcement training and incident response.

Even with improved training and incident response, law enforcement’s role continues to

be one of reactive response. There remains a significant gap in law enforcement’s ability

to intervene before an incident occurs. Development of an effective

prevention/preemption, mental health focused law enforcement intervention model is the

next step in the evolution of law enforcement’s response strategy.

Often times family members, friends, school staff, fellow employees, medical

professionals and others recognize disturbing behaviors demonstrated by an individual

that cause them concern for the individual’s safety as well as the safety of others. These

people often are aware that an individual has access to weapons and has exhibited

behaviors which warrant non-criminal intervention by well-trained law enforcement

personnel along with mental health professionals. In such cases the proposed co-

response model could be used to assist the individual in obtaining the professional help

that he or she needs, reducing or eliminating the individual’s access to weapons and

intervening before a preventable tragedy occurs.

1 There is debate as to whether there has been any increase in such incidents. The number of incidents may

have increased relative to the population increase but the rate of incidents does not appear to have

increased.

- 2 -

In order for this model to be effective it is critical that substantive relationships are

formed between all identified stakeholders and the desired outcomes are clear and

understood. There has to be recognition that, in addition to reducing risk for potential

violence, such interventions also improve quality of life for the subjects of concern, their

families, and the communities that might otherwise be impacted.

Assumptions that the model is based upon:

▪ All police personnel utilizing this model will receive and meet minimum

training standards in areas such as mental illness recognition and intervention

and proper investigative techniques.

▪ Partnerships will be developed with local mental health professionals and

mental health service providers.

▪ Law enforcement mental health intervention team (LEMHIT) utilization and

full process will only be utilized in accordance with established laws, policies

and regulations.

▪ Law enforcement mental health intervention team is comprised of select

officers with advanced training and qualified mental health professionals.

▪ LEMHIT members should always be in plain clothes and operate vehicles not

readily identifiable as police vehicles when performing LEMHIT functions to

reduce any unnecessary embarrassment or attention when responding to assess

and offer assistance to the individual in question.2

▪ The character of the model is one of service and facilitating help in accessing

resources for persons in need. The emphasis must be on non-punitive

response and assistance.

▪ There will be a significant and comprehensive community outreach and

educational component focusing on real data, role of law enforcement as a

non-punitive, service-oriented partner, building relationships amongst

stakeholders, reframing of act of notifying proper authorities as being “heroic”

or “life saving” instead of reporting being viewed as “snitching.”

Key Components:

▪ This model is modifiable and scalable for agencies of all sizes.

▪ Adopts a “whole community” approach.

▪ Model is non-criminal in nature. Rather, it is a service function. Service

functions already account for a majority of daily law enforcement agencies

activities. The model employs community policing principles as core values –

engagement, problem-solving, shared responsibility, and follow-up.

▪ A minimum training standard should be established for all officers while more

advanced training should be provided for LEMHIT members.

▪ Emphasis must be on helping individuals gain access to mental health

resources.

▪ Law enforcement function is primarily one of support.

2 Findings on plain clothed officers vs. uniformed officers have been mixed. Some programs find that

highly paranoid persons respond better to uniformed law enforcement rather than plainclothes. Also,

persons from cultures with an emphasis on “secret police” approaches may tend to be wary of plain clothed

officers. This is best determined by each agency based on its unique circumstances.

- 3 -

▪ Sustained partnerships with mental health professionals, schools, and the

community.

▪ Sustained partnerships or building relationships means going beyond “hand

off” model of collaboration.

▪ Building relationships with and educating all stakeholders with the goal of

establishing trust.

▪ Regular (to be determined by individual agencies) follow-up with individuals

after intervention has occurred and counseling/treatment has concluded (or

while on-going if treatment is long term).

▪ Supervisory oversight and sign off are critical, especially for complex and

challenging cases, and to ensure that officers are adhering to prescribed

protocols.

- 4 -

EDUCATIONAL COMPONENT OF INTERVENTION MODEL

One of the consistent recommendations that we heard from every expert consulted was

that stakeholder education has to be a key part of the model in order for it to be

successful. Training and education of the below stakeholders should be provided in order

to increase the likelihood of successful implementation of the model.

LAW ENFORCEMENT:

▪ Focus is on service rather than enforcement

▪ Mental illness recognition, familiarization and response along with appropriate

verbal de-escalation techniques.

▪ Roles of stakeholders (e.g., mental health professionals, school staffs, etc.)

