天美传媒

School Police Liaison Officer (SPLO) Program Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

SPLO Program FAQ

Click on the links below to read more information.

  1. What was the School Police Liaison Officer (SPLO) program and how was it delivered in the Greater Victoria School District?
  2. Does the SD61 pay for SPLOs?
  3. How often were SPLOs in schools?
  4. What led to a review of the program?
  5. How was the review conducted?
  6. What consultation process was used during the SPLO program review?
  7. Why did the Board of Education end the SPLO program?
  8. According to the SD61 survey the majority of survey participants support SPLOs. Why should we end the program because of a few concerns?
  9. Are police allowed in schools?
  10. Are police being tracked/monitored on school grounds?
  11. Is crime increasing in schools?
  12. What about police taking a more trauma informed approach in schools, for example wearing golf shirts and not carrying firearms?
  13. What change in services can students expect since the Board of Education鈥檚 decision?
  14. More Information

 

听1. What was the School Police Liaison O铿僣er (SPLO) program and how was it delivered in the Greater Victoria School District?

  • The program was limited to the provision of a police o铿僣er to serve as a resource o铿僣er to families of schools. The approach taken by these o铿僣ers varied considerably from school to school and municipality to municipality.
  • The delivery of services varied from o铿僣er to o铿僣er, school to school, and municipality to municipality.
    • In 2018, the Victoria Police Department removed funding for the SPLO program that had serviced 15 schools in Victoria and Esquimalt.
    • Saanich Police Department had four liaison o铿僣ers, two youth team o铿僣ers and one supervisor dividing time between 26 schools in addition to private schools in the municipality.
    • Oak Bay had one o铿僣er splitting time between three SD61 schools in addition to private schools in the municipality.
    • The RCMP had two o铿僣ers splitting time between four schools.
  • No agreement between SD61 and Police Services nor formal documentation of the program or services and/or how it was delivered was established and the Board of Education had no oversight, or input into the delivery of the program or the goals and activities of Police Liaison O铿僣ers.
  • No data detailing the frequency of SPLO visits, nor how often they interacted with students was provided to or kept by SD61.

Back to top

2. Does the SD61 pay for SPLOs?

  • Police Liaison O铿僣ers are funded and administered by police departments without direction from the Board of Education.
  • The decision not to fund SPLOs in Victoria and Esquimalt schools was made in 2018 by the Victoria Police Department.

Back to top

3. How often were SPLOs in schools?

  • No data detailing the frequency of SPLO visits, nor how often they interacted with students was provided to or kept by the SD61.
  • Of the respondents surveyed during the review, many of them reported that they were not familiar with the SPLO program and didn鈥檛 know whether there was an SPLO assigned to their school.
  • Of the students surveyed, just over half of the students reported having no interactions with SPLOs.

Back to top

4. What led to a review of the program?

  • In September 2020, the Board of Education passed a motion to establish an Ad Hoc School Police Liaison O铿僣er Program Review Committee (“the Committee”).
  • The Committee was tasked with reviewing the SPLO Program guided by research and data-driven assessments, and informed by stakeholders鈥 lived experiences to:
  1. Determine what, if any, concerns there may be regarding the District’s School Police Liaison O铿僣er program; and
  2. Develop recommendations, as required, on what changes should be made to the program to improve its value to the school community including consideration of cessation of the program.
  • The role(s) of Police Liaison O铿僣ers in SD61 schools over several decades were not subject to any kind of formal review by SD61.
  • No formal documentation of the program or services and/or how they were delivered had ever been established and the Board of Education had no oversight, or input into the delivery of the program or the goals and activities of Police Liaison O铿僣ers.
  • The program lacked:
    • De铿乶ed objectives from each of the four police departments involved
    • Description of roles or responsibilities
    • Clarity regarding service levels
    • Reporting requirements or School District oversight
    • Guidance regarding the protection of students鈥 rights
    • Complaint or concern reporting
    • An ongoing review or assessment mechanism

