Urgent behaviour intervention teams in major BC school districts

Across British Columbia, many school districts have developed internal teams or programs designed to respond to urgent behavioural situations—such as elopement, aggression, or significant dysregulation—particularly when students are perceived as posing a safety risk or disrupting the learning environment.

While these interventions are often framed as supportive or inclusive, families report that they can feel exclusionary, opaque, and coercive in practice.

In this post we look at the largest districts, including: who runs these programs, how referrals are made, what kind of strategies are recommended, and whether families are given a meaningful role—or simply asked to consent after decisions have already been made.

Author’s Note and Contextual Caution

This piece presents an initial system-mapping exercise created through a collaboration between my own research and ChatGPT’s ‘deep research’ capacity, and it offers a descriptive, fact-oriented overview of how urgent-intervention structures operate across several large BC school districts, with the aim of establishing a shared factual ground from which a deeper, more critical analysis can unfold in subsequent writing.

Readers will encounter references to behaviourist frameworks, positive-behaviour interventions, PBIS-style support systems, and ABA-aligned methodologies, and these references appear because they represent the institutional vocabulary and procedural fabric used across the province, rather than endorsements of their clinical soundness or ethical coherence.

I publish this overview as a way of laying the scaffolding for future critique, because a description of the system provides the necessary foundation for examining the philosophical assumptions, political investments, and structural consequences that arise when behavioural logics shape the educational experiences of disabled children.

This post therefore serves as foreground, context, and source-mapping, and it prepares the terrain for a more expansive interrogation of behaviourist ideology, crisis-response culture, and the deeper social forces that sustain these practices inside BC public schools.

If anyone has bandwidth to go through this critically and provide a line by line disability justice critique, I welcome contributions, but my interest lays more with what lays ahead, more macro-analysis and correlation with other data sets.

Vancouver (SD39) – Urgent Intervention Program (UIP)

Team & Branding: Vancouver has a dedicated Urgent Intervention Process (UIP) Team, a district-level crisis response unit for severe student behaviours. This branded team serves elementary and secondary students who exhibit significantly challenging behaviours and acute social-emotional or mental health needs network.applytoeducation.com.

Purpose & Incidents: The UIP’s mandate is to intervene when a student’s behaviour is dangerously disruptive or unsafe – for example, episodes of violence, extreme dysregulation, self-harm risk, runaway/elopement, or persistent refusal that jeopardises safety or learning. Team members provide short-term intensive support and instruction in areas like self-regulation and behaviour, aiming to stabilise the situation network.applytoeducation.com. They design and implement individualised Behaviour Support Plans, manage verbal or physical “acting out” behaviour, and help school staff de-escalate crises network.applytoeducation.com. The focus is on rapid intervention to keep the student and others safe while a longer-term plan is formulated.

Referral Process: The School-Based Team (SBT) at a school initiates a UIP referral when it determines that “a student is sufficiently disruptive or sufficiently at risk to self or others” that special intervention is required veaes.ca. In practice, the SBT (which includes administrators, learning support teachers, and the classroom teacher) consults with the area Director of Instruction or district inclusion staff to trigger the UIP. Once approved, the district convenes an urgent planning meeting – typically within 5 school days – involving the SBT, the UIP specialists, and other appropriate staff to develop an interim support plan veaes.ca. During this period, the Board may arrange additional staffing or alternate placement to manage the student until the plan is in place. The ultimate goal of the UIP process is to either integrate extra supports in the home school or facilitate a transition to a more suitable setting, if needed. (Notably, the UIP process also fast-tracks formal designation and funding if the student isn’t already identified as requiring intensive support veaes.ca.)

Family Involvement: Families are included in Vancouver’s urgent intervention process, especially in planning and decision-making once a case is referred. UIP team members liaise with parents/caregivers as part of their role network.applytoeducation.com, keeping guardians informed and gathering their insights on the child. Often, after the initial emergency response, a meeting will be held with the parents, school staff, and district leaders to review the situation and the proposed intervention plan (e.g. updated safety plans, changes to the IEP or placement). This ensures that parents have a say in any major decisions (such as a change of program or temporary home support) and understand the strategies being used at school. In short, while the urgency of a crisis may require swift action, the VSB does seek parental collaboration in the follow-up and support plan.

Intervention Model: Vancouver’s UIP model is rooted in behavioural support principles with an emphasis on positive and preventative strategies. The team uses data-driven methods: for each referred student, they create or refine a Positive Behaviour Support plan, collect and evaluate behaviour data, and adjust strategies based on what the data shows network.applytoeducation.com. UIP staff are trained in Non-Violent Crisis Intervention (CPI) techniques to safely manage aggressive outbursts network.applytoeducation.com. The overall approach is somewhat behaviourist – focusing on identifying triggers, teaching replacement behaviours, and reinforcing desired behaviours – but it also integrates social-emotional learning. For example, a UIP intervention might include a token or reward system if appropriate, but it will also involve teaching the student self-regulation skills and coaching school staff on consistent responses. In essence, Vancouver’s UIP balances immediate behaviour management with capacity-building so that the school team can sustain the improvements after the UIP team withdraws network.applytoeducation.com. This approach aligns with a compliance-focused logic (ensuring safety and appropriate behaviour) tempered by positive reinforcement and skill-building rather than punitive measures.

Surrey (SD36) – District Behaviour Support (Intensive)

Team & Branding: Surrey, the province’s largest district, does not use a single branded “urgent intervention” program, but it employs a team of District Behaviour Specialists (DBS) who fulfill a similar role. These are specialist educators within Surrey’s Inclusive Education services, each typically assigned to a family of schools or zone. The District Behaviour Specialists (including Surrey’s Intensive Behaviour Intervention Programs, which function as alternate placements) support students requiring “Intensive Behavioural Intervention” while they attend their regular neighbourhood schools surreyschools.ca. In other words, instead of pulling students out immediately, Surrey’s model sends expert staff into schools to assist with severe behavioural needs. (Surrey also has specialised district programs/classrooms for behaviour in some cases, and DBS facilitate referrals to those if needed.) While not packaged under a catchy acronym, the DBS team functions as Surrey’s internal rapid-response and consultation service for challenging student behaviours.

Purpose & Incidents: The primary purpose of Surrey’s DBS team is to support and stabilise students with serious behaviour challenges – aggression, frequent meltdowns, violence toward self or others, extreme opposition, elopement, etc. – and to ensure the safety of students and staff. A DBS will provide direct service to the student, help the school team develop and implement a behaviour plan, and if necessary assist in transitioning the student to a district “behaviour support program” or alternate placement surreyschools.ca surreyschools.ca. Types of incidents addressed include acute physical aggression, severe disruptive behaviour that learning support alone can’t handle, or situations requiring an immediate safety plan (for example, a student who has begun to bite or attack staff). District Behaviour Specialists also play a role in Violent Threat Risk Assessments and critical incident response – they are members of school-based threat assessment teams when a student makes serious threats surreyschools.ca. In less crisis-driven cases, DBS might be involved for students with escalating behaviour issues before they reach a breaking point, providing preventive support (e.g. coaching an EA in de-escalation, setting up visuals or token systems for a student). Overall, the scope ranges from urgent, incident-specific intervention to longer-term behavioural mentoring.

Referral Process: Surrey’s process generally starts at the school level: the School-Based Team (which in Surrey typically includes an administrator, classroom teacher, Learning Support teacher, etc.) will work through strategies and, if a student’s behaviour remains high-risk, make a referral for district support surreyschools.ca. The referral usually goes through the area Assistant Superintendent or the District Student Support office. In practice, schools have “Zonal” DBS assigned, so a principal might directly reach out to their DBS for a consultation. The DBS collaborates with the school team to assess the referral’s appropriateness and urgency, and can then be dispatched to observe the student or help immediately surreyschools.ca. For very urgent situations (e.g. a serious incident of violence), the principal can call the district and a DBS might come the same day to assist with safety planning. School administrators have authority to suspend in emergencies, but the DBS involvement ensures a plan for reintegration or further support is created. If needed, the DBS will help convene a broader meeting (including district managers) to consider special placement or resources for the student surreyschools.ca. Essentially, Surrey’s referrals are initiated by the school, reviewed by district inclusive education leadership, and then acted on by the DBS team, mirroring the responsiveness of Vancouver’s UIP but within a less formal structure.