▪ Resources available for persons in potential crisis

▪ Relevant laws, regulations, policies

▪ Familiarization with relevant data (e.g., pre-attack behaviors, % of students

bringing weapons to schools, etc.)

▪ Indicators to look for and/or important information to obtain that will be helpful

in ensuring the person receives the appropriate services (based on training and

input from mental health professionals)

▪ Understanding and adhering to the confidentiality protections involved with

sharing information between disciplines. States may have varying rules or laws

addressing this.

▪ Identifying the types and kinds of information that can and should be shared.

These guidelines should be specific and clear.

COMMUNITY (including schools and faith-based organizations):

▪ Role of law enforcement in intervention and prevention.

▪ Roles of stakeholders (e.g., mental health professionals, school staffs, etc.)

▪ Mental illness recognition, familiarization and response.

▪ Resources available for persons in potential crisis

▪ Familiarization with relevant data (e.g., pre-attack behaviors, % of students

bringing weapons to schools, etc.)

▪ Relevant laws, regulations, policies

▪ Preventing access to weapons.

MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONALS:

▪ Role of law enforcement

▪ Partnering with law enforcement

▪ Relevant laws, regulations, policies

▪ Understanding and adhering to the confidentiality protections involved with

sharing information between disciplines.

▪ Identifying the types and kinds of information that can and should be shared

- 5 -

EXPERTS’ KEY POINTS

Experts Consulted:

William Pollack, Ph.D…………..Harvard, School of Psychiatry

Joshua Buckholtz, Ph.D………..Harvard, School of Psychology

Katherine Newman, Ph.D……….Johns Hopkins University, Dean of the College of Arts

and Sciences

Ron Avi Astor, PhD…………….Univ. of Southern California, School of Social Work

Greg Van Rybroek, Ph.D……….Mendota Juvenile Training Center

Paul Frick, Ph.D………………...Univ. of New Orleans, Chair of Psychology Dept.

Ronald Stockton, Ph.D………….University of Michigan – Dearborn, Political Science

Mark Fancher, JD……………….ACLU of Michigan, Staff Attorney

Major E.R. Deisinger, Ph.D……..Deputy Chief of Police & Director of Threat

Management Services, Virginia Tech Police Dept.

James Barrett, Ph.D……………..Cambridge Health Alliance, faculty Boston College and

Harvard Medical School

David Brannan, Ph.D……………Naval Postgraduate School

Robert Haas……………………..Commissioner, Cambridge, MA Police Department

Tom Smith………………………Chief of Police, St. Paul, MN Police Department

Anna Gray-Henschel, Ph.D……...Sr. Director, National Security Policy, Public Safety

Canada, Royal Canadian Mounted Police

▪ Building relationships and trust between stakeholders is critical. People are

uncomfortable with going to authorities.

▪ People will only go to authorities if they believe that a person will be helped and

that the response will not be punitive.

▪ People need to know who to go to.

▪ Study concluded that students are more willing to speak to a law enforcement

officer than a mental health professional.

▪ Peer networks are hard to penetrate. Role of SROs in schools is important.

▪ Law enforcement, especially SROs, must be trained to help schools find resources

for troubled kids.

▪ Relationship between law enforcement and the school principal is very important.

▪ Law enforcement must investigate with an open mind and be one of service rather

than enforcement.

▪ Issue of reporting to authorities must constantly be reframed as “helpful and

potentially life-saving” instead of “snitching.” Intervention = less loss of life

▪ A mechanism for protecting anonymity of persons reporting to authorities should

be in place to encourage reporting.

▪ We need the “backbone of students” as well as adult stakeholders (administrators,

teachers, counselors, parents, etc.) in order to effectively intervene.

▪ Addressing the issue of access to guns and proliferation is important. There is a

difference between criminals using guns on the streets and active shooters. Every

- 6 -

school shooting incident to date has involved legally-owned guns. Street crime

usually involves illegally obtained weapons.

▪ Social media aspect is important. Monitoring, recognizing patterns and reporting

are key. We must interdict the information.

▪ Part of overall strategy for reducing gun violence is strict regulations for storing

weapons. Impulsive traits + access to guns = greater chance for murder and

suicide.

▪ Must use data-driven approach. Know how many weapons are being brought into

schools or surrounding areas and focus on “hot spots.” (National average is 5.6%

of students bring a weapon to school) More weapons = greater chance for

violence.

