Guide and Protocol Agreement CTRISP... · protocol promotes the development of supportive and preventive plans. The goal in supporting intervention measures by all three school districts

Guide and Protocol Agreement

2015

Guide and Protocol Agreement

2015

Edmonton C‐TRISP: May 11, 2015 2 | P a g e

C-TRISP Community Partners


Table of Contents

Rationale ............................................................................................................................................................................. 4

Community Partners ...................................................................................................................................................... 5

Edmonton C-TRISP Advisory Committee Members ........................................................................................... 6

Vision & Mission .............................................................................................................................................................. 7

Statement of Principles ................................................................................................................................................. 7

Key Approaches in Violence Threat Risk Assessment (VTRA) ........................................................................ 8

Violence Threat Risk Assessment Response ……………………………………………………………………………….10

Activation of the Community Threat Response and Intervention Support Protocol Teams ........... 11

Roles & Responsibilities ............................................................................................................................................ 12

Information Sharing .................................................................................................................................................... 14

Documentation ............................................................................................................................................................. 14

External Communication ........................................................................................................................................... 15

Appendices ..................................................................................................................................................................... 16

Appendix A: Student Behaviour Response Chart .................................................................................... 17

Appendix B: Information Sharing .................................................................................................................. 18

Appendix C: Violence Threat Risk Assessment Report Form (Steps 1 – 10) ................................. 22

Appendix D: Information Gathering ............................................................................................................. 28

Appendix E: Glossary of Terms ....................................................................................................................... 36

Appendix F: Community Threat Response and Intervention Support Protocol Signing ......... 40


Community Threat Response and Intervention Support Protocol: A Collaborative Response to Assessing and Responding to

Violence Potential

Rationale Edmonton Catholic Schools, Edmonton Public Schools and Greater North Central Francophone Schools (Conseil Scolaire Centre-Nord), (collectively referred to as the ‘School Districts’) and their community partners (as listed on page 5 of this protocol) are committed to making all schools and communities in and around the City of Edmonton safe. This protocol supports collaborative planning among educational entities and community partners to reduce violence and reflects safe, caring and restorative approaches. It fosters timely sharing of information about students who may affect the health and safety of themselves or others. The protocol promotes the development of supportive and preventive plans. The goal in supporting intervention measures by all three school districts and community partners is to prevent and reduce violence in schools and communities as well as to promote safety measures for all members of the community. The strength of these School District/Community Partnerships lies in the multidisciplinary composition of the Community Threat Response and Intervention Support Protocol (C-TRISP). C-TRISP members will strive to share details of an identified threat promptly, to collaborate effectively, and to make use of a broad range of expertise. The term ‘Partner’ in this document is not intended to mean a legal partnership, but rather to reflect the collaborative process that the protocol represents and which respects individual rights to privacy and the safety of all, to the fullest extent possible.

Canadian Centre for Threat Assessment and Trauma Response

This Community Threat Response and Intervention Support Protocol (C-TRISP) reflects the work of J. Kevin Cameron, Executive Director of the Canadian Centre for Threat Assessment and Trauma Response (CCTATR), the Yukon Threat Assessment Program (Y - TAP) and the Alberta Children and Youth Initiative.


Community Partners

School Districts are the lead team members in the Community Threat Response and Intervention Support Protocol (C-TRISP). Community partners include the following agencies and organizations:

Alberta Health Services, Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services Alberta Law Enforcement Response Team (ALERT) / Integrated Threat and Risk Assessment Centre (I-TRAC) City of Edmonton Edmonton Catholic Separate School District No. 7 Edmonton Catholic Separate School District No. 7 Board of Trustees Edmonton Fire Rescue Services Edmonton Police Service Edmonton Public School District No. 7 Edmonton Public School District No. 7 Board of Trustees

Greater North Central Francophone Education Region No. 2 (Conseil Scolaire Centre-Nord Région No. 2) Greater North Central Francophone Education Region No. 2 Board of Trustees Native Counselling Services of Alberta Royal Canadian Mounted Police “K” Division, Alberta (Behavioural Sciences Threat Evaluation and Management Unit)

Additional community partners will be invited to join as time progresses. This will allow the protocol to expand and reflect a comprehensive community commitment to early intervention measures and responses to behaviour that pose potential, imminent danger to students, staff, and members of our community.


Edmonton C-TRISP Advisory Committee Members Alberta Ministries

Education Thérèse de Champlain-Good, Senior Education Manager Metro Services

Health Denise Salanski, Child and Mental Health Advisor

Cross Ministry Initiatives Addiction and Mental Health Branch

Law Enforcement Agencies

ALERT/ITRAC RCMP Supernumerary Special Constable Graham McCartney, Certified Threat Assessor Alberta Law Enforcement Response Team (ALERT) and the Integrated Threat and Risk Assessment Centre (I-TRAC)

Edmonton Police Service Detective Dale Myhre, Threat Assessment Unit, Security and

Intelligence Services RCMP Sgt. Wayne Woiken, Behavioural Sciences Group, Serious

Crimes Branch

School Districts Edmonton Catholic Lucille Charrois, District Principal, School Operations Services Schools Sarah Mandolesi, Assistant Principal, Alternative Education Robert Martin, District Principal, School Operations Services Melanie McCulloch, Occupational Health & Safety Specialist Shirley Mykituk, Assistant Principal, Aboriginal Services Edmonton Public Schools Carol Symons, Director, District Support Services Jody Lundell, Principal, District Support Services Greater North Central Michelle Tardif, Directrice des services aux élèves

Francophone Schools Director of Student Services

Alberta Teachers’ Association Edmonton Catholic Greg Carabine, Local President Teachers’ Local 54


Vision All Partners are accountable to the protocol’s purpose and have a shared obligation to actively take steps to promote and maintain safety, and to strive to reduce risk and prevent violence.

Mission The Partners agree to work together for the common goal of threat reduction, as well as school and community safety, by proactively sharing information, advice and support that assists in maintaining safety and preventing violence.

Statement of Principles All Partners will undertake to follow the protocol. We have a shared obligation to take active steps to avert or minimize potential, imminent danger that affects the health and safety of all members of our school communities. We will do so by proactively sharing information, advice, and support. As partners, we will work together for the benefit of our students, and their parents/guardians by: • Building working relationships based on mutual respect and trust; • Working in ways that promote safe, caring and restorative school environments and practices; • Involving students and their families in planning for services and supports; • Recognizing that each student has unique strengths and needs that should be considered

when developing an appropriate support plan; • Realizing that working together successfully is a process of learning, listening, and

understanding one another; and, • Being patient, trusting and working together to help our students become happy, healthy,

active, involved, and caring members of the community.