Family Involvement: Surrey explicitly emphasises collaboration with families in its support model. District Behaviour Specialists “collaborate with … parents/guardians to support students’ social, emotional, and behavioural needs” surreyschools.ca. When a DBS is involved, parents are typically informed and invited to participate in developing or updating the student’s Positive Behaviour Support Plan. For instance, a DBS might attend an IEP meeting or a School-Based Team meeting where the family is present to ensure everyone agrees on strategies. If a student is considered for a special district behavioural program placement, parental consent and involvement are required as part of that referral. Additionally, Surrey often advocates for community support services as needed surreyschools.ca – for example, connecting families with child mental health services or parenting support – which inherently brings the family into the problem-solving loop. Overall, families in Surrey are partners in the intervention: they provide insight into the child’s triggers and effective strategies, and they work with the school/district to reinforce consistent expectations at home.

Intervention Model: Surrey’s intervention approach is strongly rooted in Positive Behaviour Support (PBS) and applied behaviour analysis principles. The District Behaviour Specialists are expected to have expertise in functional behaviour assessment and positive behaviour support planning surreyschools.ca. In practice, this means when they engage with a student, they look for the function of the problematic behaviour (e.g. escaping work, seeking attention) and tailor interventions accordingly. They help schools create Individualised Behaviour Support Plans that include proactive strategies (preventing meltdowns by adjusting triggers), teaching of replacement behaviours, and reinforcement systems to encourage progress surreyschools.ca. For example, a DBS might set up a token or reward system for a student who has frequent outbursts, paired with a visual schedule and calming routine – classic behaviourist tactics aimed at increasing compliance and self-regulation. Importantly, Surrey’s DBS also ensure safety measures: they assist with Employee Safety Plans for staff working with violent or unpredictable students surreyschools.ca, which often involve behaviourist strategies (like specific response protocols to discourage aggression). In summary, Surrey’s model is behaviourist in logic (data-driven, focused on observable behaviour change) but also holistic in execution – the DBS collaborate with teachers, EAs, counsellors, and families to wrap supports around the student rather than dealing with behaviour in isolation.

(Comparison to Vancouver: Surrey’s approach is quite similar to Vancouver’s UIP in practice – both deploy specialised personnel to address urgent behaviours via behaviour plans and safety plans. The main difference is branding and process: Vancouver has a formal “UIP” process with set timelines, whereas Surrey handles cases through its regular inclusion support channels using DBS staff. Both involve families and use behaviourist methods, but Surrey’s large team of DBS allows for a potentially more preventative involvement across many schools, not only emergency response.)

Burnaby (SD41) – Safe & Caring Schools Team and Conduct Review

Team & Branding: Burnaby School District addresses urgent behavioural incidents through its Safe & Caring Schools framework rather than a single named program like UIP. The district has a Safe and Caring Schools teamunder Youth Support Services, which includes district Safe Schools Specialists, counsellors, and liaisons with police. Every Burnaby secondary school has a designated Safe Schools Specialist (SSS) focused on maintaining a safe, orderly environment burnabyschools.ca. At the district level, a Student Conduct Review Committee (comprised of district administrators) comes into play for the most serious infractions (e.g. weapons, repeated violence). In short, Burnaby’s “team” is a combination of school-based roles (SSS at secondary, school counsellors) and district processes (Conduct Review Committee) rather than a mobile crisis unit. There isn’t a unique acronym like UIP; these supports are embedded in Learning Services and district administration.

Purpose & Incidents: The Safe & Caring Schools team in Burnaby is explicitly tasked with supporting “safe and supportive learning environments” and responding to critical incidents involving student behaviour burnabyschools.ca. This covers a range of urgent situations: physical violence or fights, students making threats, extreme bullying or intimidation, severe substance abuse issues at school, and instances of a student running out of the school (elopement) if it poses safety concerns. The team’s highly trained counsellors and specialists support students identified as having “high risk behaviours” or those significantly disengaged and at risk of dropping out burnabyschools.ca. For example, if a student assaults a peer or teacher, the Safe Schools Specialist and district Youth Services staff might intervene alongside the principal. They also coordinate with the RCMP Youth Section officers assigned to Burnaby schools for incidents that verge on criminal (assaults, weapon possession) burnabyschools.ca. The Student Conduct Review Committee, on the other hand, handles the administrative follow-up: for a major incident, the principal refers the case to this committee which reviews the conduct and determines further actions (extended suspension, transfer to another program, conditions for return, etc.) burnabyschools.ca burnabyschools.ca. Incidents that trigger the Conduct Review Committee are typically severe – e.g., a student bringing a weapon, a serious assault, or a pattern of violent behaviour. In summary, Burnaby addresses urgent behavioural issues both in-the-moment (through SSS and counsellors for immediate response) and after-the-fact (through formal review and placement decisions), with the dual aim of protecting safety and getting the student help (like counselling or alternate education) as needed.

Referral Process: In Burnaby, when a serious behavioural incident occurs, the school principal plays a key role in initiating the response. For immediate crises, the principal will involve the Safe & Caring Schools team – for instance, contacting the district’s Safe Schools Manager or the Safe Schools Specialist assigned to their area. The principal might also call the RCMP School Liaison (if it’s a criminal matter) or mental health crisis services if appropriate. In parallel, if the student is suspended due to the incident, the principal begins the Student Conduct Review Committee referral. According to district policy, the principal must “make immediate contact with the coordinator of District Services to arrange a meeting of concerned parties, including inter-ministerial representation” in cases of severe violent behaviour by a student with special needs burnabyschools.ca. In practice, this means within days of the incident the district convenes a meeting that could include district staff (Learning Support Services, Safe Schools), the student’s parents, possibly representatives from agencies like MCFD (Ministry of Children and Family Development) or mental health services, and police if relevant. This meeting (and the Conduct Review Committee’s modified process) is meant to determine what program adjustments or supports are required before the student can return to school burnabyschools.ca. For example, the outcome might be that the student remains at home on a safety plan while receiving tutoring, pending a psychological assessment and a new support plan. In less severe scenarios, referrals might go through the school-based team (SBT) to Burnaby’s district Learning Support Team for extra help without invoking a formal Conduct Review. Notably, all secondary schools having an SSS means many behaviour issues are handled on-site (the SSS works with the admin and counsellors). Only when those resources are exceeded does it escalate to district admin. In summary, referrals are initiated by the principal/SBT, escalated to the District Services coordinator or Safe Schools department, and for the gravest cases, formally reviewed by the Conduct Review Committee which can recommend district-level actions (such as transfer to an alternate program or additional support personnel) burnabyschools.ca burnabyschools.ca.

Family Involvement: Parent/guardian involvement is built into Burnaby’s processes, especially for serious incidents. If a student is referred to the Student Conduct Review Committee, the policy guarantees the “opportunity for the student and parent or guardian to appear before” the committee to discuss the situation burnabyschools.ca. In practice, after a major incident and suspension, the school will invite the family to a meeting (often at the school, as the policy outlines) with the principal, a district Safe Schools coordinator or the Conduct Review chair, and sometimes police, within a few days burnabyschools.ca. At this meeting, they discuss what led to the incident and what supports or conditions will be put in place for the student’s return. Parents are asked for input and also to agree to certain conditions (for example, signing a letter outlining that the student will abide by a behaviour contract, or that the family will pursue counselling). Beyond the formal process, the Safe & Caring Schools team often involves parents when dealing with high-risk youth in a supportive context. The team might arrange case conferences that include the family and external youth workers if a student is, say, involved in gang activity or severe substance use. Burnaby also has a strong emphasis on communication with families for early intervention – for instance, if bullying or threats occur, school officials contact all families involved and might bring them in for restorative meetings. Thus, families are seen both as partners (in prevention and support planning) and as key stakeholders who must be consulted when disciplinary or placement decisions are on the table.