▪ Effective intervention will also reduce suicides.

▪ School climate and connections to adults matter.

▪ The illness is disconnection and isolation. Cure for violence = connections,

connections, connections

▪ Early intervention is critical even as young as K or 1st grade. Fighting or other

forms of aggression should be dealt with and not dismissed.

▪ After contacting a troubled person, long term follow-up on friendly terms

(relationship & trust building) has shown to be effective at reducing violence.

▪ Zero tolerance policies. e.g., automatic expulsion from school, don’t work and are

counter-productive.

▪ A “checklist” or other similar assessment tool, especially one designed for use by

a layperson, does not currently exists that will predict a potential shooter with any

reliable degree of accuracy. Such an effort will result in huge numbers of false

positives. It may be possible to place people into broad categories.

▪ Only a very small fraction of people suffering from mental illness are violent.

▪ Addition of a civil liberties advocate to LEMHIT is a good way to keep program

true to its purpose.

▪ May be advisable to have a private mental health professional make initial contact

with individual to reduce potential rights violations since law enforcement is a

“state actor.” Individual may be incapable of the self-restraint needed to avoid

disclosure of sensitive information or to protect his own rights. It may also be

advisable to have law enforcement nearby and instantly available if needed.

▪ Awareness that underlying factors for desire to be violent may be something other

than mental health issues, e.g., socio-economic, etc. Intervention strategies for

non-mental health factors would be helpful.

- 7 -

MODEL SCENARIO

Scenario: Police receive information from a concerned person that an individual has

recently or is currently exhibiting disturbing behaviors (conveying violent ideation

or threats, articulated a plan to commit an act of violence, difficulty in controlling

impulses or emotions, etc.), has or may have access to weapons, has a history of anti-

social behavior and possibly suffering from mental illness.

Response:

1. If reported individual has committed a criminal act proper law

enforcement action to be taken.

2. If the individual has made threat to harm his or herself or others then

current police procedures to be followed which includes petitioning of

individual for psychiatric evaluation/observation.

3. If police are notified by a concerned person but there is not substantive

evidence of an imminent or on-going threat then a patrol officer(s) is

dispatched to gather information and perform a preliminary assessment of

situation based on training and experience.

a. If weapons are accessible to the individual, and absent legal

standing to seize weapons, officers shall request a temporary

voluntary surrendering of weapons for safekeeping until a later

time. If subject refuses to surrender weapons for safekeeping then

it shall be documented in the police report.

b. Individual is advised that non-criminal follow up will done by law

enforcement mental health intervention team (LEMHIT) in order

to provide further assistance.

c. Patrol officer documents facts and details in a police report to be

forwarded to the LEMHIT.

d. Report is reviewed by LEMHIT. If after reviewing all the case

facts, including a check of available databases, it is determined that

no further action is warranted then the case is closed.

e. If LEMHIT determines that follow-up is warranted, LEMHIT

(officer and mental health professional) responds to interview

individual to assess risks and determine further courses of action.

Based on the mental health professional’s assessment the

individual may be asked to voluntarily sign himself/herself in for

evaluation or enough evidence of potential harm may be gathered

to involuntarily petition the individual for evaluation/observation.

Depending on the circumstances accessible weapons may be

voluntarily surrendered for safekeeping or seized if not done so

previously.

- 8 -

f. LEMHIT members may make additional recommendations such as

further investigation, surveillance if individual poses a serious and

imminent threat, etc.

g. Individuals may file a claim and delivery, or similar, motion in the

court of jurisdiction to reclaim surrendered weapons.

h. A follow up visit should be conducted by LEMHIT at regular

intervals, e.g., quarterly, to monitor individual’s progress and offer

assistance as necessary.

*****NOTE: THIS MODEL AND ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS ARE

INTENDED TO BE A GENERAL FRAMEWORK. EACH AGENCY AND

COMMUNITY MUST ADAPT THE MODEL FOR THEIR PARTICULAR NEEDS

AND CIRCUMSTANCES.

- 9 -

Potentially threatening or

concerning behaviors reported to

law enforcement agency.

Criminal act

committed?

Yes

Proper law

enforcement action

taken

No

Did the individual make a threat

to harm himself/herself or others

that is immediately actionable?

Yes No

Take individual into protective

custody & petition individual

for psychiatric

evaluation/observation

Officer responds and makes

contact with individual to gather

information and make a

preliminary assessment. If

weapons are accessible, officer

request voluntary surrender for

safekeeping. Report completed

and forwarded to LEMHIT

LEMHIT reviews info

and determines

whether or not follow-

up is appropriate.

