Threat Assessment Protocol - School Psychologists Association of

advertisement
Threat Assessment
Protocol
Developed by: Ron Teffaine, M.Ed., Student Services, Hanover SD, 2002
The History of Targeted
Lethal School Violence
• From 1996 - 2001, the United States and Canada had 24
incidents of lethal school violence perpetrated by 27 students.
• The mean age of the assailants was 14 years, with an age
range from 6 to 19 years.
• 45 people died during these incidents, and 63 people were
seriously wounded.
• Both students and teachers were wounded and murdered.
• The most serious U.S. incident, on April 20th 1999, was at
Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado. Fifteen were
killed and 23 were wounded.
• Eight days later, on April 28th 1999, a 14-year-old boy in
Taber, Alberta shot and killed a student, and wounded another.
Following the attack at Columbine High School, the
U.S. Secret Service and the Department of
Education began the “SAFE SCHOOL INITIATIVE”
study in June 1999.
They studied every case of targeted school violence
from December 1974 through May 2000.
They found 37 incidents of targeted school-based
attacks, committed by 41 students.
These incidents took place in 26 states.
Canadian Male Homicide Suspects
160
140
120
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 - 11 years
12 - 17
years
18 - 24
years
Canadian Female Homicide Suspects
160
140
120
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 - 11 years
12 - 17
years
18 - 24
years
The Impact of Targeted School Violence Has Received
National Attention in the United States, Prompting New
Measures To Prevent Violent Behaviour in School
In 1998, the U.S. Dept. of Education released a lengthy document
entitled: Early Warning, Timely Response: a guide to safe schools
In 2001, Manitoba Education,
Training and Youth released a
similar document for preventing
violence in school by improving school
plans and programs for EBD kids. The
document is called:
TOWARDS INCLUSION – From
Challenges to Possibilities:
Planning for Behaviour
Why Would A Student
Threaten and Kill Fellow
Students and Teachers?
Are
killers
angry?
Are they
bullies
or
victims?
Are they
crazy?
Hunger
for
attention?
Is their
motive
revenge?
Hatred
for their
victims?
Some of Many Proposed Warning Signs for
Identifying Possible Targeted Violence:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Victim of abuse or neglect
History of violent and aggressive behaviour
Loss of temper on a daily basis
Frequent physical fighting
Significant vandalism or property damage
Increase in use of drugs or alcohol
Detailed plans to commit acts of violence
Announcing threats or plans for hurting others
Enjoys hurting animals
Access to and fascination with weapons
Feels picked on, bullied, or ostracized
Dwells on perceived slights or mistreatment
Depression (> 50%) and Suicidal Talk (75%)
Students That Have
Murdered At School
Mitchell Johnson - 13
Andrew Golden - 11
Kip Kinkel – 15
Luke Woodham - 16
Eric Harris – 18, Dylan Klebold - 17
Charles Williams - 15
There is no single psychological profile
at present to help predict which student
will commit lethal violence.
Traditional
-
-
Severe EBD
Conduct Disorder
Antisocial Personality Disorder
Psychopathic
Viewed as a “bad kid”
Non-Traditional
- No apparent disruptive
behaviour disorder
- Viewed as a “good kid”
- Never or rarely been in
trouble
Students who commit serious school violence can function
anywhere on this continuum.
Results from the
Safe School Initiative Study
Characterizing the Attacker:
• There is no useful profile of enduring personality traits that
described all, or even most of the attackers.
• Many felt bullied, persecuted or injured by others prior to the
attack.
• Most showed some history of suicidal attempts or thoughts, or a
history of feeling extreme depression or desperation.
• Over half demonstrated some interest in violence, through
movies, video games, books, etc.
• Most had no history of prior violent or criminal behaviour.
• Most were known to have difficulty coping with significant losses
or personal failures.
Safe School Initiative Study Cont’d…
Characterizing the Attack:
• Incidents of targeted violence at school are rarely sudden, impulsive acts.