Intervention Model: Burnaby’s model blends behavioural expectations, counselling support, and disciplinary measures. On one hand, the district highlights proactive, positive approaches: Safe Schools Specialists are meant to help develop “positive, proactive approaches, which enhance the safety and well-being of everyone” in schools burnabyschools.ca. This suggests use of preventative programs (Burnaby runs various anti-bullying, social skills, and substance prevention programs through this team burnabyschools.ca) and likely some PBIS-like strategies at the school level. On the other hand, when crises occur, the response has a somewhat compliance-focused aspect: clear Codes of Conduct are enforced and there’s a formal process to review misconduct and assign consequences or alternative placements. The district does not advertise token economy systems or behaviourist point charts publicly; instead the emphasis is on safety and order. However, implicit behaviourist logic is present in the expectation of improved behaviour through supervision and consequences. For instance, a student returning from suspension might be on a behaviour contract (a form of contingent compliance plan) monitored by the Safe Schools staff. The presence of police partnerships (RCMP Youth Section) means there is also an element of law-and-order logic for the most extreme issues burnabyschools.ca. That said, within the Safe & Caring Schools approach, there is undoubtedly use of positive reinforcement and skill teaching – e.g., counselors working on anger management with a student (a therapeutic intervention) or a Safe Schools Specialist mentoring a group of at-risk students to improve decision-making. In summary, Burnaby’s approach is more holistic and administrative rather than overtly behaviourist: it relies on setting firm behavioural standards, providing support through counseling and community services, and using structured processes (rather than discrete reward systems) to ensure compliance and improvement. Compared to Vancouver’s UIP, Burnaby’s model might appear less “clinical” and more integrated with discipline – but the end goal is similar: to reduce dangerous behaviour and keep schools safe, ideally while re-engaging the student in a positive way.

(Comparison to Vancouver: Burnaby’s strategy differs by integrating crisis response into its overall safe schools framework. Unlike the specialised UIP unit, Burnaby uses school-based Safe School staff and district admin committees. Burnaby’s approach leans slightly more on disciplinary structure (Conduct Reviews with consequences) alongside supports, whereas Vancouver’s UIP is more purely an intervention without a disciplinary mandate. Both districts, however, value proactive prevention and involve families. Neither explicitly endorses punitive behaviourist tactics; both lean on positive and collaborative methods, though Vancouver’s UIP is more explicitly grounded in behavioural science in practice.)

Richmond (SD38) – Area Counsellor Team & Positive Behaviour Support

Team & Branding: Richmond School District’s response to urgent behaviour is embedded in its longstanding Positive Behaviour Support approach rather than a separate crisis squad. A key component is the Area Counsellor Team (ACT) – a group of district counsellors who each support a cluster of schools. Since the early 2000s, the ACT has led Richmond’s efforts in developing school-wide behaviour expectations and intervening with challenging student behaviours richmond-news.com richmond-news.com. The ACT is not branded as an “emergency team,” but these counsellors do provide expertise and extra hands when a school is struggling with a student’s behaviour. Richmond also has other Inclusive Education staff (psychologists, behaviour intervention teachers, etc.), but much of the heavy lifting for behaviour is done via the ACT and school-based teams working collaboratively. There isn’t an equivalent to “UIP” in name; rather, Richmond leverages its in-house counselling and behaviour resources across all tiers of intervention. (Additionally, Richmond operates some District Alternative Programs for youth with behavioural or social-emotional difficulties, which can serve as placement options if a student’s needs can’t be met in a regular school setting, but these are longer-term programs rather than quick-response teams.)

Purpose & Incidents: The Richmond ACT and associated support staff focus on both preventing and responding to behaviour problems. On a day-to-day basis, they help schools implement Positive Behaviour Interventions and Supports (PBIS) – teaching and reinforcing expected behaviours to foster a positive climate richmond-news.com richmond-news.com. This preventive work reduces the frequency of crises. However, when urgent incidentsdo occur (for example, a student’s aggressive outburst or an extreme case of bullying), the ACT counsellor for that school can be pulled in to assist. Typical incidents addressed might include a child with autism having a severe meltdown, a student who is violent or running from class, or a teenager engaging in unsafe behaviour due to mental health issues. In such cases, the counsellor (or a district behaviour specialist, if one is assigned) will work with the school team on the spot – helping de-escalate the student, guiding staff on how to respond, and planning next steps. Richmond’s philosophy emphasises that most behavioural issues can be handled in the regular school environment with the right strategies, so the first response is usually to add support around the student rather than remove the student. The ACT also deals with bullying and threat situations in coordination with the district’s safe schools policies (Richmond adheres to the provincial ERASE protocol for threats). In summary, the incidents Richmond’s internal supports cover range from in-class tantrums to serious aggression, but the approach is to handle these through enhanced support and counselling within the school setting whenever possible.

Referral Process: Richmond’s process for getting district-level help with a behaviour issue is largely collaborative and case-by-case. When a student is struggling significantly, the School-Based Team (SBT) will discuss the case. The SBT can then request assistance from the Area Counsellor or other district specialists (for example, a District Behaviour Consultant or Psychologist) assigned to their family of schools. There may not be a formal “urgent referral form” as in Vancouver; rather, the SBT meeting notes or a direct call/email from the school’s administration to the district Inclusive Education department triggers support. Because ACT members regularly visit their schools, they often are already aware of emerging issues. In urgent situations, a principal might directly call the District Principal of Learning Services or the Director of Instruction to say, “We need extra help immediately.” The district could then dispatch an available ACT member or other specialist to the school. Richmond also has a process for District Screening for designations – if a student’s behaviour is severe and possibly linked to an unidentified special need, the SBT can fast-track an assessment or designation request (similar to other districts). Families can also be part of the referral – for instance, a parent might express concern to the school and ask for more help, which would prompt the SBT to involve district staff. In essence, referrals in Richmond flow through the SBT to the appropriate support team; the lack of a singular program means flexibility, but it also means the response might depend on who is available and the existing relationship with the ACT counsellor. The ACT’s broad mandate allows them to jump in as needed without a lot of red tape.

Family Involvement: Richmond’s inclusive philosophy naturally involves parents, though not in a formal “committee meeting” way as seen in some other districts. For ongoing behavioural issues, parents are usually part of the school-based problem solving – they attend SBT meetings (when invited) or IEP meetings where behaviour goals are set. The Area Counsellor might reach out to the family to get background information on the student’s behaviour at home and to suggest strategies for consistency. In acute situations (say a serious incident happened), the school will contact the parents immediately as a matter of course. Subsequent planning (safety plan, behaviour plan adjustments) will be communicated to the parents and their consent sought if any major change is made (like reducing the school day or accessing an alternate program). Richmond also puts stock in social responsibility and community; schools often engage families through things like workshops on positive behaviour or written communication about expected behaviours. While we did not find a specific policy on crisis planning with parents, the overall practice is that parents are partners in reinforcing positive behaviour. They may be asked, for example, to carry through a reinforcement system at home or to attend counselling sessions with their child if that’s part of the intervention. The tone in Richmond is collaborative rather than punitive, so families typically feel included rather than blamed when dealing with a child’s behavioural challenges.