The overriding goal of the C-TRISP is risk reduction and violence prevention. We are committed to promoting the safety of students, staff, parents/guardians and the school community. We will work together to ensure that our schools are safe places to learn and work.

This protocol is designed to facilitate communication so that when the Community Threat Response and Intervention Support Protocol (C-TRISP) is activated, appropriate community partners and School Districts may communicate and share relevant student information.

As part of the protocol design, School Districts will commit to participate in ongoing staff development in violence threat risk assessment training and program review. Community partners will be encouraged to participate in the same training.


Key Approaches in Threat/Risk Assessment

1. Sharing of Relevant Information The sharing of information is carried out by any of the team members to the Protocol, on a proactive basis, to avert or minimize potential of imminent danger that affects the health and safety of any person (See Sharing Information). Information is shared on a confidential basis and is to be used solely for the purposes of the assessment or for actions directly related to or flowing from the assessment.

2. Investigative Mind-Set

This is central to the successful application of the violence threat risk assessment process. Threat/risk assessment requires thoughtful probing, viewing information with professional objectivity, and paying attention to key points about pre-attack behaviours. Personnel who carry out violence threat risk assessments must strive to be accurate, objective and fair. Components of an investigative mind-set include:

• Open probing questions; • Healthy skepticism; • Attention to pre-attack behaviours; • Verification of facts, actions corroborated; and, • Ensuring that information makes sense.

When determining if a threat maker actually poses a risk to the person and/or target(s), consideration should be given to the following:

• Is the threat clear, direct, plausible and consistent? • Is the threat emotionally charged? • Are there precipitating factors?

3. Anonymous Threats: Duty and Intervention

Anonymous threats are typically threats to commit a violent act against an individual(s), specific group, or location (i.e. the school). For example, they may be found written on bathroom walls or stalls, spray painted on the side of school buildings, posted on the Internet or in letters left in a conspicuous place, etc. In the field of school-based violence threat risk assessment, the lack of ownership (authorship) of the threat generally denotes a lack of commitment. Nevertheless, there are steps that should be followed to:

• Assess the anonymous threat; • Attempt to identify the threat maker; and, • Respond to the crisis/trauma accordingly.

Violence Threat Risk Assessment (VTRA) teams should consider the following in determining the initial level of risk based on the current data (i.e. the language of threat):


Language of Commitment • Amount of detail (location where the violence is to occur, target(s), date and time the

violence is to occur, justifications, etc.); • Threat to commit violence; • Method of delivery of the threat (who found/received the threat, when did he/she

receive it, where did he/she receive it, who else did he/she tell and who else knows about it?); and

• Is the threat clear, direct, plausible, and consistent?

Identifying the Threat Maker

In many cases the author is never found but steps that can be taken to identify the author(s) are:

• Handwriting analysis; • Word usage (phrases and expressions that may be unique to a particular person or

group of people [street gang, club, sport team, etc.]); • Depending on the severity of the threat, some students may be asked to give their

opinion regarding the origin and authorship of the threat; • Social media scan, • Spelling (unique errors or modifications); and, • Collateral source information (leakage).

Contra-indicators (misleading actions):

• Some authors will switch gender and try to lead the reader to believe they are someone else as a setup.

• Some individuals who write anonymous ‘hit lists’ embed their names in the list of identified targets.

4. Building Capacity

Threat Assessment Teams (TAT) and community partners may receive Violence Threat Risk Assessment training (VTRA). Along with Level I and Level II VTRA training, School Districts and community partners may provide additional training opportunities to support the work of C-TRISP (i.e. genogram information, interviewing skills and refresher training).

5. Program Review

This protocol will be reviewed annually by the C-TRISP Advisory Committee which is comprised of representatives from School Districts and community partners.

6. Contact List

The chair, or designate, of the C-TRISP Advisory Committee, will maintain an up-to-date contact list of the agency lead members and will distribute a copy of the list to all community partners. As well, School District summer contacts for each year will be determined and provided to community partners.


Violence Threat Risk Assessment Response (VTRA)

When a student engages in behaviours that may result in injury to self and others in the community, the School Threat Assessment Team (School TAT) or Community Threat Response and Intervention Support Protocol (C-TRISP) members will respond.

This C-TRISP is based on the CCTATR model which follows the VTRA three-step process:

• Stage 1: Data collection and immediate risk reducing interventions; • Stage 2: Comprehensive multidisciplinary risk evaluation; and, • Stage 3: Multidisciplinary interventions.

The VTRA is the combination of early U.S. Secret Service Nation Threat Assessment Centre research around school-based threat assessment and general violence risk assessment. The work reflects scientific research conducted by a number of disciplines including medical and mental health professionals, law enforcement, and specialists in the field of threat management. The three stages of the VTRA combine all appropriate threat/risk assessment concepts. This protocol allows for an assessment of violence risk posed and the identification of appropriate interventions. It may prevent under-reaction by professionals who may use general violence risk assessment tools as the unilateral measure to determine risk for violence. The three stage approach promotes understanding that some individuals may not pose a risk for general violence, yet may be moving rapidly on a pathway1 of intended violence toward a particular target they consider justifiable. Stage 1: Data collection and immediate risk reducing interventions are performed by the School TAT. It focuses on gathering case specific data using the Stage I Violence Threat Risk Assessment (VTRA) Report Form (See Appendix C), and implementing risk reducing interventions.

Stage 2: Comprehensive multidisciplinary risk assessment is focused on further data collection beyond the initial data set obtained by the school TAT. The Stage 2 C-TRISP may involve some or all of the following: additional law enforcement and/or protective services resources, psychology, psychiatry, mental health, child protection, young offender worker, human resources personnel, threat assessment professionals and others. At Stage 2, the C-TRISP members work in collaboration with the school TAT to conduct the formal risk assessment and evaluation. Stage 2 may include the use of formal, structured professional instruments, concepts, tests, and measures by the appropriate personnel. Stage 3 Multidisciplinary intervention is the formal meeting of the School TAT and Stage 2 C-TRISP members following a formal violence threat risk assessment (VTRA). The purpose of Stage 3 is to develop and implement a comprehensive, multidisciplinary intervention and management strategy.