Signaling the Attack:
• Prior to most incidents, other people knew about the attacker’s idea and/or
plan.
• Most attackers did not threaten their targets directly prior to advancing the
attack.
• Most attackers engaged in some behaviour, prior to the incident, that
caused others concern or indicated a need for help.
Advancing the Attack:
• In many cases, other students were involved in the attack in some capacity.
• Most attackers had access to and used weapons prior to the attack.
Resolving the Attack:
• Most attacks were stopped by means other than law enforcement
intervention.
Why do you need a
Threat Assessment
Protocol?
Why A Threat Assessment
Protocol?
FOUR GOOD REASONS:
1. To make sure students, teachers, and staff are safe
through prevention efforts.
2. To assure that students, teachers, and staff feel safe.
In the aftermath of a traumatic event, the threshold for
stress tolerance is lowered, and risk behaviour within
the impact zone is increased for roughly 3 to 5 years
afterward.
3. To assure that the student who made the threat will be
supervised and given appropriate treatment.
4. To avoid only disciplinary action (e.g., suspension),
which may actually exacerbate the danger.
Once a threat is made,
having a fair, rational,
and standardized method
of evaluating and
responding
is critically important
Hanover School Division
Threat Assessment Protocol
Overview
THREAT
School Psychologist
leads a Four-Pronged
Assessment
• Student’s Personality
• Family Dynamics
• School Dynamics/ Role
• Social Dynamics
Staff or Student
Reports Threat
To Principal or
Vice Principal
For ALL Cases
Inform:
• Central Administration
• Student Services
• School Staff
School Admin. consults with
Psychologist & Crisis Counsellor to
consider recommendations for
intervention plan
Plan is
implemented
Principal or
Vice-Principal
Assesses Threat:
1. Type:
-
Direct
Indirect
Veiled
Conditional
2. Level:
- Low
- Medium
- High
If Threat is HIGH,
Inform R.C.M.P.,
Mental Health,
Parents, Potential
Victims
THREAT
School Psychologist
leads a Four-Pronged
Assessment
• Student’s Personality
• Family Dynamics
• School Dynamics/ Role
• Social Dynamics
Staff or Student
Reports Threat
To Principal or
Vice Principal
For ALL Cases
Inform:
• Central Administration
• Student Services
• School Staff
School Admin. consults with
Psychologist & Crisis Counsellor to
consider recommendations for
intervention plan
Plan is
implemented
Initial
Assessment of
Threats
1. Type:
-
Direct
Indirect
Veiled
Conditional
2. Level:
- Low
- Medium
- High
If Threat is HIGH,
Inform R.C.M.P.,
Mental Health,
Parents, Potential
Victims
What is a Threat?
Definition: A threat is an expression of intent to do harm or act
out violently against someone or something. A threat can be
spoken, written, drawn, posted on the internet, or made by gesture
(e.g., gesturing to shoot someone).
Criminal Code (Canada):
264.1 (1) Everyone commits an offence who, in any manner,
knowingly utters, conveys or causes any person to receive a
threat…to cause death or bodily harm to any person.
Threat Incident Report
The following information is valuable in recording and assessing the level of student threats.
Please be careful to record facts, not impressions or opinions, as soon as possible after the
threat has been made.
Name of Person Making the Threat: ___________________________________________
Time and Date of Threat: ____________________________________________________
Location of Threat: _________________________________________________________
Situation in Which the Threat Occurred: _______________________________________
Intended Victim(s): _________________________________________________________
Other Witnesses: ___________________________________________________________
Wording of Threat: _________________________________________________________
What, if anything was said in reply? ___________________________________________
If the threat was made in writing, please attach it to this form. Give e-mail address of
any website displaying the student’s threat.
Types of Threats
• Direct – identifies a specific act against a specific target and is delivered in
a straightforward, clear, and explicit manner: e.g., “I am going to place a
bomb in the school’s gym.”