No

Case closed

Yes

LEMHIT intervenes as

outlined

Assist

individual with

obtaining

mental health

services

Seek voluntary

surrender of

weapons, if

applicable

Follow-up

visits to track

progress &

offer assistance

as needed

LEMHIT utilized at

appropriate time

post-arrest

LEMHIT utilized at

appropriate time post-

evaluation. Established

agency follow-up

protocol followed.

- 10 -

Index of Reviewers and Comment Summaries

I. Joshua Buckholtz, Ph.D., Harvard University, Dept. of Psychology….…………….……………………11 II. Stevan Weine, Ph.D., University of Illinois at Chicago, Dept. of Psychiatry……………………..….12 III. Mark P. Fancher, ACLU of Michigan, Staff Attorney……………………………………………………………13 IV. Robert Haas, Commissioner, Cambridge, MA Police Dept. and Jamie Barrett, Ph.D.,

Cambridge Health Alliance and Harvard Medical School, Dept. of Psychiatry…………………….14 V. Anna Gray-Henschel, Ph.D., Royal Canadian Mounted Police………………..…………………………..15 VI. Ron Stockton, Ph.D., University of Michigan at Dearborn, Dept. of Political Science…….……16 VII. Ed Mischel, L.M.S.W., Wayne State University School of Medicine…………………………………….17 VIII. Troy Gay, Assistant Chief of Police, Austin, TX…………………………………………………………………...18 IX. Tom Smith, Chief of Police, St. Paul, Minnesota…………………….……………………………………………19 X. Catherine Newman, Ph.D., Johns Hopkins University, Dean of School of Arts & Sciences.….20 XI. William Pollack, Ph.D., Harvard Medical School, Dept. of Psychiatry……………………………….….21 XII. Ron Avi Astor, Ph.D., University of Southern California, School of Social Work…………………..22 XIII. Paul Frick, Ph.D., University of New Orleans, Dept. of Psychology…………………..………………….23 XIV. ER Deising, Ph.D., Deputy Chief of Police & Director, Threat Management Unit, Virginia Tech

University…………………….……………………………………………………………………………………..………….....24 XV. James E. Blessman, Ph.D., Medical Director, City of Detroit………….……………………………………25 XVI. Scott Becker, Ph.D., Acting Director, Counseling Center, Michigan State University……………26 XVII. John D. Cohen, Professor & Senior Advisor, Rutgers University Institute for Emergency

Preparedness & Homeland Security and former Acting Under Secretary DHS…………………….27

- 11 -

I. “THOUGHTFUL, SANE, COMMON SENSE”

“This is truly outstanding work. I’ve never seen a model this innovative come from academia,

much less law enforcement. I kept looking for things to add or criticize, but this proposal hits

everything I would have thought of, and so much more. If and when the tide of community

violence does begin to roll back, it will be because of thoughtful, sane, common-sense proposals

like this one. Please let me know what I can do to support it.”

Main Points:

• Zero tolerance policies don’t work because people (specifically, students) are expelled

from school and then unable to get the help that they need. Also, people are more

hesitant to contact law enforcement if there’s a punitive aspect to notification.

• Impulsive traits + access to guns = greater chance for murder and suicide

• “Proliferation” of guns is what needs to be addressed

• Constriction of CCW and open carry laws are best ways to reduce violence.

• No assessment checklist exists that is even reasonably accurate in trying to identify

potential active shooters

- Joshua Buckholtz, Director, Systems Neuroscience of Psychopathology Lab, Harvard

University, Boston

- 12 -

II. “GREAT SOCIAL AND PUBLIC HEALTH SIGNIFICANCE“

“Overall, the LEMHIT addresses a problem of great social and public health significance in an

innovative and feasible way. I applaud your efforts...”

Main Points:

• Would be beneficial to have a web/social media dimension incorporated into the

intervention model

• Important to consider an alcohol/substance abuse component

- Dr. Stevan Weine, Professor, Department of Psychiatry, University of Illinois

- 13 -

III. “THOUGHTFUL AND WELL-CRAFTED“

“Many good things can come from the efforts of you and your colleagues. I think the LEMHIT is

thoughtful and well-crafted.”

Main Points:

• Awareness and sensitivity to the possibility of an individual’s rights being violated are

paramount since the police are state actors.