1 Definition of Pathway to Intended Violence


Activation of the School and Community Threat Assessment Protocol

C-TRISP members will, at all times, take any actions necessary to facilitate immediate safety, without delay, regardless of the involvement or availability of other C-TRISP members. 1. Activation of the School Threat Assessment Team (School TAT) The School TAT may consist of the principal and any of the following as assigned by the principal: assistant principal, teacher, school counsellor, school resource officer, or any other staff member. School TAT members will respond after the immediate threat to the safety of the student(s) and staff (target(s) and threat maker(s)) has been contained. The School TAT will assess whether a risk to student and staff safety exists, and develop an intervention plan to support student(s) involved, the greater student body, staff and community.

2. Activation of the C-TRISP: School and/or Partner Initiated In most cases, the student behaviour that activates the C-TRISP will be observed in, or affect the school community. Whenever possible, C-TRISP meetings will occur on School District premises. Stage One The school TAT will:

• Take immediate action to reduce risk; • Complete the Stage I VTRA Report Form (See Appendix C). • Follow the Student Behaviour Response Chart (Appendix A). • Arrange intervention plan follow up at 6 weeks & 6 months or as deemed necessary.

Stage Two When the School TAT has determined that the C-TRISP will be convened, the school principal and/or the district lead will:

• Determine the appropriate community partners and contact the agency lead staff; • Call a meeting with identified C-TRISP members; • Collect data using the Stage 1 VTRA report form format (See Appendix C); • Evaluate level of risk to the safety of students, staff, community; and, • Make recommendations to minimize imminent danger and provide student/family support.

All C-TRISP team members will share pertinent information, and review all data, including data obtained from other sources (i.e. students and parents/guardians). Stage Three As a result of the C-TRISP evaluation of risk, the School TAT and partners will develop a risk management/student intervention plan. The risk management/student intervention plan will be developed collaboratively and responsibility for implementation of the intervention plan will be assigned by the C-TRISP. A follow-up meeting date will be determined by the partners in order to assess the implementation and effectiveness of the risk management/student intervention and support plan.


Roles & Responsibilities

School Principal or Designate/School TAT Lead will: • Call and coordinate the School TAT and inform school superintendent and/or District lead as

required; • Initiate Stage I VTRA report form; (See Appendix C) • Access school central support services as required; • Follow up and coordinate intervention plans developed by the team; • Share copies of the completed Stage I VTRA report form with the C-TRISP partners upon

implementation of Stage II.

Members of School TAT team will: • Assist in data gathering as assigned by the principal or designate (See Appendix C); • Assist the principal in Steps 6 – 10 of the Stage I VTRA report form; • Assist in developing intervention plans and facilitate access to programs and resources; • Help families obtain needed assistance.

District Lead will:

• Be designated by the superintendent as the district C-TRISP lead with responsibility for Violence Threat Risk Assessment;

• Consult with the principal; • Contact C-TRISP members to facilitate consultations, and conduct interviews as required,

except in criminal investigations; • Assist when required in completing the Threat Assessment Report Form questions Steps 1-11

(See Appendix C). School Resource Officer (SRO)/Investigating Police Officer may:

• Be involved in School TAT and C-TRISP; • Conduct a police investigation.

Edmonton Emergency Support Services (Police, Fire, Ambulance)

• Respond as required. Other Partners (i.e. Children’s Services, Mental Health, Aboriginal Services, etc.)

• Respond as required.


Responding to Cultural Diversity Members of diverse cultural groups may experience significant rates of poverty, racism, and discrimination, and language barriers may also exist. These factors, along with possible distrust for authority figures, can lead to the presence of multiple stressors that could potentially increase the level of risk or actual risk. It is vital that VTRA Team members practice awareness and have an understanding of the diverse cultural differences that may exist; particularly with those identified as person(s) of interest. If the scope of knowledge is limited, then the VTRA Team may wish to seek and or consult with an identified subject matter expert that may or may not be trained in the Protocol for Violence Threat Risk Assessment. Additionally, when language barriers exist it is vital, if possible, that respondents speak in their first language and that a neutral interpreter be utilized to translate.

The community partner staff may participate: • In the completion of the Stage I VTRA Report Form (See Appendix C); • In a review of School TAT findings; • In the C-TRISP and, • In developing any recommended intervention plans as outlined in Step 11 (See Appendix C).

Students with Special Needs The multidisciplinary VTRA protocol will not be activated when students with special needs engage in threat-making or aggressive behaviours that are typical to their ‘baseline’. In other words, if their conduct is consistent with their diagnoses and how it has been known to manifest in them then the C-TRISP team will not be called upon to conduct an assessment. However, if the student with special needs moves beyond their typical baseline and for the first time is caught with a weapon in their possession or threatened a target, then the C-TRISP would be activated to assist in determining why the increase in baseline and if he/she poses a risk to self or others. There are times when the student with special needs has had a ‘slow but steady’ increase in the ‘frequency’ and ‘intensity’ of their violent or acting out behaviours. In these cases there may not be a single incident prompting a Stage I VTRA but information may emerge that requires the benefit of all or some of the Stage II members. A note of caution: sometimes school and community members may under react to a serious threat posed by a student with special needs. This occurs when they assume that the student’s behaviours are caused by, or a result of, their diagnosis. It is important to remember that a student with special needs can move along a pathway of ‘justification’ as well. The same dynamics that can increase the risk of violence in the general student population can also be factors in contributing to the violence potential of the student with special needs independent of their diagnosis.

Trauma Response: If a threat or an act of violence has occurred, School District crisis response teams and community partner staff may be called upon to plan or provide post trauma counselling and interventions for students and staff.


Information Sharing The general intent of federal and provincial access to information and protection of privacy legislation is to regulate the collection, storage, use and disclosure of personal information. (Note: When the term ‘Personal Information’ is used in this document, this includes personal health information.) Wherever possible and reasonable, consent to disclose Personal Information should be obtained. Valid consent does not exist unless the individual knows what he/she is consenting to, and understands the consequences of the intended disclosure. The individual must be made aware that he/she can withdraw consent at any time by giving written or verbal notice. School Districts and community partners are committed to the sharing of relevant information to the extent authorized by law.