• Indirect – tends to be vague, unclear, and ambiguous. The plan, the
intended victim, the motivation, and other aspects are masked or equivocal:
e.g., “If I wanted to, I could kill everyone here!” This suggests the act
COULD occur, not that it WILL.
• Veiled – strongly implies but does not explicitly threaten violence. Violence
is only hinted, and left for the potential victim to interpret: e.g., “We would
be better off without you around anymore.”
• Conditional – often seen in extortion cases. It warns that a violent act will
happen unless certain demands or terms are met. e.g., “If you don’t pay me
one million dollars, I will place a bomb in the school.”
Other Factors To Consider
• Specific, plausible details: are a critical factor in
evaluating a threat. Details can indicate that substantial thought,
planning, and preparatory steps have already been taken,
suggesting a higher risk that the threatener will follow through.
• Emotional content: can tell you something about the
temperament or mental state of the threatener, but there is no
correlation between emotional intensity and the risk a threat will be
carried out.
• Precipitating stressor: may seem insignificant and
suggest the threat is unlikely, but in fact it can be a catalyst when
combined with pre-disposing personality factors (e.g., vulnerability
to loss and depression). A minor argument could set off a chain
reaction leading to a threat and subsequent violence.
Levels of Risk
• LOW Level Threat – minimal risk to victim and
public safety.
 Is vague and indirect.
Information is inconsistent, implausible or lacks detail.
 Threat lacks realism.
 Content suggests person is unlikely to carry it out.
e.g., John Doe sends some student an e-mail message
saying: “You are a dead man.” or a student is told, “I’m
going to destroy those guys with my nuclear bomb!”
Levels of Risk
• MEDIUM Level Threat – could be carried out,
although it may not appear entirely realistic.
 More direct & concrete than low level threat.
 Wording suggests the threatener has given some thought to
how the act will be carried out.
 May have general indication of possible place & time.
 No strong indication that the threatener has taken
preparatory steps, although there may be some veiled
reference or ambiguous or inconclusive evidence.
 There may be a statement to suggest the threat is not empty:
“I’m serious!” or “I really mean this!”
e.g., “If I wanted to, I could wipe out everybody in this school at
the next assembly! You’d better listen, cause I’m serious!”
Levels of Risk
• HIGH Level Threat – appears to pose an imminent and
serious danger to the safety of others.
 - Threat is direct, specific and plausible.
 - Threat suggests concrete steps have been taken toward
carrying it out. e.g., statements indicating that the threatener has
acquired or practiced with a weapon, or has had the victim under
surveillance.
e.g., “At eight o’clock tomorrow morning, I intend to shoot the
principal. That’s when he is in the office by himself. I have a 9
mm. Believe me, I know what I am doing. I am sick and tired of
the way he runs this school!”
THREAT
School Psychologist leads a
Four-Pronged Assessment
• Student’s Personality
• Family Dynamics
• School Dynamics/ Role
• Social Dynamics
Staff or Student
Reports Threat
To Principal or
Vice Principal
For ALL Cases
Inform:
• Central Administration
• Student Services
• School Staff
School Admin. consults with
Psychologist & Crisis Counsellor to
consider recommendations for
intervention plan
Plan is
implemented
Principal or
Vice-Principal
Assesses Threat:
1. Type:
-
Direct
Indirect
Veiled
Conditional
2. Level:
- Low
- Medium
- High
If Threat is HIGH,
Inform R.C.M.P.,
Mental Health,
Parents, Potential
Victims
Four-Pronged Assessment
• This model, released by the FBI in 1999, is designed to assess
someone who has made a threat and evaluate the likelihood that
the threat will actually be carried out.
• Evaluating the threat alone will not establish if the threatener
has the intention, the ability, or the means to act on the threat.
Student’s Personality
Social Dynamics
Threat Assessment
Model:
School Dynamics
& Student’s Role
Based on the totality of
circumstances in
four major areas:
Family Dynamics
•
The Four-Pronged Assessment includes reference lists of many
types of behaviour, traits, and circumstances that should be
considered only after a student has made some type of threat.