Back to top

5. How was the review conducted?

  • An Ad Hoc School Police Liaison Officer Program Review Committee was established with a Terms of Reference available via the following link: sd61.bc.ca/board-of-education/ad-hoc-committees/
  • The following groups were invited to participate as members of the Committee: Trustees, Police Liaison O铿僣ers, GVTA representatives, CUPE representatives, VCPAC representatives, Principals and Vice Principals, Senior Leadership, students from each secondary school, Songhees Nation representative, Esquimalt Nation representative, Metis Nation representative, Urban Indigenous Representative, and Resilience BC Representative.
  • The decision was made following a 2 陆 year engagement process that included opportunities for all members of the learning community and the public to provide written submissions, take part in a Speakers Series and participate in a public survey.
  • At the request of the Committee, SPLO job descriptions were created for the committee with the assistance of an SD61 sta铿 member in collaboration with police.
  • School Police Liaison O铿僣er Program Review Ad Hoc Committee agendas are available via the following link: sd61.bc.ca/board-of-education/ad-hoc-committees/ad-hoc-committee-meeting-agendas/
  • School Police Liaison O铿僣er Program Review Ad Hoc Committee minutes are available via the following link: sd61.bc.ca/board-of-education/ad-hoc-committees/ad-hoc-committee-meeting-minutes/
  • While the Committee was unable to reach a consensus, in accordance with the terms of reference approved by the Board of Education, where consensus is not reached multiple options were reported to the Board of Education. The Committee delivered a 铿乶al report that included all the recommendations contributed by the members of the Committee, and the information, documents and reports considered (in excess of 2,000 pages).
  • The May 31, 2023 Board of Education Special Open Board Meeting pack up materials are available via the following link: sd61.bc.ca/board-of-education/meetings/title/special-board-of-education-meeting-may-31-2023/听
    • Approved motion: That the Board of Education of School District No. 61 (Greater Victoria) direct the Superintendent to end the SPLO Program; AND FURTHER the Superintendent will ensure that protocols are established in relation to the following matters: school emergencies, lockdowns, critical incidents, Violent Threat Risk Assessments and ongoing District tracking of all student interactions with Police while in the care of the Board of Education; AND FURTHER The Superintendent will provide the Board of Education with a list of the services no longer provided by SPLOs and suggestions for service provision moving forward.

Back to top

6. What consultation process was used during the SPLO program review?

  • The Committee received a Communications Plan developed by the Manager of Communications & 天美传媒 Engagement for SD61 which set out a process for consultation and a timeline to guide the work of the Committee.
  • The Committee conducted a public survey which was presented to the Education Policy and Directions Standing Committee in January 2022. The Committee also conducted a monthly Speakers Series open to anyone wishing to make a presentation to the Committee and also received written submissions.
  • The Committee also invited feedback from the following groups:
    • ICA
    • Inclusion BC
    • Native Friendship Centre
    • Victoria Immigrant and Refugee Centre Society
    • Pacific People鈥檚 Partnership
    • International Institute for Child Rights and Development (ties with Royal Roads)
    • Hulitan Family and 天美传媒 Services Society
    • UVIC 鈥 Indigenous Academic and 天美传媒 Engagement
    • Camosun 鈥 Centre for Indigenous Education and 天美传媒 Connections
    • Resilience BC
    • Mothers Against Racism
    • The Support Network for Indigenous Women and Women of Colour
    • Urban Native Youth Association
    • Mosaic BC
    • Out on Screen
    • BC 天美传媒 Alliance
    • Black Lives Matter Vancouver
    • BC Black History Awareness Society
    • Metis Nation of British Columbia
    • First Nations Health Authority
    • UVIC Academic Advisory Committee on Equity and Diversity
    • Jamaican 天美传媒 Victoria Association
    • Binkadi 天美传媒 Association
    • African Heritage Association of Vancouver Island