Intervention Model: Richmond’s intervention model is strongly grounded in Positive Behaviour Support (PBS), which is a behaviourist approach with a positive, educational twist. Since “the emphasis is on giving positive feedback for the right behaviour” richmond-news.com, schools in Richmond focus on reinforcing desired behaviours (e.g. using recognition programs, praise, reward tickets) and using clear, consistent expectations to guide students. This school-wide PBS foundation means that when an individual needs extra help, the strategies are an extension of the same philosophy: teach the expected behaviour, practice it, and reward improvements. The Area Counsellor Team builds capacity by helping staff respond to challenging behaviours in constructive ways (for instance, using “instructional corrections” instead of purely punitive responses ca.linkedin.com). In effect, Richmond’s model for urgent cases is less about a separate emergency protocol and more about intensifying support within an established PBIS framework. Does Richmond use token systems or compliance-driven methods? At the Tier 3 level (individual interventions), they likely do use some ABA techniques – e.g., a behaviour plan for a student might include specific rewards for meeting goals, or a timeout routine for unsafe behaviour, which are classic behaviourist tools. However, Richmond tends to frame things in the language of “social responsibility” and learning rather than compliance. Consequences for misbehaviour do exist (students can still be suspended or disciplined), but the district rhetoric (even back in 2013) was that “focusing on the positive… may sound idealistic, but… Positive Behaviour Support provides a process for effectively addressing bullying… and conflicts are often handled at a much earlier point”, preventing escalation richmond-news.com richmond-news.com. In summary, the intervention model in Richmond is preventative and capacity-building. It is behaviourist to the extent that it relies on behaviour modification principles (modeling, reinforcement, consequences), but it shies away from harsh punitive measures, aiming instead to create a school culture where major crises are less likely – and when they do happen, the response is therapeutic and educational (through counsellors and planned interventions) rather than solely punitive.

(Comparison to Vancouver: Richmond’s approach is similar in its use of positive behavioural techniques but differs in structure. Vancouver has a specialised team parachuting in; Richmond embeds support in its everyday systems (Area Counsellors). Richmond places a big emphasis on school-wide PBIS and prevention, which ideally reduces emergencies – a contrast to Vancouver’s more reactive UIP. Both districts avoid heavy-handed punishment, but Vancouver’s UIP is a more targeted intensive burst of support, whereas Richmond relies on sustained, integrated support. In short, VSB’s UIP is a defined program for acute cases, Richmond’s ACT is a general team that covers both prevention and intervention.)

Coquitlam (SD43) – Inclusion Support Team (Behaviour & Diversity)

Team & Branding: Coquitlam’s School District 43 has in recent years consolidated its services for high-needs students into an Inclusion Support Team that functions similarly to an urgent response unit for behaviour. This team doesn’t have a snappy acronym, but it’s a clearly defined group of professionals. In 2019, for example, the Inclusion Support Team comprised 11 teachers, 10 education assistants, and 3 youth workers, reflecting a substantial internal capacity tricitynews.com. They operate under the Learning Services department rather than as a stand-alone program, but their role is specialised: they support students with behavioural challenges, autism spectrum disorders, mental health concerns, and other complex needs. Notably, Coquitlam intentionally merged its former “behaviour support team” and “autism support team” gradually into this single Inclusion Support Team tricitynews.com, doubling the staff over four years, to create a more agile and comprehensive support system. While not called an “Urgent Intervention Program,” this team is effectively Coquitlam’s answer to that concept – a mobile, interdisciplinary unit that can be dispatched to schools in need.

Purpose & Incidents: The Inclusion Support Team’s purpose is to ensure students with intensive needs are supported in regular classrooms whenever possible. They handle a wide spectrum of situations, from chronic non-attendance to extreme behavioural meltdowns. Types of incidents addressed include students exhibiting aggression or violence toward others, children who are consistently dysregulated and disrupting class despite school-level interventions, students who elope or refuse to attend class, and those with mental health crises manifesting as severe behaviour. A striking example of their work is a pilot program for non-attending students: team members would call families daily and even drive over to pick up students who were missing school, then provide them breakfast at school – an intensive outreach to combat absenteeism tricitynews.com tricitynews.com. This illustrates how the team goes beyond typical “behaviour” issues into any barrier preventing a student from accessing education. In cases of physical outbursts, team members with specialised training will assist the school in calming and managing the student. They might also bring equipment or tools, e.g. “pedal desks” for students who struggle to sit still (Coquitlam has used bike-pedal desks to help hyperactive students channel energy) tricitynews.com. Essentially, any urgent situation where a student’s behaviour is posing a safety risk or a significant impediment to learning can trigger Inclusion Support Team involvement. According to teachers, the team is extremely busy – handling 500+ referrals per year, including many at elementary level tricitynews.com – which shows that they are involved in a large number of behavioural crises or challenges across the district.

Referral Process: In Coquitlam, referrals to the Inclusion Support Team typically come through the school’s administration and School-Based Team. A principal or SBT identifies that they have tried school-level interventions and the student still requires additional support. They then contact the district Learning Services department to request Inclusion Support Team involvement. There might be a referral form or just a call to one of the team leads (the article doesn’t specify the paperwork, but given the volume, a streamlined process likely exists). The Coquitlam Teachers’ Association president described the Inclusion Support Team as “the first port of call outside a school building for behavioural issues.” tricitynews.com – implying that as soon as a school realises an issue is beyond their capacity, this team is called in. Once a referral is made, team members will go out to the school to observe and support the student (often within regular class, as inclusion is emphasised) tricitynews.com. They collaborate with the school’s teachers and EAs, perhaps modeling strategies or trialing interventions on the spot tricitynews.com tricitynews.com. The team also helps develop plans: for instance, they might write a behaviour support plan or safety plan alongside the school-based staff. Because the team is large, they can often assign multiple people – say, a behaviour resource teacher and a youth worker – to a particularly challenging case. The referral doesn’t necessarily require a crisis to have happened; schools also refer preventatively (for example, a Kindergarten student with emerging violent behaviours might be referred early in the year). Still, high urgency cases jump to the front of the queue. In summary, the referral process is initiated by the school/SBT, directed to district Learning Services, and results in a team deployment. The quick turnaround and on-site assistance are key features that parallel Vancouver’s UIP process.

Family Involvement: Coquitlam’s Inclusion Support Team places considerable emphasis on family engagement, recognising that many solutions require consistency between home and school. The example of the daily home calls and pickups for truant children demonstrates an extreme level of family involvement – literally entering the family routine to help the student attend tricitynews.com. More commonly, when the team works with a student, they will confer with the parents about what strategies have been tried at home, and share what they plan to do at school. If modifications to the student’s day are needed (reduced hours, sensory breaks, etc.), parents must agree via the IEP process. The team might also connect families to resources (given some team members have child-and-youth care backgrounds, they likely know community supports). Meetings involving the family are routine: Inclusion Support staff often attend SBT meetings or case conferences with parents present. One of the team’s guiding principles, as noted by the district’s Director of Learning Services, is shifting from a reactive model to a proactive one that includes daily check-ins with families for certain students tricitynews.com tricitynews.com. Additionally, if a student has behaviours that trigger at home and school, the team might set up a consistent plan across environments (for instance, a reward system that parents also use after school). The overall vibe is that Coquitlam sees families as allies – not only are they included, but in some cases (like school refusal), the intervention actually starts with the family each morning. This high degree of collaboration is somewhat unique and shows Coquitlam’s commitment to wraparound support.