CAUTIONS:
1. No one or two traits should be considered in isolation, or
given more weight than the others. The more problems that
are identified in each of the four prongs, the greater the level
of concern.
2. Behaviour is an expression of personality, but one bad day
may not reflect a student’s usual behaviour pattern.
3. The Four-Pronged Assessment cannot substitute for a
clinical diagnosis of mental illness. Having a mental illness
can elevate the risk of violence. Therefore, a psychiatric
evaluation may be necessary.
Four-Pronged Assessment
Questions To Consider
1. What motivated the student to make the statements, or take the action that
caused him/her to come to attention?
2. What has the student communicated to anyone concerning his/her
intentions?
3.
Has the student shown an interest in targeted violence, perpetrators of
targeted violence, weapons, extremist groups, or murder?
4. Has the student engaged in attack-related behaviour, including any
menacing, harassing, and/or stalking-type behaviour?
5.
Does the student have a history of mental illness involving command
hallucinations, delusional ideas, feelings of persecution, etc., with
indications that the student has acted on those beliefs?
Four-Pronged Assessment
Questions Cont’d…
6.
How organized is the student? Is he/she capable of developing and
carrying out a plan?
7. Has the student experienced a recent loss and/or loss of status, and has
this led to feelings of desperation and despair?
8. Corroboration. What is the student saying and is it consistent with
his/her actions?
9. Is there concern among those who know the student that he/she might
take action based on inappropriate ideas?
10. What factors in the student’s life and/or environment might
increase/decrease the likelihood of the student attempting to attack the
target?
Prong One: Personality Traits
and Behaviour
Student’s Personality
Social Dynamics
Threat Assessment
Model:
Based on the totality of
circumstances in
four major areas:
School Dynamics
& Student’s Role
Family Dynamics
Prong One: Personality Traits
and Behaviour
• Leakage – reveals clues to feelings, thoughts fantasies,
attitudes, or intentions that may signal an impending violent act.
e.g., preoccupation with themes of violence, hopelessness,
despair, hatred, isolation, loneliness, or an “end-of-the-world”
philosophy. Recurrent themes of destruction or violence in a
student’s writing or artwork.
• Low Frustration Tolerance – easily insulted/ angered
• Poor Coping Skills – little ability to cope with frustration,
criticism, disappointment, failure, rejection
• Lack of Resiliency – unable to bounce back, even after
some time has elapsed.
Prong One - Personality
• Failed Love Relationship – may feel rejected or
humiliated and cannot come to terms with the rejection.
• Injustice Collector – nurses resentment over real or
perceived injustices. Does not forgive and forget.
• Signs of Depression – lethargy, fatigue, morose
outlook, sense of malaise, irritability, loss of interest in activities,
low self-esteem, hopelessness, restlessness, inattention,
forgetfulness, sleeping and eating problems.
• Narcissism – self-centered, lacks insight into others’ needs
and /or feelings, blames others, paranoia, grandiosity.
• Alienation – feels estranged from others, not fitting in.
Prong One - Personality
• Dehumanizes Others – fails to see others as fellow
humans. Sees others as objects to be opposed.
• Lack of Empathy – inability to understand the feelings of
others. May ridicule others for their display of feelings.
• Exaggerated Sense of Entitlement – expects
special treatment and consideration.
• Attitude of Superiority – I’m O.K., You’re Not.
• Exaggerated Need for Attention – whether positive
or negative, thrives on attention.
• Externalizes Blame – refuses to take responsibility for
own actions and typically faults others.
• Anger Management Problems – temper tantrums,
brooding, unpredictable outbursts involving prejudice or hatred.
Prong One - Personality
• Intolerance – expresses racial or religious prejudice.
• Inappropriate Humour – jokes tend to be macabre,
insulting, belittling, or mean.