The presumption is that all information shared by Partners about individual students and families is Personal Information and should be treated with a high level of confidentiality. Once sharing of information has occurred each Partner who receives the information will be responsible for ensuring appropriate storage, use and disclosure of such information in accordance with the laws, regulations, policies and procedures applying to that Partner. Each Partner will be responsible for the education of personnel in this regard. (See Appendix B)

Documentation The Stage I VTRA Report Form (See Appendix C) is completed by the school principal/designate and serves as the official written record of the school/community meeting called to discuss student behaviour and to determine follow up plans or interventions. The written report and/or information from the meeting may be shared with others at the discretion of the Superintendent of Schools when it is deemed to be in the best interests of the student or others. If the plan requires further action outside of the school, the appropriate organization may receive a copy of the original report. In such instances, it is essential that all organizations make reasonable efforts to ensure that their protocols for the sharing, storage and retention of this information and this report are consistent with the following:

• At the minimum, partner organizations should ensure their personnel follow all requirements of any privacy legislation which may pertain to their agency;

• Information written and reported must be kept confidential and is intended to be shared when deemed appropriate;

• Information is shared only for the purpose for which it was created; and, • The written report is stored securely and retained only for the length of time required for

the purpose for which it was created.


Organizations must ensure that policies and/or procedures are in place to protect the confidentiality of all information received by the organization and its employees through the VTRA process. Organizations should take steps to ensure that all employees involved in the VTRA process have a clear understanding of the requirements for confidentiality and of the consequences for breaches of confidentiality. There should be appropriate enforcement by the organization of their policies and procedures regarding confidentiality. Requests to amend information or requests for access to information made by parents, students, or third parties will be addressed in accordance with the legislation applying to the agency to whom the request is made.

External Communication

As part of the threat/risk assessment process, School Districts and Edmonton Police Services communication personnel will consult with one another to coordinate any public messages via the media.


Appendices

Appendix A: Sample Student Behaviour Response Chart ................................................................................. 17

Appendix B: Sample Information Sharing ....................................................................................................... 18

Appendix C: Sample Violence Threat Risk Assessment (VTRA) Report Form ............................................ 22

Appendix D: Sample Information Gathering Form .............................................................................................. 28

Appendix E: Glossary of Terms .................................................................................................................................... 36

Appendix F: C-TRISP Partners ...................................................................................................................................... 40


LOW RISK BEHAVIOURS (Worrisome Behaviours)

MODERATE RISK BEHAVIOURS HIGH RISK THREAT – Call 911

Include but are not limited to: • Violent content • Drawing pictures • Writing stories/journals • Vague threatening statements • Unusual interest in fire • Significant change in anti‐social behaviour

Include but are not limited to: • Possession of a weapon/replica • Bomb threat plan • Verbal/written/electronic threat to kill/injure self/others

• Fire setting behaviours • Threatens violence • Sexual intimidation or assault

• Gang related intimidation and violence

Include but are not limited to: • Weapon in possession that poses serious threat to self or others

• Plan for serious assault • Homicidal/suicidal behaviours that threatens safety

• Fire setting • Bomb threat

• Serious violence or violence with intent to harm or kill

PRINCIPAL OR AGENCY LEAD INFORMED Stage 1:

Data Collection and Immediate Risk Reducing Intervention

• 1 – 2 hours

• Ensure that all students & staff are safe.• Determine if threat maker has access to weapon.

• Interview all witnesses; • Notify the child/youth’s parents/guardians; • Initiate Stage I VTRA. Family will be interviewed/engaged in process.

• Review findings with the School TAT; • Decide course of action; • Develop an intervention plan.

Threat Assessment Team (School TAT): • School Administrator(s) • School Resource Officer • School Counsellor • Designated School Staff as required

• District office staff as required • Agency staff as required

Determine Level of Risk – If Medium to High, Activate C‐TRISP Stage 2:

Comprehensive Multidisciplinary Risk Evaluation • Within hours if Stage 1 is high concern

• Within days if Stage 1 is medium concern

School Principal and/or District Lead: • Conduct interviews as required • Update and complete VTRA Report form questions

• C‐TRISP reviews findings & decides on course of action

• C‐TRISP continues the development of an intervention plan.

C‐TRISP • School TAT • Police (additional police as required)

• District Lead as required • Agency Lead as required • Other identified partners as required

Stage 3: Longer Term Multidisciplinary Intervention • Within days

• Follow up

• C‐TRISP develops, implements and monitors a risk management/student intervention plan and modifies it as appropriate.

C‐TRISP • School TAT • Police (additional police as required)

• District Lead as required • Agency Lead as required • Other identified partners as required

STUDENT BEHAVIOUR RESPONSE CHART Any person who is concerned shall report to the school principal, designate or agency lead, any

student behaviours that may affect the health and safety of others.

Appendix A


Appendix B

Information Sharing

Information Sharing: Legislation and Case Law Each Partner involved in an assessment will be responsible for determining the threshold for sharing information with other Partners. Each Partner will be responsible for ensuring compliance with applicable legislation. Children First Act, Province of Alberta, Statutes of Alberta, 2013. Chapter C-12.5 The Children First Act supports the health, safety, education, security and well-being of children in Alberta by enhancing legislation and policies that affect children and youth. The Charter will support Alberta’s Social Policy Framework in guiding collaboration among departments, service providers and communities; along with providing for more consistent, open and appropriate information sharing between those who work for the health, safety, and protection of children, including front-line workers in health, education, social work and law enforcement. Chapter C-12.5 Information Sharing Specifics 4(1) For the purposes of enabling or planning for the provision of services or benefits to a child, a service provider (educational body, police service) may collect and use either or both of the following:

(a) personal information about the child or a parent or guardian of the child from another service provider; (b) health information about the child from a custodian.

(2) For the purposes of enabling or planning for the provision of services or benefits to a child, (a) a service provider may disclose to another service provider personal information about the child or a

parent or guardian of the child, and (b) a custodian may disclose to another custodian or to a service provider health information about the child

if, in the opinion of the service provider or custodian making the disclosure, the disclosure is in the best interests of the child.

