Threat Assessment Protocol Developed by: Ron Teffaine, M.Ed., Student Services, Hanover SD, 2002.

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.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0 - 11 years 12 - 17years

18 - 24years

Canadian Male Homicide Suspects

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0 - 11 years 12 - 17years

18 - 24years

Canadian Female Homicide Suspects

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

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

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

crazy?

Is their motive

revenge?

Are they bullies

or victims?

Hunger

for

attention?

Hatred for theirvictims?

• 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%)

Some of Many Proposed Warning Signs for Identifying Possible Targeted Violence:

Kip Kinkel – 15

Eric Harris – 18, Dylan Klebold - 17

Mitchell Johnson - 13Andrew Golden - 11

Luke Woodham - 16

Charles Williams - 15

Students That Have Murdered At School

There is no single psychological profileat present to help predict which student

will commit lethal violence.

Traditional Non-Traditional

- Severe EBD - No apparent disruptive - Conduct Disorder behaviour disorder- Antisocial Personality Disorder - Viewed as a “good kid”- Psychopathic - Never or rarely been in - Viewed as a “bad kid” trouble

Students who commit serious school violence can function anywhere on this continuum.

Results from the Safe School Initiative Study

• 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.

Characterizing the Attacker:

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 do you need a Threat Assessment

Protocol?

Why A Threat Assessment Protocol?

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.

FOUR GOOD REASONS:

Once a threat is made, having a fair, rational,

and standardized method of evaluating and

responding is critically important

Once a threat is made, having a fair, rational,

and standardized method of evaluating and

responding is critically important

Hanover School DivisionThreat Assessment Protocol

Overview

THREAT

Staff or StudentReports ThreatTo Principal orVice Principal

Principal orVice-PrincipalAssesses 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

For ALL CasesInform:• Central Administration• Student Services• School Staff

School Psychologist leads a Four-Pronged Assessment• Student’s Personality • Family Dynamics• School Dynamics/ Role• Social Dynamics

School Admin. consults with Psychologist & Crisis Counsellor to consider recommendations for intervention plan

Plan is implemented

THREAT

Staff or StudentReports Threat To Principal orVice Principal

InitialAssessment of Threats





Victims




Plan is implemented

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 ReportThe 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 thethreat 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 messagesaying: “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

Staff or StudentReports ThreatTo Principal orVice Principal






Victims




Plan is implemented

Four-Pronged Assessment

• Evaluating the threat alone will not establish if the threatener has the intention, the ability, or the means to act on the threat.

• 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.

Threat Assessment Model:

Based on the totality ofcircumstances in four major areas:

Student’s Personality

Family DynamicsSchool Dynamics& Student’s Role

Social 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.

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?


Questions To Consider

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?


Questions Cont’d…




Prong One: Personality Traits and Behaviour


Social 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.


• 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.


• 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





Social 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 PersonalitySocial 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.

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





Social 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

Staff or Student Reports ThreatTo Principal orVice Principal






Victims



School Principal consults with Psychologist & Crisis Counsellor to consider recommendations for intervention plan

Plan is implemented

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

Target Student

School

StudentServices

MentalHealth

Child &Family

Services

CommunityGroups

Family

- Assess mental status- Provide therapy- Medication treatment- Family counselling- M.A.T.C.

- Increase supervision- Restrict all weapon use- Restrict Internet access- Improve communication- Provide effective consequences- Arrange for lessons or private tutoring

- Suggest educational adaptations- Individual counselling- Group counselling- Bully-proof awareness- Behaviour planning- Parenting education- Help acquire funding

- Educational adaptations- EA support in class- Implement behaviour plan- Increase supervision- Guidance counsellor support- Bully-proofing program- Arrange work experience

- Church youth group- Drop-in centre- Youth pastor- Organized sports- Scouts or 4H- YMCA

- Remove child in need of protection- Family support worker- Family counselling- Arrange for family therapy- Special Friends mentor

RCMP

- May charge student- May send to probation- May recommend Alternative Measures- May remand into custody

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.

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.

Threat Assessment Protocol Developed by: Ron Teffaine, M.Ed., Student Services, Hanover SD, 2002.

Documents

Transcript of Threat Assessment Protocol Developed by: Ron Teffaine, M.Ed., Student Services, Hanover SD, 2002.