Presentation on theme: "Skagit County Student Safety Assessment Team. Lori Stolee Director, Prevention Center Northwest Educational Service District 189 360-299-4010"— Presentation transcript:
Skagit County Student Safety Assessment Team
Lori Stolee Director, Prevention Center Northwest Educational Service District
History of Community Collaboration in Skagit County
(A.R.I.S.) At Risk Intervention Specialist program
Beginning of school violence and targeted school violence community collaboration
Need for education of the community of risk and threat assessment verses mental health assessment
Early Intervention & Prevention
Change in School Climate
The mission of the Prevention Center is... …to promote student academic success by providing leadership, support, and resources to help schools create a safe and supportive learning environment.
A need was identified thru the Skagit Violence Prevention Workgroup
Integrated Systems Relationship
FERPA “What about it?”
The Final Report of the Safe School Initiative (listed key findings from the Secret Service study of school shooters)
Salem-Keizer School District S.T.A.T. Student Threat Assessment Team
"Taking Ownership" Northwest ESD189 Skagit County Student Safety Assessment Team
Work Begins Presented overview and received buy-in from Superintendents Held meetings for administrators, counselors and community partners Building teams were identified and participated in trainings Potential County Team members were identified and received specialized training
Steering Committee Oversees the process under the direction of NWESD 189 Members Represent NWESD 189 School District Mental Health Law Enforcement
County Level Team This team was assembled and approved through recommendations made to the Steering Committee. This team is made up of members from both school and community and represents… Education Mental Health Law Enforcement
Help Put the Pieces Together
School incident or heightened concern over escalating behavior indicated a request for a Building Level Assessment Principal, in consultations with other key building staff, decides to conduct a Building Level Assessment
Building Level Team Principal Assistant Principal Counselor School Resource Officer Dean of Students School Psychologist
Outcome of a Building Assessment School decides to handle the situation with a management plan OR Building Team has increased concerns and calls NWESD 189 to set up a County Level Assessment
County Level Process School district makes request by calling NWESD 189 Dispatch Building Level Assessment report and related facts are sent to NWESD 189 –Checklist –Parent Questionnaire –Teacher Questionnaire –Other related reports ESD Dispatch makes contact with County Team members and assembles a 4 person unit to meet with Building Team. Education, Law Enforcement, Mental Health and NWESD 189 are every County Level Assessment
County Level Assessment Building Level Report is distributed to team members Law Enforcement and Mental Health complete forms County Level Team meets with the Building Level Team Building Level Team gives updates since their report Members of the County Level Team share information gathered and ask questions for clarification and for additional information
County Level Assessment The four member County Team meets and makes a determination of level of risk for Targeted Violence and for Reactive Violence The County Team makes recommendations to the Building Team for management of the case County Level Team monitors the cases at their bi-monthly meetings
Benefits of a County Team Brings expertise to the assessment process Serves in a consultative role Makes recommendations to the district through a formal report Case management remains with the district County Team meets twice a month to monitor cases
Additional Benefits of the Process Administrators use the forms in day to day handling of student behavior Principals have someone to turn to when they have questions Parents are generally less defensive Greater buy-in and ownership for both schools and community
Collaborative Team Investigative Process
Shared Decision Making * Shared Responsibility
Throughout the Safety Assessment process we are always promoting an atmosphere of safety