(3) A service provider may disclose personal information and a custodian may disclose health information about a child to a guardian of the child if

(a) the disclosure is not contrary to the express request of the child, and (b) the service provider or custodian making the disclosure is of the opinion that the disclosure is in the best

interests of the child. (4) A service provider or custodian shall, in accordance with the procedures set out in the regulations, maintain records about the disclosure of information under this section.

Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP) Information must be disclosed if in the public interest 32(1) Whether or not a request for access is made, the head of a public body must, without delay, disclose to the

public, to an affected group of people, to any person or to an applicant (a) information about a risk of significant harm to the environment or to the health or safety of the public, of

the affected group of people, of the person or of the applicant, or (b) information the disclosure of which is, for any other reason, clearly in the public interest.

Health Information Protection Act (HIPA) 35(1) A custodian may disclose individually identifying diagnostic, treatment and care information without the

consent of the individual who is the subject of the information (j) to a municipal or provincial police service for the purpose of investigating an offence involving a life-

threatening personal injury to the individual, if the disclosure is not contrary to the express request of the individual and


(m) to any person if the custodian believes, on reasonable grounds, that the disclosure will avert or minimize an imminent danger to the health or safety of any person.

Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) 20. An organization may disclose personal information about an individual without the consent of the individual

but only if one or more of the following are applicable: (g) the disclosure of the information is necessary to respond to an emergency that threatens the life, health or security of an individual or the public.

Privacy Act and Access to Information Act These federal acts apply to the Government of Canada, including the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). The RCMP may share information in accordance with this protocol, subject to the provisions outlined in the applicable legislation. Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) 125. (1) A peace officer may disclose to any person any information in a record kept under section 114 (court records)

or 115 (police records) that it is necessary to disclose in the conduct of the investigation of an offence. (6) The provincial director, a youth worker, the Attorney General, a peace officer or any other person engaged in the provision of services to young persons may disclose to any professional or other person engaged in the supervision or care of a young person — including a representative of any school board or school or any other educational or training institution — any information contained in a record kept under sections 114 to 116 if the disclosure is necessary(a) to ensure compliance by the young person with an authorization under section 91 or an order of the youth justice court; (b) to ensure the safety of staff, students or other persons; or(c) to facilitate the rehabilitation of the young person. The recipient of youth justice information is responsible for ensuring compliance with legislated restrictions on its use, storage and disposal under the YCJA ss.126 (7). This provision requires that the information must be kept separate from any other record of the young person, that no other person must have access to the information except as authorized under the YCJA or for the purposes of ss.125 (6), and that it must be destroyed when it is no longer needed for the purpose for which it was disclosed.

Release of Personal Information for Public Safety - October 15, 2007 Information and Privacy Commissioner Frank Work reminded law enforcement officials and the public that the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act requires public officials to notify the public of risks to public safety (section 32). "The law contains a positive duty to warn the public of risks to health and safety." Supreme Court Decision: R. V. M. (M. R.), (1998) 35. C. R. 398 “The Supreme Court of Canada (1998) has established legal precedent by ruling (in R. vs M (M. R)) that in certain situations, the need to protect the greater student population supersedes the individual rights of the students. The ruling explicitly acknowledges that school officials must be able to act quickly and effectively to ensure the safety of the students and to prevent serious violations of the school rules.” (p. 15) Information Sharing for Human Service Providers in the Alberta Public Sector The purpose of the following Green Light, Yellow Light, Red Light document is to be a quick reference guide for human service professionals to help them make decisions on how and when to share information about children, youth, adults and families.




Appendix C Stage I Violence Threat Risk Assessment (VTRA) Report Form

(Data Collection and Immediate Risk Reducing Interventions)

Three Primary Hypotheses in VTRA:

1. Is it a conscious or unconscious ‘Cry for Help’? 2. Conspiracy of two or more. Who else knows about it? Who else is involved? 3. Is there any evidence of homicidal or suicidal ideation?

Responsibilities of School Administrators during Stage I

Step 1

Ensure you know the whereabouts of the target(s) and threat maker(s) and address any immediate risk factors if they exist. The goal is to ensure that the target(s) is safe. They may include:

Determine if the threat maker has immediate access to the means (knife, gun, etc.). Monitor and/or detain the student(s) of interest, if necessary, until the police member of the team is present. Do not allow “student(s) of interest” access to coats, backpacks, desks, or lockers.

Step 2

Check, if appropriate, the student(s), locker, desk, backpack, recent text books/assignment binders, cars, etc. for data consistent with the threat making or threat-related behaviour

Step 3

Contact Police or SRO as required. Share initial data and police will determine if a history of weapons possession, use, or violence is noted in police accessible records.


Step 4

The School TAT will determine who will strategically interview witnesses including all participants directly and indirectly involved as well as ‘hard’ data collection as outlined below.

Immediate Data may be obtained from multiple sources including:

Reporter(s) Target(s) Witnesses Teachers and other school staff (secretaries, teacher assistants, bus drivers, etc.) Friends, classmates, acquaintances Parents/guardians Current and previous school records Police Information Check Activities: internet histories, diaries, notebooks Other

Step 5

Use the Information Gathering Form (refer to Appendix D)

There should never be more than two people in the room interviewing the student of concern. Remember to distinguish between Assessing the Threat(s) versus Assessing the Threat Maker(s).

Step 6

Determine the Level of Concern: Low – Medium – High With the input of all TAT members, decide on the Level of Concern. If low to medium, the School TAT develops and implements an intervention plan (See Step 10).

Low Level of Concern Risk is minimal

Medium Level of Concern Threat could be carried out, violent action is possible.

High Level of Concern Threat appears to pose an imminent and serious danger to self or others

• Threat is vague & indirect. • Does not imply ‘no risk’ but indicates

the individual is at little risk for violence.

• Information within the threat is inconsistent, implausible or lacks detail; threat lacks realism.

• Information suggests that the person is unlikely to carry out the threat or become violent.

• Within the general range for typical baseline behaviour.

• Monitoring of the matter may be appropriate.

• Threat is more plausible than low level. • Wording in the threat and information

gathered suggests some thought has been given to how the threat will be carried out (i.e. place & time).

• No clear indication that the student of concern has taken preparatory steps (i.e. weapon seeking) although there may be an ambiguous or inconclusive reference pointing to that possibility. There may be a specific statement seeking to convey that the threat is not empty: ‘I’m serious!’

• A moderate or lingering concern about the student’s potential to act violently.

