Taking the HEAT Out of Campus Crises: A Proactive Approach to College Safety

The sharp rise in school shootings over the past 25 years has led school officials across the U.S. to take a closer look at ways to keep students safe. For Chaffey College in Rancho Cucamonga, California, a tragic incident at a nearby university hit close to home and spurred campus leaders to revisit their own school’s threat assessments and crisis responses.   

Cheryl Newman-Tarwater
Director of HEAT

At Chaffey College, the school’s police department decided to expand its Higher Education Assessment Team (HEAT) program to enhance campus safety by proactively identifying potential threats of violence, de-escalating them, and connecting people with behavioral health needs to appropriate support. HEAT’s hallmarks for avoiding unnecessary arrests are to provide crisis intervention and safety planning, conflict resolution services, brief therapy interventions, and follow-up support. The program received help from a Justice and Mental Health Collaboration Program Connect & Protect grant from the Bureau of Justice Assistance, a component of the Department of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs.
The Council of State Governments Justice Center talked with Cheryl Newman-Tarwater, director of HEAT and former chief of the Chaffey College Police Department, about how this innovative program can make campuses safer and foster a healthier learning environment.    

Editor’s note: Answers have been edited for length and clarity.   

How has the HEAT program affected overall campus safety and student well-being?

The program has had a substantial positive impact due to HEAT’s proactive approach to identifying and addressing potential threats. We know that students are more likely to seek help and use mental health resources when they feel supported. Our model addresses students’ overall well-being, including academic performance, by providing comprehensive mental health support. As an example of the program’s success, during its 2 years of operation, HEAT worked with 203 people who needed assistance or interventions, and only 2 encounters resulted in arrest. So far, we’ve referred 65 people either to internal student support programs or external county resources to link them with counseling.      

How does the HEAT model differ from traditional campus safety approaches?     

At its core, HEAT is about offering alternative responses to students in crisis, emphasizing diversion, prevention, and support from a multidisciplinary response team. A key differentiator is our emphasis on proactive measures and early identification, rather than simply responding to crises as they occur.  It contrasts with conventional methods that rely more heavily on arrests, use of force, or hospitalization. 

HEAT expands on the co-responder approach by:

• Using a diverse team structure that incorporates a wide range of professionals and resources to address a broad array of issues with a holistic strategy;
• Focusing on threat assessment by an intelligence analyst who monitors potential safety concerns, such as perceived grievances expressed on social media that might indicate a need for further assessment or intervention; and
• Making a commitment to long-term risk management by following up with students by providing support to minimize the recurrence of concerning behaviors.      

What were your biggest challenges when you started the program?    

One of our biggest challenges was helping the campus community understand HEAT’s unique role. We needed to educate students, faculty, staff, and campus police on how HEAT functions differently from conventional crisis response models. In part, HEAT involves an anonymous reporting system; our team embarked on an educational campaign to explain how it works while also being sensitive to privacy concerns. This was essential to build trust and buy-in from all stakeholders, including campus police.   

What would you say to someone who is concerned about the program profiling students or potentially using anonymity to submit false reports? Do you have guardrails to prevent this?   

HEAT is consistent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI’s) perspective that the threat assessment model does not reflect a “profile” of a school shooter. Although the risk of an actual shooting incident is very low, threats of violence are a potential problem in any school. Therefore, all reports received are carefully evaluated by a multidisciplinary team. Those deemed credible involve law enforcement intervention alongside mental health or other supportive services as needed, ensuring a balance between public safety and individual well-being and privacy. A fair, consistent, and standardized approach to assessing and responding to concerning behavior provides the guardrails for effective intervention. As for concerns about false reports, at times these are made even when they are not anonymous; law enforcement always has to be mindful of this possibility to some extent.     

Do students, faculty, and staff play different roles in the program?  

Students, faculty, and staff play distinct but complementary roles. For example, faculty and staff are often on the frontlines of recognizing behaviors that are concerning in classroom and campus settings. They are also well-informed about the college’s resources, so they can directly refer students to appropriate support services. Students have a broad perspective and can observe incidents outside the classroom and on social media, giving them a unique reach in identifying potential issues that faculty and staff might not be aware of. 

How does HEAT collaborate with other campus and community resources?  

We work closely with the University of Southern California’s Public Safety Collaborative on education, raising awareness, consulting, and mentoring. We also partner with the San Bernardino Department of Behavioral Health for access to county-level resources for social services beyond what the campus alone can offer. And we collaborate with community and regional organizations, connecting with the Joint Regional Intelligence Center, the FBI, neighboring law enforcement agencies, and other colleges to access case consultation and intelligence resources.    

What has been the most rewarding aspect of your involvement with HEAT? 

The most rewarding aspect has been the opportunity to divert people from the criminal justice system, enhance their quality of life, support their success as students, and improve campus safety. Even when someone’s choices lead them to situations where legal action may be necessary, it is gratifying to know that HEAT played a role in mitigating grievances that could have escalated into safety concerns.  

What tips do you have for other schools looking to enhance campus safety?  

I’d start by saying there is no need to reinvent the wheel. Excellent programs already exist to learn from; collaborate with them for guidance. Then, start small by assessing the resources you already have. If funding is a barrier, look for state and federal grant opportunities. Also, campuses are safest when there is commitment from the entire community. Engage all stakeholders to ensure that as many people as possible understand the importance of reporting mechanisms and how to use them for proactive threat identification.  

Credits: Photos provided courtesy of Cheryl Newman-Tarwater

For more information on how federal grants can support your jurisdiction and to learn more about police-mental health collaborations across the country, visit jmhcp.org.     

 Read here for more information on how Police-Mental Health Collaboration programs support law enforcement agencies around the country in planning and implementing public safety responses to people with mental illnesses.