Back to top

7. Why did the Board of Education end the SPLO program?

  • The committee charged with reviewing the program learned that the program was limited to the provision of a police o铿僣er to serve as a resource o铿僣er to families of schools. The approach taken by these o铿僣ers varied considerably from o铿僣er to o铿僣er, school to school and municipality to municipality.
  • The role(s) of Police Liaison O铿僣ers in SD61 schools over several decades was not subject to any kind of formal review by SD61.
  • No formal documentation of the program or services and/or how it was delivered was established and the Board of Education had no oversight, or input into the delivery of the program or the goals and activities of Police Liaison O铿僣ers.
  • The program lacked:
    • De铿乶ed objectives from each of the four Police Departments involved
    • Description of roles or responsibilities
    • Clarity regarding service levels
    • Reporting requirements or School District oversight
    • Guidance regarding the protection of students鈥 rights
    • Complaint or concern reporting
    • An ongoing review or assessment mechanism
  • Some students reported negative lived experiences involving SPLOs and/or other members of the police including accusations of misconduct. Creating a trauma informed, inclusive and supportive environment for all students is a priority for the Board of Education.
  • The BC Human Rights Commissioner sent a letter dated 24 November 2022 to all school districts across British Columbia. In that letter, the BC Human Rights Commissioner said, 鈥淥ut of respect for the rights of students, I strongly recommend that all school districts end the use of SLOs until the impact of these programs can be established empirically.鈥 The BC Human Rights Commissioner added that, 鈥淔or school boards who choose not to take this step, it is incumbent on you to produce independent evidence of a need for SLOs that cannot be met through civilian alternatives and to explain the actions you are taking to address the concerns raised by Indigenous, Black and other marginalized communities.鈥 The letter can be accessed via the following link:
  • The formation of the Committee predated the recommendations of the Human Rights Commissioner. The Human Rights Commissioner鈥檚 recommendations were considered by the Board of Education in its decision but this was not the only factor.
  • Recognizing the signi铿乧ance of the Human Rights Commissioner鈥檚 call for empirically sound research on the impacts of SPLOs on all K-12 students, with a particular focus on the impacts on marginalized students, in August 2023 the Board of Education wrote to the Minister of Education and Child Care and Solicitor General requesting that this research immediately be commissioned. Unfortunately to date, the Board of Education has not received a response from either o铿僣e.

Back to top

8. According to the SD61 survey, the majority of survey participants support SPLOs. Why should we end the program because of a few concerns?

  • Most survey respondents self-identi铿乪d as having only White ethno-cultural background and were parents of elementary school aged children, many of whom indicated they had no previous interactions with SPLOs.
  • There are numerous examples where the needs of an Equity-deserving group result in policy or programming change. Some of the more signi铿乧ant changes within our society in recent years are a direct result of recognizing the importance of addressing the needs of equity-deserving group perspectives.
  • The 铿乶dings of the survey conducted by SD61 revealed concerns around police o铿僣ers in uniform and carrying weapons and students feeling uncomfortable and unsafe around police. Creating a trauma informed, inclusive and supportive environment for all students is a priority for the Board of Education.
  • The Board of Education鈥檚 decision re铿俥cts the evolving needs of students and the importance of safeguarding the rights鈥 of students. Out of respect for the rights of students the Board of Education must ensure we have appropriate levels of clarity and oversight over the delivery of services to students while they are in our care. The Board of Education鈥檚 decision means that police will not be used to provide student services that should be provided by appropriately trained, quali铿乪d and regulated professionals such as district leadership, principals, teachers, education assistants, counsellors, youth and family counsellors, social workers or health care professionals.

Back to top

9. Are police allowed in schools?

  • Police are allowed in schools. The Board of Education鈥檚 decision does not limit police access to schools. The ending of the SPLO program does not prohibit police from entering schools or school grounds. The Board of Education鈥檚 decision re铿俥cts the evolving needs of students and the importance of safeguarding the rights of students.
  • Police continue to provide a range of services within SD61 schools including violent threat risk assessments, hold and secure/lockdown drills and other appropriate supports.
  • Each Police Service must determine how best to provide policing services and is responsible for ensuring that its sta铿 are appropriately trained to support the youth they interact with while carrying out their policing mandate.
  • Nothing limits police from volunteering in schools or attending events in the same manner as any other member of the community.
  • The Board of Education鈥檚 decision means that police will not be used to provide student services that should be provided by appropriately trained, quali铿乪d and regulated professionals such as district leadership, principals, teachers, education assistants, counsellors, youth and family counsellors, social workers and health care professionals.