• Seeks to Manipulate Others – frequently tries to con
and manipulate others to win their trust.
• Lack of Trust – chronically suspicious of others’ motives.
Approaches a clinically paranoid state.
• Closed Social Group – introverted, may have
acquaintances or a small group that excludes others.
• Rigid & Opinionated – judgmental and cynical,
disregards facts or logic that challenges his opinions.
Prong One End
• Unusual Interest in Sensational Violence –
expresses admiration for perpetrators of violence.
• Fascination With Violent Entertainment – any
media (e.g., TV, games, books) that focuses on violence.
• Negative Role Models – Hitler, Satan, etc.
• Behaviour Appears Relevant To Carrying Out
a Threat – e.g., spending unusual amounts of time practicing
with firearms, or visiting violent websites, instead of usual daily
activities.
Personality Assessment
• Student Interview – explore interests and hobbies, favorite
movies, clubs, teams, friends, bullying, emotions, physical health, stress
response style, reality testing, depression, suicidal and homicidal ideation,
future outlook, role models, attitude toward violence, motives behind the
threat, etc.
• Weinberg Depression Scale for Children and
Adolescents
• Suicidal Ideation Questionnaire
• Parent Interview – parent’s perceptions of their child’s
temperament and personality (e.g., stress tolerance, impulsivity & risk-taking,
cooperation, responsibility with chores & homework, hobbies and interests,
strengths, how child gets along with family & friends, history of lying, theft,
vandalism, animal cruelty, aggression, weapon use, etc.).
• Child Behaviour Checklist – check social withdrawal,
depression, thought problems, aggressive, and delinquent behaviour scales.
Prong Two: Family Dynamics
Student’s Personality
Social Dynamics
Threat Assessment
Model:
Based on the totality of
circumstances in
four major areas:
School Dynamics
& Student’s Role
Family Dynamics
Prong Two: Family Dynamics
• Turbulent Parent-Child Relationship: Student
expresses contempt for parents, and dismisses or rejects their
role. There is evidence of violence in the home. May be loss of
a parent, addition of a step-parent, or multiple moves.
• Acceptance of Pathological Behaviour: Parents
appear unconcerned or minimize their child’s disturbing
behaviour. They are overly defensive about criticism toward
their child and reject reports of misconduct.
• Access To Weapons: Guns, knives, or explosive
materials are accessible to the student at home. Guns are not
properly locked away, and may be left loaded.
• Lack of Intimacy: Family lacks intimacy and closeness.
The family has moved frequently and/or recently.
Prong Two End
• Student “Rules The Roost”: Parents set few or no
limits on child’s conduct, and regularly give in to his demands.
The student insists on an inordinate degree of privacy. Parents
know little about the student’s activities, friends, and life.
• No Limits or Monitoring of TV and Internet:
Student is free to watch violent or inappropriate shows. Student
spends an inordinate amount of time watching TV rather than
being in activities with family and friends. Parents do not
monitor computer use or internet access. Student may be
involved in violent games, or internet research on violence,
weapons, hate literature, Satanism, etc.
Family Dynamics Assessment
• Parental Interview – attachment, parental involvement,
communication styles, emotional support, degree of conflict, conflict
resolution, discipline methods, Internet access, firearms access,
privacy/supervision, drug & alcohol use, family recreation, marital conflict,
home stability, influence of siblings, etc.
• Home Issues Checklist
• Student Interview – who is child close to, wishes for family,
resentments, chores, rules, discipline, amount of freedom, communication,
conflict resolution, displays of affection, parental involvement, position, roles,
history of abuse/neglect, assistance with homework, etc.
• Kinetic Family Drawing – Look for student’s proximity to
each family member, encapsulation, bottom edging, no eyes or ears, presence
of teeth, weapons, extensions, relative size, same vs. different activities,
isolation, absence of certain family members, embedded X, blackening, etc.