Intervention Model: Coquitlam’s approach can be described as inclusive and evidence-based, with a mix of behaviourist techniques and innovative engagement strategies. The district made a deliberate move to shut down segregated “behaviour programs” and support students in the classroom wherever possible tricitynews.com. This means the Inclusion Support Team’s interventions often happen in situ, in the regular class environment, rather than pulling the student out for long periods. The model is proactive: Coquitlam increased early intervention (e.g., “helping children with complex needs get ready for kindergarten”) and put resources at elementary levels to address issues before they escalate tricitynews.com. In terms of behaviourist logic, the team does use behaviour management strategies – we can infer they conduct functional behaviour assessments, set up reinforcement systems, and track data, given one of the stated goals is to improve behaviours and reduce teacher injuries tricitynews.com. But they pair this with creative solutions that look at the whole child. For example, introducing a pedal desk for a student who can’t sit still is a sensory/environmental intervention rather than a classic reward/punishment, yet it’s grounded in behaviour theory (altering the environment to change behaviour) tricitynews.com. They also emphasise relationship-building and student engagement (one initiative mentioned was ensuring students feel a “sense of place” in school by daily welcomes, etc.). The union has noted that by supporting teachers better, Coquitlam hopes to reduce costs related to teacher burnout and injuries tricitynews.com – implying a focus on safe behaviour management techniques (like CPI training) and giving teachers tools to manage behaviour positively. Overall, the Inclusion Support Team’s model is less about compliance through external rewards and more about meeting underlying needs: they provide meals if hunger is an issue, movement if hyperactivity is an issue, and so on. This aligns with modern positive behaviour support and trauma-informed practices. Nonetheless, the team will implement structured behaviour plans with clear expectations and consequences when needed. In summary, Coquitlam’s model is rooted in positive behavioural logicbut is distinguished by its whole-child, inclusive ethos. It’s an approach that tries to avoid isolating or stigmatising the student; instead, the student remains “the school’s child” (as they put it) with the team’s expertise wrapped around them tricitynews.com.

(Comparison to Vancouver: Coquitlam’s Inclusion Support Team shares many similarities with Vancouver’s UIP – both are multidisciplinary, deployable teams focusing on intensive behaviour support. A key difference is Coquitlam’s overt integration of services (behaviour + autism + mental health) in one team, reflecting perhaps a more holistic view. Vancouver’s UIP tends to kick in at a crisis point and then step back once stable; Coquitlam’s team might stay involved longer and works on broader issues like attendance. Both models are behaviourist at heart and highly inclusive of families, but Coquitlam’s is somewhat more preventative/community-based (daily check-ins, etc.), whereas Vancouver’s is a sharper short-term intervention. Coquitlam also explicitly disbanded segregated programs in favor of in-class support, which is a philosophical step beyond what some other districts have done.)

North Vancouver (SD44) – Integrated Support through Inclusive Education

Team & Branding: North Vancouver School District does not have a single branded urgent response team; instead, it relies on an integrated network of school-based and district-based supports under its Inclusive Education model. Key players include the School-Based Resource Teams (SBRTs) at each school and district itinerant staff such as Behaviour Support Workers (BSWs) and Inclusive Education Teachers. Every school has a complement of Learning Services staff (special education teachers, counselors, and education assistants), some of whom have specialised training in behaviour management sd44.ca. For example, certain Education Assistants carry the title “Behaviour Support Worker”, indicating they have extra skills to support students with challenging behaviour and can be allocated where needed sd44.ca. Additionally, North Van runs Choices, a program in each secondary school that provides a supportive environment (within the school) for at-risk youth struggling with social/emotional or behavioural challenges sd44.ca. While Choices is a structured program (essentially an in-school alternate learning hub), it’s part of the continuum of supports rather than a crisis response unit. Thus, North Vancouver’s “urgent intervention team” is essentially the district’s Inclusive Education personnel who are assigned to families of schools and can be mobilised in response to crises. There isn’t an acronym like UIP or a specific team solely doing emergency calls; the approach is more distributed. This is in line with North Van’s philosophy that support should come to the student’s regular environment instead of the student always being pulled out.

Purpose & Incidents: The overarching goal in North Vancouver is to support students in their neighbourhood schools and classrooms to the maximum extent possible sd44.ca. Therefore, when behavioural crises occur, the purpose of the response is to stabilise the situation within the school setting and maintain the student’s inclusion if feasible. Typical incidents that trigger intensive support include: a student becoming violent (towards staff or peers), extreme emotional breakdowns, serious self-harm behaviours at school, or any critical incident affecting the school (e.g. a student barricading themselves or running onto a road). The Critical Incidents section of NVSD policy notes events like “acts of physical and psychological violence” as situations where the school community may need extra support sd44.ca. In practice, for a severe event, the district might send in additional Learning Services staff or a district psychologist to help. If a particular student is known to have violent outbursts, the district can assign a Behaviour Support Worker EA to that student (or increase their support hours) to assist on an ongoing basis. At the secondary level, if a student is repeatedly in crisis, they might spend part of their day in the Choices room – a quieter, supported environment – as an interim measure. North Van also partners with community agencies for aftercare if needed (for example, if a student’s behaviour involves trauma, the school might involve the provincial Critical Incident Response team for counseling). Another scenario is the Threat Assessment: NVSD follows the VTRA model (Violent Threat Risk Assessment) under its “Fair Notice” policy howtolearn.com, where a multidisciplinary team (including police and district staff) evaluates and intervenes if a student makes serious threats. In summary, incidents are addressed by pulling the appropriate resource – be it a specially trained EA, a counsellor, a district specialist teacher, or a whole critical incident team – with the aim of keeping the student and school safe and returning to normal functioning as soon as possible sd44.ca.

Referral Process: The process in North Vancouver is collaborative and tiered. At the first sign of significant behavioural issues, the School-Based Resource Team (which might include the principal, learning support teacher, counselor, classroom teacher, etc.) will try school-level strategies. If those are insufficient, the SBRT can refer the student to the District for additional support bcpsea.bc.ca bctf.ca. Often the referral is discussed with one of the District Inclusion Support Teachers assigned to that family of schools. North Van organises schools into “Families of Schools (FOS)” (each secondary and its feeder elementaries), and has FOS teacher-leaders who can assist classrooms sd44.ca. So a referral might be as simple as the SBRT asking the FOS Inclusive Education Teacher for help, or formally, the principal contacting the District Principal of Inclusive Education to allocate extra resources. If the situation is acute (for example, a child’s behaviour is injuring others daily), the district can deploy an Itinerant Behaviour Support Teacher or augment EA support fairly quickly. For formal identification, the SBRT may refer the student to the District Screening Committee to get a Ministry designation for Intensive Behaviour, which would bring extra funding (this is analogous to the “urgent intervention program or similar” line in union agreements bctf.ca). When emergency situations happen without warning, the referral is essentially immediate: the principal can call district senior management for emergency assistance. The district has a Critical Incident Response Plan sd44.ca, which usually refers to post-incident trauma support, but could also mean they have on-call staff for emergencies. So, while there isn’t a singular “crisis referral form,” North Van’s structure allows principals to tap into district supports on short notice. Additionally, North Van might hold what some districts call an “Emergency SBT” – a quickly convened meeting with district staff and the family if a student’s behaviour suddenly endangers safety, thereby fast-tracking support or a move to a program like Choices. In summary, referrals start with the SBRT and escalate to district Inclusive Education as needed, aiming for a timely, coordinated response using existing personnel.

Family Involvement: North Vancouver’s inclusive approach inherently involves parents at key decision points. The SBRT process in NV invites parents to meetings when discussing significant changes or referrals (parents are considered part of the extended team in many cases). If a student is being referred for a district-level support or a possible alternate program, the parents are certainly consulted. For instance, in the Choices program referral/intake process, one of the counselor’s roles is “liaising with parents” and “initiating and following through with the Choices referral” in collaboration with them sd44.ca. This indicates that before a student enters that higher tier of support, the family is on board and informed. In day-to-day urgent incidents, parents are contacted promptly – if a student has a violent episode, the school will call the parent that day and often request that the parent come to take the student home (for safety reasons) while things are sorted out. After a crisis, a re-entry meeting with the parent, student, and staff is common to set up a plan. Moreover, North Van emphasises “collaborative problem solving” at the classroom level sd44.ca, which typically extends to collaborating with families to understand the child. Parents’ knowledge about triggers, medical conditions, or effective calming methods is sought and integrated into plans. In instances where outside agencies are involved (e.g. child mental health services, MCFD), the family consent and participation are required, and district staff will often coordinate those wraparound meetings. Overall, families in North Vancouver are treated as key stakeholders whose involvement is crucial for the success of any behavioural intervention – reflecting the district’s commitment to inclusive, community-based support.

