Violence prevention & response task force January XX, 2016

1. Violence prevention &response task forceJanuary XX, 2016

2. Threat Assessment protocol • Purpose • Intervention to mitigate risk, injury and provide assistance for a student posing a threat to themselves, others and/or the campus. • Training • The director of safety and student services would provide professional development no less than 2 times per school year through trainings or team meetings.

3. Terms • high-risk behaviors – potential for violence: • Verbal/written threats to kill or cause grievous bodily harm that are clear, direct and plausible • Electronic communication (i.e., text message, social media posts, website creation, etc.) to kill or cause grievous bodily harm that are clear, direct and plausible • Possession of weapons or dangerous objects (including replicas) • Bomb threats • Gang related intimidation or violence • Setting fire at school • Group related intimidation and violence • Sexual intimidation or assault

4. Terms • Worrisome Behaviors– behaviors indicating the student is moving toward being a greater risk of violent or threatening behavior. • Examples: drawing graphic pictures depicting violence or weapons, posting cryptic messages containing vague language of self-harm or harming others on social media or the internet, or behaviors that appear to be anti-social.

5. Terms • Threat - An expression that iswritten, verbal, drawn, posted (social media or internet) or made by gesture to demonstrate intent to do harm, intimidate and/or create fear. may be direct, indirect, conditional or veiled. • Some indirect or veiled threats may not meet the standard for criminal consequences but would warrant a threat assessment. Not all threats or those that make threats are equal and most people who issue threats do so without the intent to carry out the threat.

6. Terms • Unauthored Threats- Threats that communicate an intent to commit a violent act against an individual(s), specific group, or site (i.e., school). They • may be found written on bathroom stalls, spray painted on school walls, posted on social media, or left by way of letter in conspicuous places (i.e., teacher’s desk). • Although unauthored threats may be credible in the world of global terrorism, in the field of school-based child and adolescent threat assessment, the lack of ownership (authorship) of the threat generally denotes a lack of commitment on the threat maker’s part. • measures should be taken to assess the unauthored threat, attempt to identify the threat maker and avoid or minimize the crisis/trauma response post-vention. • An under-reaction by school or District officials could lead to an overreaction by students, staff and/or community. • Note: There are no known North American cases where an unauthored threat to kill was issued and a homicide occurred on the day the threat was stated.

7. Terms • Exceptional Cases: High Profile Worrisome Behavior- The community may experience elevated levels of sensitivity immediately following an act of targeted violence. In these exceptional cases, “worrisome behavior” may need to be formally assessed by the Threat Assessment Team to avoid over-reactions by the community. • Non-School Hours Cases- If information is received by a Threat Assessment Team member regarding a threat that is clear, direct and plausible before or after school hours, law enforcement and parent/guardians will be notified immediately. If the threat is ongoing, the Threat Assessment Team will be activated.

8. When to activate Behaviors that Typically DO NOT Warrant Threat/Risk Assessment • Immediate Risk Situations • Worrisome Behaviors • Threats that occur during non-school hours • Threats made by elementary age students – Students of elementary age may still pose a risk/threat but may not elevate to formally activating the Threat Assessment Team. Law Enforcement may still be involved to provide the student and family valuable teaching moments and set clear parameters for future behavior.

9. When to activate Behaviors that Warrant Threat/Risk Assessment • High Risk Behaviors – Potential for violence • Threats – direct, clear and plausible • Violence • Lower baseline violence appears unprovoked • There is a clear imbalance of power between victim and perpetrator (age, size, social status, etc.) • No intent to harm is present • If the frequency, intensity, recentness of the violence denotes an increase in the behavioral baseline of the perpetrator(s) • Activate the Threat Assessment Team if: • Serious violence occurs • There is intent to seriously injure the target(s) • When weapons/dangerous objects (knives, guns, replicas, etc.) are brandished and/or used in the commission of the offense • Direct, clear and plausible threats to kill or seriously injure are communicated • Exceptional Cases: High Profile Worrisome Behavior

10. Parent notification Parent of target • Should be notified at earliest opportunity. • Handled with extreme thought, care and planning. • Pre-plan emotional supports. • Secure the targeted student first prior to parent notification if danger is imminent.