• Increase in baseline behaviour. • Categorization of risk indicates the

individual is at an elevated risk for violence and those measures currently in place, including monitoring, are required in an effort to manage the individual’s future risk.

• Threat is specific and plausible. There is an identified target. Student has the capacity to act on the threat.

• Information suggest concrete steps have been taken toward acting on threat. Ex. Information indicates that the student has acquired or practiced with a weapon or has had a victim under surveillance.

• Information suggests strong concern about the student’s potential to act violently.

• Significant increase in baseline behaviour.

• Categorization of risk indicates the individual is at a high or imminent risk for violence.

• Immediate intervention is required to prevent an act of violence from occurring.


Step 7

If the Level of Concern is medium to high, notify the District Lead who will determine if C-TRISP should be activated.

Step 8

Notify the parent(s) or guardian(s) of the student(s) of concern and target(s) when deemed appropriate.

Parents/guardians have been notified of the situation and the Stage I data collection phase. Parents/guardians have NOT been notified because _______________________________________________________

Step 9

District Lead gathers information from other agencies as required. Determine the Level of Concern: Low – Medium – High Contact the Police

There is nothing to report. There is information relevant to the case that needs to be disclosed as per the VTRA Protocol (significant

risk of harm to the health or safety of others is present). The risk is not immediate but a Release of Information Form should be requested to allow for a full

disclosure of the contents of the file relevant to the case at hand.

Contact the ______________________________ and request information relevant to the Stage I VTRA data collection. There is nothing to report. There is information relevant to the case that needs to be disclosed as per the VTRA Protocol (significant



Contact the ______________________________(when there is an unusual interest in fire starting, or fire starting behaviour). There is nothing to report. There is information relevant to the case that needs to be disclosed as per the VTRA Protocol (significant



Others There is nothing to report. There is information relevant to the case that needs to be disclosed as per the VTRA Protocol (significant




Step 10

Determine course of action and develop and implement an intervention plan. Use the following Intervention Plan to address all concerns identified during the Stage I Assessment.

Intervention Plan

Identify risk reducers and risk enhancers, and intervene to alleviate tension Warn or notify intended victim and/or parents/guardian Initiate suicide assessment Create contract to stop harming self or others Alert staff and teachers on a need-to-know basis Check in on a daily or weekly basis (Title/Name) Use a travel card to hold accountable for whereabouts and on-time arrival to destinations Check in/out belongings such as the backpack, coat, etc. Verify late arrival and/or early dismissal Increase supervision in certain settings Modify daily schedule Create a behaviour plan (attach a copy to this Threat Assessment) Create an intervention plan regarding drug and/or alcohol abuse Create a referral to school resource team regarding psycho-education assessments Review Individual Program Plan goals and placement options Review community-based resources and intervention with parents/guardians Obtain permission to share information with community partners such as counselors and therapists (See

District Release of Information Form) Other actions

Intervention Who is Responsible Timeline

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Continue on another page as required.


Monitor this intervention plan regularly and modify it as appropriate with a formal review no later than six weeks and six months.

School Administrator to diarize review dates to occur on (6 week) and ________________________(6 month).

PARENT/GUARDIANS (attach additional pages as needed) Parents/guardians will provide the following supervision and/or intervention:


School Threat Assessment Team Members (School TAT)

Principal or Assistant-Principal: Signature: Date: ____________

Staff Member: Signature: Date: ____________

Police: Signature: Date: ____________

Other:

Name: Organization: Role:

Signature: Date:

Other:


Signature: Date:

Other:


Signature: Date:

Comments:


Appendix D

Information Gathering Form

Series I Questions (The Incident)

Where did the incident happen and when?

How did it come to the interviewee’s attention? What was the specific language of the threat, act of violence, detail of the weapon brandished, or gesture made?

Who was present and under what circumstance did the incident occur?

What was the motivation or perceived cause of the incident?

What was the response of the target (if present) at the time of the incident? Di d he/she add to or detract from the Justification Process?

What was the response of others who were present at the time of the incident? Did they add to or detract from the Justification Process?

Was there stated: • Justification for the threat? • Means to carry out the threat? • Consequences weighed out? (I don’t care if I live

or die!) • Conditions that could lower the level of risk?

(Unless you take that Facebook post down I will stick my knife in your throat!)

Other information

Interviewers: ________________________________________________________________

Interviewee: ________________________________


Series II Questions (Pathway to Violence)

Determine the subject’s grievance as to why he/she is planning a threat.

Has the student (subject) sought out information consistent with his/her threat making or threat- related behaviour? Have there been any communications suggesting ideas or intentions to attack a target currently or in the past?

Has the student (subject) attempted to gain access to weapons or does he/she have access to the weapons he/she has threatened to use?

Has the student (subject) developed a plan and how general or specific is it (time, date, identified target selection, site selection, journal of justifications, maps and floor plans)?

Has the student (subject) been engaging in suspicious behaviour such as appearing to show an inordinate interest in alarm systems, sprinkle systems, video surveillance in schools or elsewhere, schedules & locations of police or security patrol? Has the student (subject) engaged in rehearsal behaviours, including packing or brandishing fake but realistic looking weapons, air rifles, pistols, or engaged in fire setting (i.e. lighting fire to card board tubes cut and taped to look like a pipe bomb, etc.)?

Is there any evidence of attack related behaviours in his/her locker (back pack, car trunk, etc.) at school or bedroom (shed, garage, etc.) at home? Have others been forewarned of a pending attack or told not to come to school because “something big is going to happen?”

Has the attack occurred?

Other information


Series III Questions (Threat Maker Typology)

Does the target have a history of violence or threats of violence? If yes, what is his/her past?

If yes, what is the frequency, intensity and recency (FIR) of the violence?

What has been his/her past human target selection? What has been his/her past site selection?

In the case at hand, what is his/her current: a) Human Target Selection b) Site selection c) Does it denote a significant increase in BASELINE Behaviour?

NOTE: In Stage I VTRA, history of violence is a significant risk enhancer but the best predictor of future violent behaviour is an increase or shift in Baseline. This may also include an individual who has become more withdrawn or quiet as opposed acting out! Does the threat maker (subject) have a history of

depression or suicidal thinking/behaviour? Is there evidence of fluidity in his/her writings,

drawings or verbalizations? Does the threat maker (subject) use drugs or alcohol?

Is there evidence it is a risk enhancing factor in the case at hand?