Intervention Model: North Vancouver’s model can be described as inclusive, collaborative, and individualised, underpinned by positive behaviour support practices. A hallmark is that “classroom teachers are best supported by a school-based collaborative problem solving model… with assistance from District Specialists” sd44.ca. This means rather than pulling the student out to a centralised program for behaviour, NV tries to push supports in. The interventions themselves usually start with a functional assessment of behaviour: NVSD explicitly mentions that Learning Services teachers develop IEPs including plans based on functional behaviour assessments sd44.ca. That is a clear nod to behaviourist methodology – understanding the why of behaviour and then strategising. The plans likely include positive reinforcement for desired behaviours, environmental modifications, and teaching of new skills, and could also involve consequences like a timeout or loss of privileges if safety is an issue (though always within Ministry guidelines). Because NV has Behaviour Support Worker EAs, it indicates usage of applied behaviour analysis at the EA level – these staff might take data on behaviours, implement token systems, or run specific behaviour programs under the guidance of district specialists. At the same time, the presence of counsellors and a strong emphasis on mental wellness (NV has a robust counseling program in each school) means there is a blend of behaviourist and humanistic approaches. For instance, a student in crisis might receive cognitive-behavioural strategy coaching from a counselor in addition to a behaviour plan from the resource teacher. Physical intervention training (CPI) is given to staff as needed (this is common in all districts, NV included, for safely handling a child who is a danger). Another aspect: NV’s Choices program at secondary uses a tiered support model – students remain connected to their regular classes but come to the Choices room for extra help or when overwhelmed sd44.ca sd44.ca. This model reflects a restorative, capacity-building approach rather than a purely punitive one. In terms of “compliance focus,” NV’s stance is that removing students is last resort; they aim to integrate interventions into the student’s routine. This suggests that while they do expect students to eventually meet behaviour expectations, they try to achieve that through support and teaching, not just through punishment or reward. They also explicitly state they prefer “not sending them somewhere else” permanently tricitynews.com (from an SD43 article quoting NV practice, but applicable here as philosophy). In summary, North Vancouver’s intervention model is rooted in positive behaviour support (a behaviourist core), delivered via an inclusive lens. It prioritises keeping the student in class with help, involves multiple disciplines (teachers, EAs, counsellors), and only uses more segregated measures (like a short-term alternate setting or suspension) when absolutely necessary.

(Comparison to Vancouver: North Vancouver’s approach is philosophically aligned with Vancouver’s in terms of positive supports, but it’s less centralised. Vancouver’s UIP sends a team in, whereas North Van tends to leverage its existing school staff and FOS support – a difference in delivery, not end goal. Both aim to avoid excluding the student; however, Vancouver formalises the urgent intervention steps more than NV does. North Van’s model might appear less immediately intensive (no special team swooping in, unless you count the on-site Choices option at secondary), yet in practice the needed pieces (behaviour plans, extra personnel) are put in place through internal collaboration. Both districts use behaviourist strategies (FBA, PBS plans), but NV wraps them in a very integrated, educational approach.)

Greater Victoria (SD61) – District Learning Support Team (Urgent Response & Wraparound)

Team & Branding: The Greater Victoria School District’s mechanism for urgent behavioural issues is through its District Learning Support Team (DLST) – a multi-disciplinary team within the Student Support Services department. This team isn’t branded with a special name like “UIP,” but it functions as the central resource for schools dealing with high-need situations. The DLST includes a range of professionals: notably a District Learning Support Teacher (Behaviour Analyst) – indicating they have staff with formal expertise in behaviour analysis – as well as several other District Learning Support Teachers, District Counsellors, a District Youth and Family Support Lead, and a Mental Health Coordinator supportforlearning.sd61.bc.ca supportforlearning.sd61.bc.ca. The presence of a Behaviour Analyst on the team is significant; it means Victoria has internal ABA capability for designing interventions for severe behaviours. In essence, the DLST is Victoria’s internal “SWAT team” for complex cases, though they also support less acute needs. There is no separate branding for an urgent intervention program; instead, any urgent case falls under the purview of this broad team. It’s worth noting that Victoria has been under pressure to improve safety supports – recent developments (as of late 2024) saw the board required to create a new District Safety Plan involving more collaboration with police and community, since they had removed police liaison officers from schools vicnews.com vicnews.com. Part of that plan emphasises using “appropriate district staff and trained, qualified professionals to lead proactive student supports and interventions” rather than police in behavioural matters vicnews.com. The DLST is exactly those “trained professionals,” suggesting an expanded or clarified role for the team in urgent situations moving forward.

Purpose & Incidents: The District Learning Support Team’s purpose is to ensure that students with significant challenges – behavioural, emotional, or learning – get the help they need to succeed and to keep school environments safe. In terms of urgent incidents, the DLST steps in when a student’s behaviour poses a safety risk or serious disruption that the school alone cannot manage. Examples include a student with autism who has a violent meltdown, a child whose behaviour is so oppositional or anxious that they refuse to come to class for days, or a student making credible violent threats. Additionally, incidents like a room being destroyed by a dysregulated student, or frequent physical aggression toward staff, would prompt DLST involvement. Given a Behaviour Analyst is on the team, they likely handle cases of severe behavioural disorders (e.g. students who may have complex diagnoses like ASD with aggression or ADHD with extreme impulsivity). The DLST also likely coordinates supports for students returning from hospitalisation due to psychiatric issues, who often have safety plans. Essentially, any case that is beyond the scope of a typical school-based plan becomes a DLST case. The team’s district counsellors might address urgent mental health-related behaviours (like a student expressing suicidal threats or extreme emotional outbursts), working alongside behaviour specialists if the behaviour is also disruptive. The **incidents addressed cover both “internalising” crises (self-harm, extreme withdrawal) and “externalising” crises (violence, running away, etc.), as the team includes mental health and behavioural experts. Importantly, Victoria’s recent emphasis on a Safety Plan suggests the DLST may also partake in proactive measures – such as identifying students who show warning signs and intervening before an incident escalates to crisis. In summary, the DLST’s mandate in urgent contexts is safety and continuity of education: stabilise the student, support the staff, and plan for how the student can continue learning (whether in school with supports, or, if absolutely needed, in an alternate arrangement).

Referral Process: Access to Victoria’s DLST is explicitly through the School-Based Team (SBT) process supportforlearning.sd61.bc.ca. Teachers or support staff who notice a serious behaviour issue bring it to the SBT at the school. The SBT tries initial strategies and, if it deems necessary, refers the case to the District Learning Support Team. This referral would go to one of the District Principals or District Vice Principals in charge of Learning Support (names listed in the contact info supportforlearning.sd61.bc.ca). The team would then assign appropriate personnel to the case. For urgent situations, the referral can be expedited – a principal can call the Acting Deputy Superintendent or District Principal (both listed as DLST contacts) to say, “We have an emergency.” The Deputy Superintendent’s involvement on that list supportforlearning.sd61.bc.ca suggests a high-level attention to these referrals, which likely speeds up response. Once a referral is made, DLST members will collaborate with the school to create an action plan. In crisis, this might even be same-day: e.g., the District Behaviour Analyst might come that afternoon to assess. There is also a formal structure for ongoing cases: the SBT might complete referral documentation (student history, strategies tried, etc.) for the DLST to review in their regular meeting, but an acute case wouldn’t wait for the next meeting – they’d jump in. Additionally, because the team includes a District Lead for Youth and Family Support, referrals might also come from a slightly different angle: say a community agency flags a student as high-risk and the district mobilises support preemptively. However, the home school SBT remains the gatekeeper; the SD61 website emphasises that accessing district professionals is done via the home school’s SBT supportforlearning.sd61.bc.ca. After an urgent referral, the DLST typically convenes a meeting involving the school team and family to discuss roles and plans. If needed (for instance, if the student might require a temporary partial day or placement in a specialised setting), that would be decided in consultation with district leadership. It’s a fairly straightforward chain: School identifies need → School-Based Team refers → District team engages, with flexibility to handle emergencies quickly.