• In a case where the resident has a mental disability, he may also be incapable of the

self-restraint needed to avoid the disclosure of sensitive information that should not be

available to law enforcement, or to otherwise protect his own rights

- Mark P. Fancher, Staff Attorney, Racial Justice Project, ACLU of Michigan

- 14 -

IV. “WE AGREE THAT FOR THE POLICE TO BE MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE AND GO BEYOND THE

TRADITIONAL ROLE OF BECOMING REACTIONARY TO CRISIS, THEY ARE IN A KEY PLACE TO

INTERVENE AND PREVENT CRISIS LIKE WE HAVE SEEN ACROSS OUR COUNTRY.”

“We think this is a great approach; one that we thoroughly endorse. We agree that for the police

to be much more effective and go beyond the traditional roble of becoming reactionary to crisis,

they are in a key place to intervene and prevent crisis like we have seen across our country. We

offer any other assistance without hesitation.“

Main Points:

• Caution should be used when discussing mental illness and violence. It’s more

appropriate to consider “mental disturbances” and “socio-emotional disturbances.”

• Because so little is still known about drives someone to go on a rampage, there is a

quandary relative to effective ways of developing a methodology that has proven to

prevent or stop these attacks from taking place. There is general agreement the more

prudent course to take is develop intervention strategies that are designed to identify

and address risky behaviors so as to offset the potential for future violent behavior or

other types of deviant behaviors.

• Sustained partnerships or building relationships means going beyond a "hand off" model

of collaboration.

- Commissioner Robert Haas, Cambridge Police Department, Massachusetts

- Dr. James Barrett, Ph.D., Psychology, Cambridge Police Department Safety Net Program,

Harvard Medical School, Dept. of Psychiatry

- 15 -

V. “I LIKE THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT’S ROLE IS ‘PRIMARILY ONE OF SUPPORT’ – LIKELY A

GOOD APPROACH AS THE PERSON MAY NOT WANT THE ASSISTANCE OF LAW

ENFORCEMENT, AND THE MENTAL HEALTH PROVIDER MAY BE SEEN AS ‘HELP’ WHEREAS

THE POLICE WOULD NOT.”

Main Points:

• Anonymity may need to be part of the reporting mechanism

• Getting “buy in” from the unstable person may be difficult. If this is the case, there needs

to be a mechanism in place to deal with this situation.

- Anna Gray-Henschel, O.O.M., PhD, Senior Director, Royal Canadian Mounted Police

- 16 -

VI. “I AM IMPRESSED WITH THE PROPOSAL AND AN EFFORT TO ENGAGE A SERIOUS PROBLEM

IN A POSITIVE WAY. THE WHOLE COUNTRY RECOGNIZES THAT THIS PROBLEM EXISTS BUT

FEW KNOW HOW TO ADDRESS IT. YOU ARE ATTEMPTING TO COME UP WITH PRACTICAL

IDEAS.”

“I am impressed with the proposal and its effort to engage a serious problem in a positive way.

The whole country recognizes that this problem exists but few know how to address it. You are

attempting to come up with practical ideas. As I mentioned, I have been impressed with how

the Dearborn administration (and the police) have dealt with certain difficult problems unique

to this community. No one ever gets an A+ in a real world of political complexity but Dearborn

certainly gets grade well above what other cities (including an alternate-world Dearborn) would

get. This proposal is typical of the good efforts of this department.”

Main Points:

• The model will empower those charged with care duties (school counselors, etc), which

is very good. When it empowers police departments to begin screening and searching, it

moves into a different realm. This may be beneficial and necessary but at this point,

there needs to written checks and protections.

• Strongly recommend including a civil liberties advocate to the intervention team.

- Dr. Ron Stockton, Ph.D., University of Michigan - Dearborn

- 17 -

VII. “IT TRULY IS WELL WRITTEN AND WELL SUPPORTED.” “After Dr. Amirsadri and I had reviewed the LEMHIT, we have concluded that it truly is well written and well supported. At this point, we do not see the need for any substantial changes to this document. I'm sure that there will be the opportunity to adjust the model going forward during the implementation and practice phases.” Main Point:

• Education and training for front line staff is key

- Ed Mischel, Administrative Director Acute Psychiatry, Wayne State University Physician

Group, Detroit, Michigan

- 18 -

VIII. “THIS LOOKS SIMILAR TO OUR CRISIS INTERVENTION TEAM AND MENTAL HEALTH OFFICER PROGRAM.”

Main Points:

• Something that has worked well in our department is to have intermediate level training for select personnel throughout patrol that have extra training to handle incidents while on patrol.