Prong Three: School Dynamics
Student’s Personality
Social Dynamics
Threat Assessment
Model:
Based on the totality of
circumstances in
four major areas:
School Dynamics
& Student’s Role
Family Dynamics
Prong Three: School Dynamics
• Student’s Attachment to School: Student appears
“detached” from school, including other students, teachers, and
school activities.
• Tolerance for Disrespectful Behaviour: The
school does little to prevent or punish disrespectful behaviour
among students. Bullying is a part of the school culture. Students
frequently act in the role of bully, victim, or bystander.
• Inequitable Discipline: The use of discipline is
inequitably applied – or has the perception of being inequitably
applied by students and/or staff.
• Inflexible Culture: The school’s culture is static,
unyielding, and insensitive to changes in society and the changing
needs of newer students.
Prong Three: End
• Pecking Order Among Students: Certain groups of
students are officially or unofficially given more prestige and respect
than others. These groups are treated as though they are more
important or more valuable to the school than other students.
• Code of Silence: A “code of silence” prevails among
students. Few feel that they can safely tell teachers or administrators
if they are concerned about another student’s behaviour or attitudes.
• Unsupervised Computer Access: Access to
computers and the internet is unsupervised and unmonitored.
Students are able to play violent computer games, explore web sites
that promote hate groups, or give instructions for bomb-making.
School Dynamics Assessment
• Principal Interview – Collect facts about the threat, knowledge
of peer conflict, past offences, possession of weapons, drug/alcohol use, etc.
• Cumulative Record Review – Look for history of
aggressive behaviour and disciplinary actions, degree of academic success, etc.
• Teacher Interviews – How is student in class, marks, conflict
with peers, knowledge of family support, aggressive comments/ drawings, etc.
• Guidance Counsellor Interview – Has the student
considered suicide, has student been victim of bullying, does student have
interest in weapons, student’s home situation, recent losses, peer reports, etc.
• Peer Interviews – What has the student said about hurting
others, getting revenge, gaining attention/fame, obtaining or practicing with
weapons, drug/alcohol use, interest in violence, cruelty to animals, etc.
• Student Interview – Likes and dislikes at school, relationships
with teachers and students, cliques, bullying, rejection, resentments, wishes for
those at school, school subjects, marks, supports, the threat made, the target…
Schools should maintain
documentation of all prior
incidents or problems involving
students so it can be
considered in future threat
assessments.
Prong Four: Social Dynamics
Student’s Personality
Social Dynamics
Threat Assessment
Model:
Based on the totality of
circumstances in
four major areas:
School Dynamics
& Student’s Role
Family Dynamics
Prong Four: Social Dynamics
• Media, Entertainment, Technology: The student
has easy and unmonitored access to movies, television shows,
computer games, and Internet sites with themes of extreme
violence.
• Peer Groups: The student is intensely and exclusively
involved with a group who share a fascination with violence and
extremist beliefs. The student spends little or no time with anyone
who thinks differently or who could provide a “reality check.”
• Drugs and Alcohol: Knowledge of a student’s use of
drugs and alcohol and his attitude toward these can be
important. Any changes involving substance use can also be
important.
Prong Four: End
• Outside Interests: A student’s interests outside school
are important to note, as they can mitigate the school’s concern
when evaluating a threat or increase the level of concern.
• The Copycat Effect: Violent incidents that receive intense
media attention can generate threats or copycat violence elsewhere.
Students, teachers, administrators and law enforcement officials
should be more vigilant in noting disturbing student behaviour in the
months following a heavily publicized incident elsewhere in Canada
or a nearby state in the U.S.