Is there a mental health diagnosis or evidence of a mental health diagnosis that may be a risk enhancing factor in the case at hand?

Other information


Series IV Questions (The Target Typology) Remember that in some cases the target is higher risk for violence than the threat maker with the most common case

being where the threat maker is the victim of bullying and the target is the bully Does the target have a history of violence or threats of violence? If yes, what is his/her past? If yes, what is the frequency, intensity and recency (FIR) of the violence?

What has been his/her past human target selection?

What has been his/her past site selection?

Is there evidence the target has instigated the current situation?

Other information


Series V Questions (Peer/School Dynamics)

Are others involved in the incident that may intentionally or unintentionally be contributing to the justification process?

Who is in the threat maker’s (subject’s) peer structure and where does the threat maker (subject) fit (I.e. leader, co-leader, and follower)?

Is there a difference between the threat maker’s individual baseline and his/her peer group baseline behaviour?

Who is in the target’s peer structure and where does the target fit (i.e.: leader, co-leader, and follower)? Is there a peer who could assist with the plan or obtain the weapons necessary for an attack?

What is the subject’s role in the school?

What is the perception of the student within the school?

Other information


Series VI Questions (Empty Vessels)

Does the student of concern (subject) have a healthy relationship with a mature adult?

Does the student have inordinate knowledge versus general knowledge or interest in violent events, themes, or incidents, including prior school – based attacks? How has he/she responded to prior violent incidents (local, national, etc.)?

What type of violent games, movies, books, music, Internet searches, does the student (subject) fill himself/herself with?

Is there evidence that what he/she is filling himself/herself is influencing his/her behaviour? (Imitators vs. Innovators?)

What related themes are present in his/her writings, drawings, etc?

Is there evidence of fluidity and/or religiosity?

Other information


Series VII Questions (Contextual Factors or Personal Triggers)

Has the threat maker experienced a recent loss, such as a death of a family member or friend; a recent break-up; rejection by a peer or peer group; been cut from a sports team; received a rejection notice from a college, university, military etc.?

Have his/her parents just divorced or separated? Is he/she the victim of child abuse and has the abuse been dormant but resurfaced at this time?

Is he/she being initiated into a gang and is it voluntary or forced recruitment?

Has he/she recently been charged with an offence or suspended or expelled from school?

Is the place where he/she has been suspended to likely to increase or decrease his/her level of risk?

Has he/she recently had an argument or “fight” with a parent/guardian or someone close to him/her?

Other information


Series VIII Questions (Family Dynamics)

How many homes does the student (subject) reside in (shared custody, goes back and forth from parent to grandparent’s home)? Is the student (subject) connected to a healthy/ mature adult in the home?

Who all lives in the family home (full-time and part-time)? Has anyone entered or left the home who may be influencing level of risk? Who seems to be in charge of the family and how often is he/she around?

Has the student engaged in violence or threats of violence towards his/her siblings or parent(s) guardian(s)? If so, what form of violence and to whom including Frequency, Intensity, Recency (FIR)?

What is the historical baseline at home? What is the current baseline at home? Is there evidence of evolution at home?

Are parent(s) or guardian(s) concerned for their own safety or the safety of their children or others? Does the student’s level or risk (at home, school, or the community) cycle according to who is in the home (i.e. the student is low risk for violence when his/her father is home but high risk during the times his/her father travels away from home for work)?

Does the student have a history of trauma including car accidents, falls, exposure to violence, abuse, etc.? Has the student been diagnosed with a DSM V diagnoses? Is there a history of mental health disorders in the family? Is there a history of drug or alcohol abuse in the family?

Other information


Appendix E

Glossary of Terms Empty Vessel The concept of empty vessels first came into use as we noticed the dramatic lack of connection many threat makers and almost all of school shooters had to healthy mature adults and their lack of clear identity, place, and purpose. Their parental and other adult relationships were often marked by extremes on a continuum from neglect to over-involvement with some experiencing both extremes at different times and others experiencing predominately one or the other. In 1999 the FBI released a monograph titled “The School Shooter: A Threat Assessment Perspective”. In it they introduce a four-pronged assessment model that includes

1) personality of the student; 2) school dynamics; 3) family dynamics, and 4) social dynamics.

In conducting threat assessments we are now interested in how much our threat makers are influenced by these dynamics in what we refer to as “contextual assessments” (i.e. what factors outside the individual may be contributing to elevating violence potential?). One of these dynamics, family patterns and relationships, seem to contribute to what some family therapists refer to as “other-validated” individuals: individuals highly influenced by context. High risk behaviours High risk behaviours express intent to do harm or act out violently against someone or something. High risk behaviours include but are not limited to: possession of weapon/replica, bomb threat plan, verbal/written or Internet threats to kill/injure self or others, fire setting, threatening violence and hate motivated violence.

Note: Do not be deceived when traditional risk behaviours do not exist. There is no profile or checklist for the high risk student. Some students who actually pose a threat display very few traits of the traditional high risk student. Identify when homicidal and suicidal domains exist together. This is critical to the development of a response to the incident, including the creation of a student intervention plan.

Immediate Threat In the case of immediate threat, staff will CALL 911 and take the appropriate emergency response measures.

These situations include armed (gun, knife, explosives or other device/weapon capable of causing serious injury or death) intruders inside the building or on the periphery, who pose a risk to some target or targets, or active shooter (attacker) scenarios. When immediate risk is identified, the school lockdown plan must be activated immediately in conjunction with a telephone call to 911. In these cases, a threat is unfolding and the matter is one of immediate police intervention and protective school response; not Stage I Violence Threat/Risk Assessment. Imminent Threat There is reason to believe the student is contemplating a violent response to a grievance and capable of carrying out an act of targeted violence