11. Parent notification Parent of threat maker • Should occur after the “screening” process. • Intention of notification is to partner with family for a comprehensive approach to support. • If child abuse is reported, parent notification may be delayed or may be done by CPS.

12. Interview (Screening) considerations the Threat Assessment Team should ask the following questions: • How much time do we have? • Who will be interviewed? • In what order will we interview? • Who will interview whom? • Are there enough locations to keep those interviewed separated?

13. procedures STEP 1 – REPORTING • Any person in a school having knowledge of high-risk student behavior or having reasonable grounds to believe there is a potential for high-risk behavior shall promptly report the information to a school official. • No action will be taken against a person who makes a genuine report. • If a false report is knowingly made with malicious intent and/or without reasonable grounds, school administration will seek appropriate consequences for the reporting party.

14. procedures STEP 2 – ASSESSING LEVEL OF THREAT/SCREENING The reported behavior/incident can be classified into four categories. • Immediate Risk Situation • Threat Making Behavior • Worrisome Behavior • Exceptional Cases: High Profile Worrisome Behavior * An administrator and the Threat Assessment Team will determine which response is appropriate with the exception of the immediate risk.

15. procedures STEP 3 – THREAT ASSESSMENT (When data are obtained to suggest a student poses an actual threat, members of the Threat Assessment Team may conduct a comprehensive response by contacting physicians, social workers, psychologists, or psychiatrists. • Students who make threats may be suspended from school during the course of the assessment process to protect them and others from potential harm. • Factors to Consider • Personality of the student • Family Dynamics • Student’s Social Dynamics within School Setting • Student’s Social Dynamics outside School Setting

16. procedures STEP 4 – EVALUATION AND RESPONSE • Pre-suspension – School administration should consult the Threat Assessment Team to determine if suspension is warranted before making the final decision to suspend. • Assessment – A full threat assessment should be conducted and a full threat assessment report be completed • Supports – If students are suspended, feelings of isolation and disconnectedness may be exacerbated if healthy supports and a proactive “Return to School” plan are not in place. • Re-Entry into School – Threat Assessment Team outlines, in writing, steps the student, family, school and others need to follow to ensure an appropriate assessment is conducted prior to re-entry into school (See Re-Entry Plan).

17. REVIEW materials • Flow chart • Screening questions • Threat assessment Questions • Re-entry plan • Notice to families

23. Data 27 school incidents, 57 killed, 60 wounded • 14 occurred at a high school (12 of the 14 the shooters were students) • 6 occurred at a middle school (5 of the 6 the shooters were students) • 4 occurred at an elementary school (None of the shooters were students) • 1 occurred at a k-12 school • 2 occurred at a board meeting

24. Data school incidents • 10 shooters were apprehended at the scene (Age range 14-19) • 2 by police, 7 by school personnel, 1 by off Duty Police) • 3 committed suicide (1 before police arrived, 2 after police arrived) • 1 shooter fled and another committed suicide at another location • 6 occurred at a middle school (5 of the 6 the shooter were students age range 12-15) • 3 shooter apprehended by police, after restrained by school employees • 2 shooters committed suicide before police arrived • 1 shooter apprehended by police at the scene • 4 occurred at an elementary school (None of the shooters were students) • 3 shooters apprehended at the scene • 1 shooter committed suicide at the scene • 1 occurred at a k-12 school • 2 occurred at a board meeting

25. Data • 96% of the shooters were males • 51% of the shooters were deceased following the attack (43% committed suicide and 8% were shot and killed by responders) • 96% of the attacks involved shooters acting alone • 37% of the attacks occurred in workplaces and 17% occurred in an academic setting • 40% of the attacks were unable to be linked to a clear motivation • 21% of the attacks were motivated by workplace retaliation and 14% were motivated by domestic disputes • Academic retaliation by a current or former student only accounted for 7% of the attacks