Case Vignette “Billy” Billy 15 years old 10th grade Billy came to school agitated (home situation) Verbal altercations with students and staff Attempts to deescalate failed Billy called mom and left the building Returned to campus with a carton of eggs and a hatchet (with concealed knife) Laid the hatchet on the sidewalk and proceeded to egg the school Teacher called 911 – Billy left Nearby elementary school went into lockdown Billy was emergency suspended
Building Level Assessment Report Mom says aggressive behavior is escalating and mom is afraid to confront him and is afraid of Billy for herself and his two younger sisters (9 and 12) Billy is friends with a 53 year old neighbor – Vietnam Special Forces Vet The hatchet Billy had was shoplifted Billy was in anger management class several years ago – quit going
Building Level Assessment Report Prescription medication for ADHD – no longer takes it Billy reports that he punches holes in the walls of his bedroom when angry Billy cut his arms with knife and smeared the blood on walls and face – evaluated at the hospital and released Protective factors in Billy’s life: Billy wants to return to school and graduate Billy has strong academic skills Has a girl friend
County Level Assessment Information from education: School attendance history – Billy has changed schools 15 different times since kindergarten History of occasional disciplinary problems since elementary Information from law enforcement: 21 CPS referrals since 1991 One of his best friends is a dangerous kid who often takes the lead in hurting others Has some association with known gang members Girlfriend ran away from home Girl friend’s house was burglarized last night and several guns were taken
LEVEL OF POTENTIAL FOR TARGETED VIOLENCE OR AGGRESSION LOW OR MINOR RISK FOR HARM – Vague or indirect information contained within the threat is inconsistent. Threat is implausible or lacks detail; lacks realism. Context of threat suggests that action is unlikely. Little history of serious risk factors or dangerous behavior. Inhibitors are present. Aggression is affective. Threats are for stress relief or bravado. Targeted aggressive (not violent) behavior that has little potential for physical injury. Bullying. MODERATE RISK FOR HARM – Indication of some premeditation or planning with general implications of place, time, target (still short of detailed plan). No strong indication of preparatory steps; although, there may be some veiled reference or ambiguous evidence of threat possibility (reference to gun availability, movie with theme or sequence specific violent act). Some inhibitors present as well as an indication of desire for help. Targeted aggression that has intention for physical injury (but not serious or lethal injury).
LEVEL OF POTENTIAL FOR TARGETED VIOLENCE OR AGGRESSION HIGH RISK FOR HARM – Threat appears to pose serious danger to others. Threat is direct, specific, detailed, and plausible. Information suggests the presence of concrete preparations, target, and planning. Few inhibitors. Identified precipitating events. Likely to qualify for immediate arrest or hospitalization. IMMINENT RISK FOR HARM – Same criteria as “High Risk for Harm” but with the possession of weapons and a situation that is clearly close to dangerous or explosive.
LEVEL OF POTENTIAL FOR AFFECTIVE / REACTIVE AGGRESSION OR VIOLENCE LOW OR MINOR RISK FOR HARM – Responsive to interventions. Has little or no history of affective hostility or violent reaction; (or violence is primarily targeted). MODERATE RISK FOR HARM – Interventions are effective but student can be resistive and hostile given the identified agitation. Somewhat unstable and requires extra staff effort to restrain. Peers and staff are frequently on guard. Aggressive behavior remains non-lethal or non-serious. Little indication of potential for violence (action that causes serious or lethal injury). HIGH RISK FOR HARM – Student impulsively and effectively reacts in aggressive or violent ways. Interventions are frequent and considerable in order to restrain aggression / violence. Considerable modification and restriction are required to control aggression and avoid violence. Student is unresponsive or has limited response to intervention.