Leakage Leakage in the context of threat assessment is the communication to a third party of an intent to do harm to a target. Third parties are usually other people, but the means of communication may vary, and include letters, diaries, journals, blogs, videos on the Internet, emails, voice mails, and other social media forms of transmission. Leakage is a type of warning behavior that typically infers a preoccupation with the target, and may signal the research, planning, and implementation of an attack. Pathway to Intended Violence On the path to “targeted” or “intended” violence (as opposed to violence for gain such as robbery, or impulse acts of violence) a potential perpetrator follows often observable stages or steps leading up to an attack. The base of these stages is a “grievance”, or a feeling of having been wronged in some way. The perpetrator feels a sense of injustice or loss and desires revenge or recognition. The thinking about committing an act of violence or “ideation” is the next stage. This stage often becomes evident in discussions the perpetrator may have with others. The next stage is “research” on the intended target and/or “planning” an attack. Signs of this stage include information gathering, suspicious inquiries, surveillance, etc. on the target. This is followed by “preparation” on the part of the subject by such activities as acquiring a weapon, arranging transportation, assembling equipment and the like. If this path is uninterrupted, a “breach” or approach to the target, followed by an “attack”, may occur. The duration of time between these stages can be anywhere from moments to years. While consideration is given to what the subject says, the emphasis is placed on what the individual does. The path to impulsive violence follows the same steps but lacks the stages of “research/planning and preparation”. Risk A risk is hazard or threat that is incompletely understood that can be forecasted only with uncertainty. Risk incorporates notions of the nature, severity, frequency, imminence and likelihood of harm – not just probability. Risk does not exist physically, but rather reflects the perception of a potential or possible future. Risk exists in and is dependent on a specific situation or social physical environment. Risk can also be defined as a threat or combination of threats, exploiting vulnerability in order to adversely impact upon an asset. Risk Assessment A risk assessment is typically a more lengthy process that involves a number of standardized tests and measures that go beyond the scope of the school multidisciplinary Threat Assessment Team’s (TAT) assessment. After the ‘initial level of risk’ is assessed and ‘immediate risk reducing intervention’ has occurred, a further risk assessment may be required. Therefore, risk assessment is the process of determining if a student of concern may pose a further risk to some known or unknown target(s) at some unknown period in time. The student may be evidencing increasing violent ideation or behaviours that suggest that the frequency or intensity of his/her violence or violence potential may be escalating. Unlike the immediate intervention, the risk assessment is meant to be a more comprehensive evaluation of all risk reducing and risk enhancing factors affecting the student’s functioning and to use that data to guide longer term intervention and treatment goals. Threat A threat is any expression of intent to do harm or act out violently against someone or something. Threats may be spoken, written, drawn, symbolic, posted on the internet (Twitter, Facebook, etc.) or made by gesture only. Threats may be direct, indirect, conditional or veiled.


Threat Assessment Threat assessment is the process of determining if a threat maker (someone who utters, writes, emails, etc., a threat to kill a target or targets) actually poses a risk to the target(s) being threatened. Although many students and adults engage in threat-making behaviour, research indicates that few actually pose a risk to harm the target being threatened. Multidisciplinary Threat Assessment Teams (TATs) engage in a data collection process, through semi-structured interviews, to determine ‘initial levels of risk’ that may be posed and plan necessary risk- reducing interventions. Although a student of concern may be assessed as low risk, there may be data that indicates a more comprehensive risk assessment is required.

Worrisome Behaviour Worrisome behaviour is defined as those behaviours that cause concern and may indicate that a student is moving toward a greater risk of violent behaviour. (The majority of behaviours fall into this category.) Worrisome behaviours include but are not limited to violent content in drawings and stories/journals, making vague threatening statements, unusual interest in fire, significant change in anti-social behaviour and significant change in baseline behaviour. In some cases, the subject may use explicit expression or words that lack intentions to cause harm, but may be considered alarming in nature. Worrisome behaviours may be an early warning sign of the development of more serious high risk behaviours. Worrisome behaviours may be a ‘cry for help’ and require a timely follow-up with the student, teachers, counsellors, other school staff and the student’s parents/ guardians/guardians.

1) Pathway warning behaviours Any behaviour that is part or research, planning, preparation, or implementation of an attack

2) Fixation warning behaviours Any behaviour that indicates an increasingly pathological preoccupation with a person or cause. (Increased perseveration, increased opinion, increasing negative characterization, impact on family of the subject, angry emotional undertone)

3) Identification warning behaviour Behaviour that indicates a psychological desire to be a “pseudo commando, warrior mentality, identify with previous attackers

4) Novel aggression warning behaviour Act of violence which appears unrelated to any targeted violence, committed for the first time i.e. commits a bank robbery in order to test ability, motivation.

5) Energy burst warning behaviour An increase in the frequency or variety of any noted activities related to the target

6) Leakage warning behaviours The communication to a third party of an intent to do harm to a target through an attack.

7) Directly communicated warning behaviours Communication of a direct threat to the target.

8) Last resort warning behaviour Increasing desperation or distress through declaration in word or deed, forcing the individual into a position of last resort. No alternative, no ambivalence, subject feels trapped.


Violence Violence is actual, attempted or threatened harm to a person or persons. It is a continuing process of thoughts and behaviours that is dependent on the interaction between a person who is inclined to violence; a stimulus that causes the violence; and a setting or environment that allows for violence or does nothing to prevent a violent act from occurring. Violence is dynamic and multidimensional. It is a process that is developed over time.


APPENDIX F

Edmonton Community Threat Response

and Intervention Support Protocol

May 11, 2015

Christine Mummery Director Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services, Alberta Health Services

Signature

Charmaine Bulger Superintendent Chief Executive Officer Alberta Law Enforcement Response Team

Signature

Karen Doucet Vice‐Chairperson Board of Trustees Greater North Central Francophone Education Region #2

Signature

Henri Lemire Superintendent Greater North Central Francophone Education Region #2

Signature

Don Iveson Mayor City of Edmonton

Signature

Debbie Engel Chairperson, Board of Trustees Edmonton Catholic Separate School District No. 7

Signature

Joan Carr Superintendent Edmonton Catholic Separate School District No. 7

Signature


Edmonton Community Threat Response

and Intervention Support Protocol

May 11, 2015

Ken Block Fire Chief Edmonton Fire Rescue Services

Signature

Roderick Robert Knecht Chief of Police Edmonton Police Service

Signature

Michael Janz Chairperson Board of Trustees Edmonton Public School District No. 7

Signature

Darrel Robertson Superintendent Edmonton Public School District No. 7

Signature

Dr. Allen Benson Chief Executive Officer Native Counselling Services of Alberta

Signature

Marlin Degrand Assistant Commissioner “K” Division, RCMP

Signature

Documents

Guide and Protocol Agreement CTRISP... · protocol promotes the development of supportive and preventive plans. The goal in supporting intervention measures by all three school districts