Back to top

10. Are police being tracked/monitored on school grounds?

  • A system has been created that collects reports from schools detailing police interactions at schools.
  • During the review, information regarding the nature and frequency of police visits to schools or interactions with students was not available.
  • The reporting system now in place is enabling the Board of Education and Senior Leadership to access consistent and reliable information that can be used to better understand the nature of these interactions.

Back to top

11. Is crime increasing in schools?

  • The safety and wellbeing of every student is a priority for the Board of Education and District sta铿.
  • In the absence of historical data from police it is not possible to determine whether recent reports of gang recruitment or other criminal activities represent a change in activity.
  • The Board of Education is working to establish a communication protocol with Police Services to ensure there is an appropriate level of clarity regarding points of contact from Police Services for non-emergency response such as their respective 天美传媒 Liaison O铿僣ers or 天美传媒 Engagement teams.
  • A formalized communications protocol will also ensure that it is clear how police will communicate to the School District when there is a potential safety concern in the community which may have an impact on our schools. It is imperative that communications are clear, consistent and provided in a timely manner.
  • Our sta铿 continue to monitor schools for safety concerns and to seek support from appropriate community partners including police services when necessary.
  • Safety concerns including those related to criminal activity within our communities can sometimes impact schools in our communities. SD61 continues to rely on police services for information about safety concerns in the community that may impact our schools.
  • Our expectation is that Police communicate potential safety concerns which may have an impact on our schools through formal channels, including through the existing protocols including school emergencies, lockdown (hold/secure), critical incidents, and violent threat risk assessments.
  • We acknowledge that addressing potential gang activity in the South Island is the responsibility of policing services. We welcome any information the police can provide us regarding the steps they are taking to address this safety risk to the community. This information is critical to supporting our joint responsibility for student safety.

Back to top

12. What about police taking a more trauma informed approach in schools, for example wearing golf shirts and not carrying 铿乺earms?

  • This was explored during Committee deliberations. The Committee was advised that because o铿僣ers may be called upon at any time to respond to emergencies they must always be armed and fully equipped.
  • The approach taken, including the training required for SPLOs varied considerably from police service to police service.
  • The Board of Education is engaging in discussions with Police Boards about how to move forward following the decision.

Back to top

13. What change in services can students expect since the Board of Education鈥檚 decision?

  • Public education is a highly regulated system. Parents and the community should feel con铿乨ent that the School District is meeting our mandate through the use of quali铿乪d professionals.
  • There are vital services that police are the most quali铿乪d to provide. The Board of Education’s decision stressed that actions are to be taken to see the continuity of these services, including protocols around school emergencies, lockdown (hold/secure), critical incidents, and violent threat risk assessments.
  • To ensure that approaches to communication from police regarding potential safety risks in the community, that may impact our schools are communicated in a clear, consistent and timely manner, SD61 is moving toward a formalized communication protocol with policing services.
  • A number of services previously delivered by SPLOs were also identi铿乪d as having alternative delivery options including quali铿乪d service providers from within the community.
  • Where a subject matter is part of the curriculum, the expectation is that students receive instruction in schools by quali铿乪d SD61 天美传媒 partners such as SAFER Schools, Mobile Youth Services Team (MYST), Integrated Mobile Crisis Response Team (IMCERT), Island Health and the Ministry of Children and Family Development continue to be utilized as needed to provide services to students and families.
  • It is recognized that today鈥檚 classrooms are increasingly complex environments where teachers and other sta铿 are called upon to support a host of di铿erent student needs which may or may not re铿俥ct their quali铿乧ations. Mental health support for students is one example. The Board of Education is mindful of such challenges when for example, it decides to fund counselling support for mental health and wellbeing at levels above the ratios/funding we receive from the Province.
  • While the Board of Education continues to advocate for increased funding to support K-12 public education, the fact that funding levels are not always adequate does not justify the use of police to provide students services that the Board of Education expects to be provided by appropriately trained, certi铿乪d and regulated professionals.

Back to top

14. More Information

Back to top

Disclaimer

Google Translate is used as a free tool to enhance the usability of the Greater Victoria School District website. As such, the Greater Victoria School Disctrict is not responsible for Google Translate™.