County Level Targeted Risk CURRENT CONCERN FOR VIOLENCE AND RISK: HIGH for REACTIVE VIOLENCE MODERATE risk for involvement in circumstances of targeted VIOLENCE OR AGRESSION 1.Escalating pattern of thinking or behaving that indicates idea or plan for a targeted attack (idea to action). 2.Communication of intention to harm specified individuals, groups, or property. 3.Development of a plan for violence. 4.Other students aware of possible plans or ideation. 5.Presence of peer collaboration. 6.Other students, friends, staff, parents concerned about possible violence. 7.Perception of self as victimized bullied, persecuted, and humiliated. 8.Presence of despair with communicated solution of violence. 9.Communication suggesting targeted violence as solution to circumstances. 10.Identification and/or sympathy with notoriously violent people or groups. 11.Attempt to acquire a gun. 12.Guns easily accessed. 13.Guns available within community. 14.Suicidal ideation associated with violence against others
Provide a contract learning situation with a one-on-one male aide (at least for the short term) Address IEP needs Review BIP and de-escalation techniques with teacher Require Drug/Alcohol Evaluation Consider keeping him in a situation where his activities can be monitored Complete a home visit by local law enforcement. “Knock and talk” follow-up with alleged neighbor, also with local law enforcement. County Level Recommendations
Follow-up on recent burglary involving stolen weapons to determine any connection to Billy Consider placement at Skagit Discovery Investigate why the 5 year gap in law enforcement referrals Touch base with primary care physician Follow-up with CPS investigation Get parent release and request the previous psychological evaluation from other school
NWESD / SKAGIT COUNTY STUDENT SAFETY ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Summary of County Level Student Safety Assessment DATE STUDENT NAME DOB AGE GRADE SCHOOLFOLLOW UP DATE ADMINISTRATIVE CASE MANAGER The information present in, and the recommendations based on this assessment and report are prefaced with the following disclaimer: This is not a prediction of future violence, nor is it a foolproof method of assessing an individual's short or long term risk of harm to others. The purposes of this assessment are noted below. INCIDENT: This student was referred to the Student Safety Assessment Team (SSAT) due to:
CURRENT CONCERN FOR VIOLENCE AND RISK: This report was generated through the efforts of the student safety assessment system (members of SCSSAT) and identifies situational risk factors and elements that increase potential danger or violence. It is an examination of current circumstances and as these circumstances change, so too do the risk potential; therefore, review the following while being mindful of supervision, intervention and passage of time. The report is also for consideration in the supervision, intervention, and management of threatening or dangerous circumstances involving students. For information regarding the Building Level or County Level safety assessment process, these results, threat management interventions, and student supervision, contact NWESD Dispatch at (360) The results of the safety assessment indicate that the student identified above is, at this time, considered at the following level of potential for affective/reactive aggression or violence: Classified as: ________ ___Low or minor risk for harm ___Moderate risk for harm ___High risk for harm
However, the student does not appear to be (through investigation of risk factors) planning, rehearsing, or preparing to target individuals or prepare for targeted aggression or violence. Further information and detail regarding this assessment is available by contacting the Case Manager/Administrator (noted above) at the student’s school, the SRO/Security assigned to that school or NWESD Dispatch (360) (See attached description of levels). The results of the safety assessment indicate that the student identified above is, at this time, considered at the following level of potential for targeted violence or aggression: Classified as: ___________ ___ Low or minor risk for harm ___ Moderate risk for harm ___ High risk for harm ___ Imminent risk for harm The following are a list of concerns aggravating that risk: ___Escalating pattern of thinking or behaving that indicates idea or plan for a targeted attack (idea to action). ___ Communication of intention to harm specified individuals, groups, or property.
___Development of a plan for violence. ___ Other students aware of possible plans or ideation. ___ Presence of peer collaboration. ___ Other students, friends, staff, parents concerned about possible violence. ___ Perception of self as victimized bullied, persecuted, and humiliated. ___ Presence of despair with communicated solution of violence. ___ Communication suggesting targeted violence as solution to circumstances. ___ Identification and/or sympathy with notoriously violent people or groups. ___ Attempt to acquire a gun. ___ Guns easily accessed. (guns in the home under lock and key) ___Guns available within community. ___ Suicidal ideation associated with violence against others ___ Motives include ______________________________________.
The concerns noted above are risk factors in targeted violence identified through the current research by the United States Secret Service, the United States FBI, the United States Dept. of Education, and other pertinent research available upon request. Further information and detail regarding this assessment is available by contacting the Case Manager (Administrator) at the student’s school, the SRO/Security assigned to that school or NWESD Dispatch (360) Following are additional concerns that may be contributing at this time (these are beyond those identified above and situational to this individual) A summary of violence inhibitors and aggravators as well as supervision strategies is listed on the Student Safety Assessment Team County Level Recommendations Form (attached).