Safety Intervention

This policy was posted for public comment from April 14 – 29, 2025

Responses

General Comments

Somewhere in this policy, there should be a link to the Behavior Intervention Team webpage.

Thanks for that feedback. It is added.

Do students have the right to an advocate or advisor during this process? They should. The committee recognizes that the current Dean of Students Office is a strong advocate for students, but another avenue might be needed for this if the DOS office is part of making decisions.

Good point. I'm adding language about that since it's also included in the Code of Student Rights and Responsibilities. See section 4.A.4. stating, "Students may have an advisor, including an attorney at their own expense, to accompany them at any or all stages of the process."

I think your Behavioral Intervention statement should also mention "Impaired abilities" such as substance abuse, i.e., drugs or alcohol. Having a prior student who would show up still pickled and tipsy from the night before, I was seriously concerned for the safety of my students in the lab. After inquiry as to what to do, I did not receive any counsel from administration but was told it was best to allow him to drive off in his car and phone him into the police... Really???? Since the instructor is ultimately responsible for the safety of their students, I would not hold a lab on those days because there wasn't enough tooth to the policy to warrant excluding him from the lab class without bias and nor did I believe it wise to allow him to participate, therefore all of my students were penalized for this student's impairment. Unfortunately, the next semester's instructor had the same behavior to work around.

Substance use is covered in the Faculty Prerogatives policy in section IV.E. It sounds like you were given some bad advice for the situation described. Please feel free to contact the Dean of Students office for assistance in these circumstances. We can help advise you on the best steps to take in line with that policy.

3. Definitions

3.A. – Consideration should be given to expanding the Behavioral Intervention Team's scope to also include employees. According to a 2020 NABITA Survey, 43% of responding colleges had a joint BIT for students and employees.

This has been considered, and a decision was made by Chris Martin not to be involved at this time. We are happy to reconsider that if determined helpful by PWC.

4.A. General

4.A.1 – The policy should identify the positions that constitute set seats of "trained individuals" who are on the BIT team (i.e., CHC counselor, Public Safety, ADS, Dean of Students, etc.). There should be some flexibility in these positions to allow someone like Chris Bertram to sit on the BIT committee. Additionally, in the 2020 NABITA Survey, 52% of responding institutions indicated that their Title IX coordinator was a core member of the BIT team.

The actual membership was not specified in the policy to maintain some flexibility as needed. We considered adding the Title IX coordinator at one point, but determined that it was best to keep a separation between these two areas so discussions in the BIT do not sway the direction of a Title IX investigation. The Dean of Students will staff cases with the Title IX Coordinator as needed, and they can always join a meeting on an ad hoc basis.

4.C. Threat Assessment and Safety Intervention Process

4.C.1 – Create a link to the appropriate reporting form to either the Dean of Students or the Office of Public Safety. This form is linked on the BIT webpage.

Thanks. This was added.

4.C.2 – Suggestion to provide a link to the NABITA Risk Rubric. This is a helpful document and adds a level of transparency if it is more accessible.

The BIT considered this request but made the decision not to post it.

4.C.2 – The end of this section should state "meets the criteria described in section 4.B.1." The reference to section 4.C.1 is incorrect.

Thanks. This was changed.

4.C.4 – Add the words "or designee" after "Disability Services."

Thanks. This was added.

4.E. Appeal of Involuntary Withdrawal

4.E.3 – On an appeal, how does the Vice President for Student Affairs or Dean of Students deal with class time or work time missed due to an Involuntary withdrawal?

That determination is made on an individualized basis in partnership with the academic department.

4.F. Return to Campus or Readmission

4.F.4 – Are there limits on the number of appeals that are allowed if the Dean of Students denies a student's return to campus or readmission? This section and section 4.E could get in an appeal loop if not clarified.

The student can follow the appeal process, and the decision of the VP is final.

Comments

I think your Behavioral Intervention statement should also mention "Impaired abilities" such as substance abuse, i.e., drugs or alcohol. Having a prior student who would show up still pickled and tipsy from the night before, I was seriously concerned for the safety of my students in the lab. After inquiry as to what to do, I did not receive any counsel from administration but was told it was best to allow him to drive off in his car and phone him into the police... Really???? Since the instructor is ultimately responsible for the safety of their students, I would not hold a lab on those days because there wasn't enough tooth to the policy to warrant excluding him from the lab class without bias and nor did I believe it wise to allow him to participate, therefore all of my students were penalized for this student's impairment. Unfortunately, the next semester's instructor had the same behavior to work around.
1. Policy- General Comments A. Somewhere in this policy there should be a link to the Behavior Intervention Team webpage. B. Do students have the right to an advocate or advisor during this process? They should. The committee recognizes that the current Dean of Students Office is a strong advocate for students but another avenue might be needed for this if the DOS office is part of making decisions.
2. References No comments
3. Definitions A. Section 3.A.-Consideration should be given to expanding the Behavioral Intervention Team's scope to also include employees. According to a 2020 NABITA Survey, 43% of responding colleges had a joint BIT for students and employees.
4. Procedures A. Section 4.A-General Section 4.A.1-The policy should identify the positions that constitute set seats of "trained individuals" who are on the BIT team. (i.e., CHC counselor, Public Safety, ADS, Dean of Students, etc.). There should be some flexibility in these positions to allow someone like Chris Bertram to sit on the BIT committee. In the 2020 NABITA Survey, 52% of responding institutions indicated that their Title IX coordinator was a core member of the BIT team. B. Section 4.C-Threat Assessment and Safety Intervention Process Section 4.C.1-Create a link to the appropriate reporting form to either the Dean of Students or Office of Public Safety. This form is linked on the BIT webpage. Section 4.C.2-Provide a link to the NABITA Risk Rubric. This is a helpful document and adds a level of transparency if it is more accessible. Section 4.C.2-The end of this section should state "meets the criteria described in section 4.B.1." The reference to section 4.C.1 is incorrect. Section 4.c.4-add the words "or designee" after "Disability Services." C. Section 4.E-Appeal of Involuntary Withdrawal Section 4.E.3-On an appeal, how does the Vice President for Student Affairs or Dean of Students deal with class time or work time missed due to an Involuntary withdrawal? D. Section 4.F Return to Campus or Readmission Section 4.F.4-Are there limits on the number of appeals that are allowed if the Dean of Students denies a student's return to campus or readmission? This section and 4.E could get in an appeal loop if not clarified.

SLCC Policies and Procedures