Family Involvement: Greater Victoria clearly values family involvement, as evidenced by having a Youth and Family Support position on the district team supportforlearning.sd61.bc.ca. When the DLST gets involved, one of their members (potentially the District Counsellor or Youth and Family Support lead) will likely reach out to the parents right away. Parents are invited to participate in planning meetings so that any intervention plan is made with their input and consent. Because many urgent behaviour issues overlap with home issues (for example, a student’s mental health or a behavioural pattern), aligning school and home strategies is crucial. The family support coordinator can help families access outside services (like a referral to a pediatric psychiatrist, or connecting with community behavioural therapy) – indicating a wraparound approach. Also, if a situation requires, say, a reduced day or a change in program, the district will work with the family on a transition plan. One challenge that arose in Victoria was communication with stakeholders on safety planning vicnews.com. The new safety plan process has emphasised better communication, including with parents and community. So going forward, SD61 might formalise parent involvement even more. Already, if a student has a positive behaviour support plan or a safety plan, parents in Victoria are typically asked to sign off on it and ideally implement complementary strategies at home. In crisis events (like if a student injured someone at school), parents would be part of a re-entry or remediation meeting, likely discussing what conditions are needed for the student to safely return. All indications are that families are seen as critical partners – the district’s perspective is that without parent understanding and agreement, any intensive intervention will have limited success. Therefore, the DLST’s interventions often include parent training or guidance (especially if the Behaviour Analyst is involved, they might coach parents on techniques to use at home for consistency). In summary, families in SD61 are not only included but may receive direct support themselves, ensuring they’re equipped to reinforce the school’s efforts and decision-making is shared.

Intervention Model: Victoria’s intervention model is a blend of behaviourist and holistic practices. The inclusion of a Behaviour Analyst on the team indicates that for students with challenging behaviour, Applied Behaviour Analysis (ABA) strategies are utilised – these could involve conducting formal functional behaviour assessments, implementing behaviour programs (like token economies or specific skill training), and collecting data to measure progress. At the same time, the team’s structure (with counsellors and a mental health coordinator) shows a commitment to addressing underlying emotional needs, not just surface behaviours. In practice, an intervention from the DLST might include: a behaviour plan outlining how to respond to the behaviour (very behaviourist), a sensory regulation component(maybe providing noise-cancelling headphones or sensory breaks if the student has sensory triggers), and a counselling component (teaching the student coping strategies or providing therapy sessions). Victoria’s stance of preferring staff interventions over police involvement underscores a supportive, non-punitive philosophy vicnews.com. They explicitly do not want to criminalise student behaviour that can be managed educationally. This suggests a tendency toward restorative practices as well – for instance, if a student hurts someone, part of the plan might be facilitated apology or restorative dialogue once calm. Regarding behaviourist logic: yes, the model does contain a compliance aspect (students will have clear expectations and may face certain consequences like time-outs or loss of privileges if they exhibit dangerous behaviour), but the emphasis is on teaching and reinforcing positive behaviour rather than punishment. The mention of “proactive student supports and interventions” vicnews.com aligns with PBIS – preventing problems before they escalate. They likely use token systems or rewards when effective (especially at younger ages or for students who respond to them), but such tools would be part of a larger strategy including environmental changes and skill teaching. It’s also worth noting that because SD61 had controversy around school police liaison officers and safety, they are likely doubling down on training school staff in CPI (Crisis Prevention/Intervention) and possibly trauma-informed practice. The DLST’s Mental Health Resource Coordinator can ensure that interventions are sensitive to trauma or anxiety, not purely behaviourist “compliance for compliance’s sake.” In conclusion, Victoria’s model is rooted in behavioural science (thanks to the BCBA on staff) with a strong influence of compassionate, holistic education practices. It strives to manage behaviour through understanding and meeting student needs, engaging families, and using positive reinforcements, only resorting to restrictive measures when absolutely necessary for safety.

(Comparison to Vancouver: Greater Victoria’s approach with the DLST is very much akin to Vancouver’s UIP in that both deploy specialised expertise for urgent cases and rely on behaviour plans and data. One difference is that Victoria’s team is more broadly defined (covering learning, behaviour, and mental health together) and operates continuously via SBT referrals, whereas Vancouver’s UIP might feel more like a short-term “project” for a specific student. Another key difference is contextual: Victoria explicitly moved away from having police handle school incidents, whereas Vancouver’s UIP was always an educational intervention (not involving police anyway). Both districts emphasise proactive support and parent involvement. If anything, Victoria’s inclusion of a Youth & Family support role indicates an even greater recognition of out-of-school factors in behaviour, whereas Vancouver’s UIP is primarily school-focused. Philosophically, both are grounded in positive, behaviourist-informed support rather than old-school punitive discipline. They are more alike than different, with variations mainly in administrative structure and the breadth of the team’s mandate.)

Comparison and Key Similarities/Differences

Across these major BC districts, several common themes emerge in how urgent behavioural incidents are handled internally:

• Internal Specialised Support: All districts have some form of district-level expertise or team that school staff can call upon when student behaviour escalates beyond what the school can manage. Vancouver’s UIP is the most clearly defined “rapid response” team, but others have equivalent capacity: Surrey’s District Behaviour Specialists, Coquitlam’s Inclusion Support Team, Victoria’s Learning Support Team, etc., all fulfill a similar role of providing intensive, on-site support for behavioural crises. In districts like Richmond and North Vancouver, the function is embedded in their Inclusive Education staff (e.g. Area Counsellors, Behaviour Support Workers) rather than a stand-alone crew, but the principle is the same – help comes to the school rather than the student immediately leaving.
• Referral Mechanisms: In every case, the process begins with the School-Based Team (SBT) or school administration recognising a serious problem. The principal/SBT is the gatekeeper for accessing district urgent support. For Vancouver (UIP) this involves a formal process with criteria veaes.ca, whereas in other districts it might be a phone call or SBT decision to involve district staff. The timeline is generally quick: all districts strive to respond promptly to urgent referrals, often within days or even hours, because these situations are high-priority. A commonality is that documentation and a plan follow the referral – whether it’s Vancouver convening a planning meeting in 5 days veaes.ca or Burnaby arranging a Conduct Review meeting within a week burnabyschools.ca, there’s a structured approach to follow up on the initial crisis.
• Family Involvement: Each district includes parents/guardians in the process, though the format varies. Vancouver and Coquitlam explicitly have team members liaise with parents as part of interventions network.applytoeducation.com tricitynews.com. Burnaby and Victoria bring parents into formal meetings to discuss safety plans or conduct issues burnabyschools.ca vicnews.com. North Vancouver and Richmond involve parents through the collaborative planning (IEP/SBT) process and less formal communication. The similarity is that none of these interventions happen in isolation from families – there is acknowledgment that parental consent, insight, and cooperation are crucial to success. A difference might be in emphasis: Coquitlam’s model went as far as daily family outreach for attendance issues (very proactive), whereas a district like Burnaby involves parents more at the decision-making juncture (e.g., committee hearings after an incident, which is somewhat reactive).
• Branded vs. Generic Programs: Only some districts have a branded team name like Vancouver’s Urgent Intervention Program (UIP). Others use more generic descriptions: e.g., Safe and Caring Schools team(Burnaby), District Behaviour Support (Surrey), Area Counsellors (Richmond), Inclusion Support Team(Coquitlam), District Learning Support Team (Victoria). Despite naming differences, the core service – crisis intervention and behaviour support – is present in each. One notable point is that Vancouver’s UIP is a distinct process triggered in extreme cases, while in, say, Surrey or Richmond, the support for an extreme case is just an intensification of their ongoing support services. This means Vancouver’s approach might feel more exceptional (used when things hit a critical level), whereas other districts incorporate urgent responses into a continuum of support.
• Intervention Focus – Behaviourist Logic: All districts, to varying degrees, employ principles of behavioural psychology (ABA/PBIS) in their interventions. This is evidenced by mentions of Positive Behaviour Support plans, functional behaviour assessments, and reinforcement strategies in multiple districts’ materials (Vancouver network.applytoeducation.com, Surrey surreyschools.ca, Richmond richmond-news.com, North Van sd44.ca, etc.). Token systems or reward strategies are not always advertised publicly, but it’s likely they are used as tools wherever effective (especially for younger students or those with autism). Each district pairs the behaviourist techniques with a positive, student-centered philosophy – focusing on teaching the right behaviours and ensuring the student feels safe and included. For example, Richmond emphasises acknowledging good behaviour richmond-news.com, and Coquitlam focuses on keeping kids in class with support rather than using exclusion as punishment tricitynews.com. None of these districts rely on purely punitive measures as a primary strategy for these urgent cases; even Burnaby, which has a formal discipline committee, couples it with planning and support for the student burnabyschools.ca burnabyschools.ca. In summary, the compliance aspect is managed through structured plans and clear expectations, but always with an aim to help the student improverather than just enforce rules.
• Differences in Execution: A key difference lies in how the support is delivered:
  • VSB (Vancouver): Uses a dedicated “flying squad” (UIP team) that temporarily embeds in a school to stabilise a situation network.applytoeducation.com. It’s formal and time-limited, after which the case either resolves or transitions to another service.
  • Surrey: Relies on District Behaviour Specialists who might have a ongoing consultative role at their schools. Interventions can be immediate, but DBS tend to stick with the case as long as needed, and they also handle routine intensive cases, not just emergencies surreyschools.ca surreyschools.ca.
  • Burnaby: Uses a hybrid of on-site staff (Safe School Specialists) for everyday safety issues and district admin processes for extreme cases burnabyschools.ca burnabyschools.ca. This means the initial handling might be by the school’s own specialist, with district oversight coming in for follow-up decisions.
  • Richmond: Employs a capacity-building model – the ACT supports the teacher and school to handle the behaviour using PBIS methods richmond-news.com richmond-news.com. There’s less of a feeling of “escalation to a higher authority” and more “let’s work together to solve this,” even in crises.
  • Coquitlam: Has a large specialised team that both reacts to crises and works preventively across schools tricitynews.com tricitynews.com. They appear to have the resources to be deeply involved (500 referrals/year is a lot), so their model saturates the district with support, possibly reducing the occurrence of unchecked crises.
  • North Vancouver: Integrates support through family-of-schools staff and specialised EAs, handling issues in-house unless absolutely needing a program like Choices sd44.ca sd44.ca. It’s more decentralised; support might depend on the skill of individuals already assigned to the school.
  • Victoria: Similar to Vancouver in having a distinct central team, but that team covers more bases (learning, behaviour, mental health all together) supportforlearning.sd61.bc.ca. Their approach is becoming more formalised under the “Safety Plan” mandate, meaning we may see a more structured urgent intervention procedure (perhaps akin to UIP) developing.
• Police and External Agency Involvement: One notable difference is the role of police or external agencies in these interventions. Most behavioural interventions are educational, but:
  • Burnaby actively works with RCMP Youth Section as partners in school safety burnabyschools.ca, so if a behavioural incident has criminal undertones, police might be directly involved alongside district staff.
  • North Vancouver, Coquitlam, Richmond, Surrey all follow the provincial erase and VTRA protocols, which involve police only for threat assessment or crimes, not for routine behaviour support. They largely keep interventions “in-house” unless a law is broken.
  • Victoria had removed police liaison officers and had to clarify that police would only be for crime, with district staff handling behavioural interventions vicnews.com. This is similar to Vancouver’s stance (Vancouver also doesn’t have school liaison officers involved in UIP work).
  • So, the similarity: all districts prefer school/district-led interventions for student behaviour, not law enforcement, except when absolutely necessary (weapon, serious assault). The difference is Burnaby still had a formal police partnership for safety, whereas Victoria explicitly pulled back from police in schools, and others use police mainly in threat assessments.
• Outcomes and Placements: Another subtle difference is what happens after intervention. Vancouver’s UIP and Burnaby’s Conduct Review both might result in a student going to an alternate program or special class if needed (Vancouver might move a student to a diagnostic behaviour program; Burnaby might place a student at a alternate education site or the Maples program for a time). Coquitlam, Richmond, North Van are more inclined to keep the student in the original school, providing supports there (North Van’s Choices keeps students in their school community while giving support sd44.ca; Richmond seldom mentions moving students, emphasising inclusion). Surrey also tends to keep students in neighbourhood schools, though they have district behavioural classes as a last resort. So the districts differ in how often a student is referred out of the mainstream setting:
  • High inclusion bias: Richmond, Coquitlam, North Van (rarely moving students permanently; try in-class support).
  • Moderate: Vancouver, Surrey (will move if needed, but also attempt in-school support first).
  • Structured removal for extreme cases: Burnaby (Conduct Review can lead to alternate placement as a consequence in some cases). Victoria is somewhere in the middle – they try supports, but if safety demands, they might have interim alternative arrangements (home tutoring, short-term alternate program at SJ Willis ED centre, etc., though not mentioned in the question context).

In conclusion, all these large BC districts have converged on a philosophy of early, positive, and collaborative intervention for behavioural crises, similar in spirit to Vancouver’s UIP even if the names and structures differ. They each recognise that simply suspending or excluding a child doesn’t solve the problem, so they invest in internal teams/roles to manage crises constructively. Vancouver’s UIP was somewhat pioneering in its formal structure, but now we see that ethos echoed widely: from Surrey’s roaming behaviour specialists to Coquitlam’s beefed-up inclusion team to Victoria’s commitment to trained staff over police. Families are engaged in each model, reflecting the understanding that home and school must work together on these tough cases. And while the language of “behaviour modification” is wrapped in gentler terms like “support” and “social-emotional learning,” the strategies used (functional assessments, behaviour plans, reinforcement of desired behaviour) show a common reliance on behaviourist logic applied in a humane, educational way.

Ultimately, Vancouver’s UIP and its equivalents in other districts share the goal of keeping students and schools safe while striving to help every student learn better behaviour, rather than simply removing the student at the first sign of trouble. The differences lie in organizational approach and emphasis (proactive vs. reactive, integrated vs. discrete team, etc.), but the trend in BC’s large districts is unmistakable: urgent behavioural incidents are met with urgent, compassionate intervention from within the education system rather than from outside it vicnews.com, focusing on positive change and inclusion wherever possible.

Sources:

• Vancouver SD39 – Urgent Intervention Process (UIP) job posting network.applytoeducation.com network.applytoeducation.com; VSB/VTF agreement on UIP criteria veaes.ca.
• Surrey SD36 – District Behaviour Specialist role description surreyschools.ca surreyschools.ca surreyschools.ca.
• Burnaby SD41 – Safe & Caring Schools overview burnabyschools.ca burnabyschools.ca; Burnaby policy on Student Conduct Review (violence procedures) burnabyschools.ca burnabyschools.ca.
• Richmond SD38 – Monica Pamer (District) on Positive Behaviour Support and Area Counsellor Team richmond-news.com richmond-news.com.
• Coquitlam SD43 – Tri-City News report on Inclusion Support Team (staffing and referrals) tricitynews.com tricitynews.com tricitynews.com.
• North Vancouver SD44 – NVSD Inclusive Education Handbook (functional behaviour plans, BSWs, Choices program) sd44.ca sd44.ca sd44.ca; Choices Handbook (counsellor roles with parents) sd44.ca.
• Greater Victoria SD61 – SD61 Learning Support Team info (team roles, referral via SBT) supportforlearning.sd61.bc.ca supportforlearning.sd61.bc.ca; Victoria news on safety plan (district vs. police roles) vicnews.com.