• Our department trains all our officers for 40 hours in a basic mental health. We have 140 officers who receive a MHO stipend that receive an additional 40 hours and ongoing training. We have the Crisis Intervention Team that coordinate the MHO patrol program and provide additional follow up on cases.

- Troy Gay, Assistant Chief, Austin Police Department, Texas

- 19 -

IX. “THIS IS AMAZING STUFF THAT I THINK HAS SOME GREAT IDEAS MOVING FORWARD”

“Overall, bravo for putting a detailed plan like this together. I believe if some hurdles can be overcome, this is an exceptional model moving forward.” Main Points:

• The co-model idea with mental health and LE officers is a very sound idea (hurdle-at some point in the process there will be HIPPA and privacy issues which might somewhat take law enforcement officers out of the picture. The follow up to a patient will be paramount and this would be a challenge in the sharing of information to possibly stop an incident)

• The major two issues/challenges that might be problematic are the HIPPA (i.e., the Mental Health professionals being able to share critical pre-indicator information to LE) and Data Protected information for States , such as Minnesota,where some major hurdles would have to be overcome

- Chief Tom Smith, Saint Paul Police Department, Minnesota

- 20 -

X. “EDUCATING PEOPLE TO COME FORWARD IS IMPORTANT”

Main Points:

• Peer networks are hard to penetrate. It is important for SRO’s to be trusted by the students.

• Kids will come forward if they perceive the threat to be serious, which is the reason that reporting increases after a significant event. Educating people to come forward is important.

• Another critical aspect is social media. Monitoring and reporting must happen. It is difficult to predict who will be a shooter, therefore information must be interdicted.

• Based on Dr. Newman’s research, all school shooters got their weapons from family members. Illegal guns were never part of school shootings.

• It is vitally important to propose regulations for gun access/storage.

• Zero tolerance policies don’t work and are counter-productive. - Dr. Catherine Newman, Ph.D., Dean of John Hopkins School of Arts and Sciences

- 21 -

XI. “A SENSE OF TRUST IS CRITICAL BETWEEN THE COMMUNITY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT”

Main Points:

• A sense of trust is critical between the community and law enforcement as people are

uncomfortable with going to the authorities.

• Intervention not only prevents homicide but also reduces suicide.

• Violence is a continuum, as seen with Newtown and Columbine, which are at the ends

of it.

• Zero tolerance doesn’t work as it prevents people from coming forward.

• Thoughtful policies would be better for people who need the most help.

• It is imperative that police investigate with an open mind. Rather than “snitching,”

coming forward with information should be framed as “heroic.”

• The school climate and connections to adults matter in a community. These connections

help reduce or even cure violence.

• The cause of violence is disconnection/isolation from the community.

• Working with law enforcement should be part of the annual risk management training

required for psychiatrists and psychologists

.

- Dr. William Pollack, Ph.D., Associate Clinical Professor of Psychology in the Department of

Psychiatry, Harvard University, Boston

- 22 -

XII. “PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION IS ESSENTIAL WHILE TAKING A COMMUNITY

APPROACH”

Main Points:

• Though emphasis is placed upon shooters outside of the school, school shooters tend to

come from within.

• Primary focus for school shootings should not apply to the successful ones but rather

the unsuccessful ones.

• Policies should include removing weapons from schools; currently on average 5.6% of

students bring weapons to school.

• Intervening at an early stage leads to less lives lost. Informing staff, students and LE

about weapon reduction is a necessary initiative.

• Weapon reduction matters more than identifying specific shooters. Higher weapon

rates create an increased chance of shootings.

• We must inform people that there is a difference in saving lives compared to snitching.

Prevention and intervention is essential while taking a community approach.

• Relationship between law enforcement and school principal is imperative in order to

maintain community safety by engaging bus drivers, support staff and others.

• The main concern is hot spots.

• We need the backbone of students which are more reliable for reporting than

principals/superintendents.

- Dr. Ron Avi Astor, Ph.D., Richard M. and Ann L. Thor Professor of Urban Social Development,

University of Southern California

- 23 -

XIII. “WE CAN ENSURE THAT TROUBLED STUDENTS ARE GIVEN PROPER ATTENTION”

Main Points:

• Risk is determined by behavioral indicators in school before threats are made.