A Final Look At The Protocol Flowchart…
THREAT
School Psychologist
leads a Four-Pronged
Assessment
• Student’s Personality
• Family Dynamics
• School Dynamics/ Role
• Social Dynamics
Staff or Student
Reports Threat
To Principal or
Vice Principal
For ALL Cases
Inform:
• Central Administration
• Student Services
• School Staff
School Principal consults with
Psychologist & Crisis Counsellor to
consider recommendations for
intervention plan
Plan is
implemented
Principal or
Vice-Principal
Assesses Threat:
1. Type:
-
Direct
Indirect
Veiled
Conditional
2. Level:
- Low
- Medium
- High
If Threat is HIGH,
Inform R.C.M.P.,
Mental Health,
Parents, Potential
Victims
Beginning Threat Assessment
Implementation
• Meet with Student Services, mental health, and law enforcement
personnel to expand the safety plan for your school.
• At the beginning of each school year, communicate (e.g., via newsletter,
Safe Schools Handbook, student planner, divisional calendar, general
assembly, etc.) the following plan to parents, students, and teachers:
 Threats against others will not be tolerated at school.
 If a student makes a threat that disturbs others, an out-of-school suspension
will likely follow, at the discretion of the principal. This will continue until a
threat assessment and decision-making plan has been completed.
 If the threat is considered a high risk to the safety of others, the RCMP will
be immediately notified, and charges may be laid under the Criminal Code.
Furthermore, the local mental health worker will be notified to access the
regional psychiatrist who will do a final assessment of the student’s mental
health.
Possible Treatment
Interventions
- Church youth group
- Drop-in centre
- Youth pastor
- Organized sports
- Scouts or 4H
- YMCA
- May charge student
- May send to probation
- May recommend Alternative
Measures
- May remand into custody
Community
Groups
- Remove child
in need of
protection
- Family support
worker
- Family
counselling
- Arrange for
family therapy
- Special Friends
mentor
Child &
Family
Services
- Assess mental status
- Provide therapy
- Medication treatment
- Family counselling
- M.A.T.C.
RCMP
School
Target
Student
Mental
Health
- Educational adaptations
- EA support in class
- Implement behaviour plan
- Increase supervision
- Guidance counsellor support
- Bully-proofing program
- Arrange work experience
Student
Services
Family
- Suggest educational
adaptations
- Individual counselling
- Group counselling
- Bully-proof awareness
- Behaviour planning
- Parenting education
- Help acquire funding
- Increase supervision
- Restrict all weapon use
- Restrict Internet access
- Improve communication
- Provide effective
consequences
- Arrange for lessons or
private tutoring
Manitoba Education, Training and Youth is committed
to
fostering inclusion for all people
__________________________________________
Inclusion
is a way of thinking and acting that
allows
every individual
to feel
accepted, valued and safe.
References
Borum, R. (2002). Assessing violence risk among youth. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 56,
1263-1288.
Borum, R., Bartel, P. & Forth, A. (2002). Manual for the structured assessment of violence in
youth (SAVRY). Tampa, Florida: University of South Florida.
Borum, R., Fein, R., Vossekuil, B., & Berlund, J. (1999). Threat assessment: defining an
approach for evaluating risk of targeted violence. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 17, 323-337.
Fein, R.A., et. al. (2002). Threat assessment in schools: a guide to managing threatening
situations and to creating safe school climates. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Secret Service and
U.S. Department of Education.
"A Time Line of Recent Worldwide School Shootings." Infoplease.com.
© 2002 Family Education Network.
3 Jul. 2002 <http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777958.html>.
Kramen, A.J. Massey, K.R., & Timm, H.W. (1999). Guide for preventing and responding to
school violence. Alexandria, VA: International Association of Chiefs of Police.
References Cont’d…
O’Toole, M.E. (1999). The school shooter: a threat assessment perspective. Quantico,
Virginia.: Department of Justice – Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Reddy, M., Borum, R., Vossekuil, B., Fein., Berglund, J., & Modzeleski, W. (2002).
Evaluating risk for targeted violence in schools: comparing risk assessment, treat
assessment, and other approaches. Psychology In The Schools.
Vossekuil, B., et. al (2002). The final report and findings of the safe school initiative:
implications for the prevention of school attacks in the United States. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Secret Service and U.S. Department of Education.
Download