• We must ensure that troubled students are given proper attention.

• Treatment must start early (as early as kindergarten or 1st grade). Young children who

are involved in fights and other aggressive behaviors must not be dismissed as “just

kids” – intervention is necessary.

• Zero tolerance policies are ineffective in addressing potential violators.

- Dr. Paul Frick, University Distinguished Professor & Department Chair, University of New

Orleans

- 24 -

XIV. “THIS IS A GREAT APPROACH AND I COMMEND YOU AND YOUR COLLEAGUES FOR YOUR

COMMITMENT TO THE SAFETY AND WELL-BEING OF YOUR COMMUNITY.”

Main Points:

• There is significant debate as to whether there has been ANY increase in such

incidents or whether we are simply more aware of incidents that have been

occurring for decades. The raw number of incidents MAY have increased but so has

the population. The RATE of incidents does not appear to have increased over

decades. There does however, seem to be a change in the location/focus of the

incidents, with a higher proportion occurring in public areas (schools, campuses,

workplaces, houses of worship etc.) whereas the majority of mass casualty incidents

have historically occurred in residential settings as intra-familial murders

• In addition to reducing risk for potential violence, such interventions also improve

quality of life for the subjects of concern, their families, and the communities that

would otherwise be impacted

• Many mental health professionals are not well versed in the roles of law

enforcement. Additionally, many are not well trained in assessment of

dangerousness and use models that are outdated and overly focused on prediction

rather than on risk mitigation. They will typically need training to support their roles

in the process, especially as related to early intervention with persons who may

pose a risk of violence.

- Major E.R. (Gene) Deisinger, PhD, Deputy Chief of Police & Director, Threat Management

Services, Virginia Tech Police Department

- 25 -

XV. “EDUCATION, TIERS, SOCIAL FITNESS ENHANCEMENT”

Main Points:

• There are preliminary steps to take to identify the psychotic. In doing so, it is

important to console them with the needed resources to prevent future outbreaks.

• Recommendation to adopt situations as tiers – mild, moderate, and extreme

offenses.

• A transparent coordination amongst the teams is imperative.

• Focus on the highly intense calls in which those with imminent tendencies are

properly cared for.

• The negative people indulge in activities that feed their negative impulses which

should be heeded as a person not in need of drastic punishment but given the

proper help/training.

- Dr. James E. Blessman, Medical Director, City of Detroit

- 26 -

XVI. “I WRITE IN STRONG SUPPORT OF YOUR LAW ENFORCMENT AND MENTAL HEALTH

INTERVENTION MODEL.”

Main Points:

• Mental health professionals play a crucial role in evaluating risk factors and the

potential for violence.

• The model accurately outlines the benefits of an interdisciplinary team in terms of

identifying individuals at greater risk of violent behavior.

• Supportive intervention by specialized law enforcement officers has the advantage of

guiding at-risk individuals to appropriate forms of supportive mental health treatment

prior to an incident of active violence. The result is beneficial for the at-risk individual

and the community.

• Significant mental health trends have been identified at the national level and these

trends appear to be directly and indirectly related to the increase in high-risk

behaviors. Reasons? Immersion in technology and social medial may be responsible

for neurological and psychosocial development.

• Younger millennials, on average, have greater difficulty in regulating aggressive

impulses, and combined with their decreased concern for others, engage in high risk

behaviors, including behaviors of concern to threat-assessment teams. This may

account for two specific trends 1.)a younger onset of homicidal behavior than

previous cohorts, and 2.) increased levels of gratuitous violence.

• Programs such as the proposed Intervention Model could lead to more effective

primary prevention efforts at the national level.

- Dr. Scott Becker, Acting Director, Counseling Center, Michigan State University

- 27 -

XVII. “IT (Intervention Model) IS AN EXCELLENT PIECE OF WORK AND I BELIEVE WILL SERVE AS

A BEST PRACTICE FOR THOSE ACROSS THE NATION WHO ARE SEEKING TO ENHANCE

HOW LOCAL COMMUNITIES COME TOGETHER TO DETECT AND PREVENT MASS CASUALTY

ATTACKS.”

- John D. Cohen, professor at the Rutgers School of Criminal Justice in Newark and a senior

advisor at the Rutgers University Institute for Emergency Preparedness and Homeland

Security. Former acting Under Secretary and Principal Deputy Under Secretary for Intelligence

and Analysis of the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS).