Rapid Response Team (RRT)

Tier Two Meeting Minutes

Thursday August 6, 2015
550 West Cambie Street, Vancouver

In Attendance:

Stephanie Gillingham - Providence Health;

McDonald)- VPD;
Debbie Anderson-Eng City of Vancouver;
Dowdell)

Sergeant Tahir Humayun (for Mike

Olga OToole VCH CYMH (for Mary

Lorraine Grieves VCH Addictions

Ron Bergeron District Principal VSB

Anju Sohal (for Nazeem Ratanshi) VACFSS; Mike White MCFD Youth Services
Manager
Deb Kohen, Director of Practice MCFD
Pat Boyle MCFD Project Support

Agenda

Background
Introductions
Conceptual Model Review
RRT Minutes Tier One review
Discussion on operationalizing Tier Two
DTES mapping of resources
Questions / issues

PLEASE NOTE ACTION ITEMS ARE ALSO SUMMARIZED AT END OF

MINUTES
1. Background:
o Mike thanked everyone for attending on such short notice and provided a
brief background on why this meeting was occurring and how we had reached
this point.
o Representative for Children and Youth did an extensive review into the
death of a young person who had frequented the downtown eastside of
Vancouver and made a number of recommendations.
o As part of governments response to the recommendations, the
Ministry of Children and Family Development has been asked to ensure
that along with the various police, health, and social service provider,
that a multi-agency Rapid Response Team be established to ensure the
identification, and coordinated planned responses to high risk youth
frequenting the DTES.

o
o

A commitment was made that the Rapid Response Team would be in

place by the end of September, 2015.
Along with the invite to this meeting, Mike has provided a copy of the
Minutes of the Rapid Response Team Tier One meeting (Directors
Steering Committee) that occurred on July 14, 2015, and a copy of the
one-page over Conceptual Model for the Rapid Response Team.
Mike re-iterated that while the framework for the model has
been developed and received executive sign off, there will be
room for adjustments, enhancements as we move forward.
Initial time lines are fairly tight with respect to having the
response model in place
As was reflected in the Tier One meeting minutes - Mike acknowledged
that there were some variations in how the Downtown Eastside was
identified and the number of young people that may be deemed as
being at risk. (more later)

2. Introductions
3. Duty to Report
o Deb Kohen did a Brief introduction of the Duty to Report requirements
also coming out of the RCY review.
o Highlighted the tight timelines with this initiative as well
Plan in place by the end of August
Presentation starting by mid-September
That the DTES would be the first place that this would be
occurring before spreading to the rest of the province
o Suggestion made that once this / and the tier three group got
established they would be easy venues to offer orientations.
o When discussing how to get this information to other groups not
currently involved with this table the following things were
suggested:
City of Vancouver indicated that if may be very useful for
their property use inspectors to have this information
Tahir Humayun indicated that he had recently provide the
ministry contact information to a Parks and Recs staff member
who was looking at reporting a matter therefore may be useful
to provide there as well

Tahir indicated the Vancouver City Police had recently

sent out a member to their staff re-enforcing the
duty to report and contact information.
Discussion also raised that this was such a big undertaking
that a train the trainer model similar to the approach used
with SAIP when it was introduced would be useful making

sure that agencies provided the training to new employees

after the initial initiative has been completed.
ACTION: Deb Kohen would be in contact with members of this group
to discuss Duty to report Awareness Options.

4. Conceptual Model Review and Discussion:

o Model: Using the One-Page Conceptual Model overview as a reference, Mike
lead a discussion on the structures involved in the RRT model and their
purpose / intent, starting with:
o Tier Three being the people that provide direct service to youth.
o Tier Two being the Managers of the services providers /
representatives. (This group)
o Tier One Directors Steering Committee representatives.
See one page overview for the detailed listing of responsibilities
and frequency of meetings.
o

AGENCY / ORGANIZATION TO BE INVOLVED: Question raised about the

other agencies that may deliver some services to youth but may not
be considered Youth Serving Agencies?
o Portland Hotel Society and ATIRA were mentioned as
examples.
Discussion also included other contracted service agency that
may need to be present either at this level or minimally at the
Tier Three level and the most effective way of having that
occur.
Other agencies that were quickly mentioned that should
probably be at the table included:
o Community Living BC
o Provincial Health Services Authority (RICHER /
AMBULANCE SERVICE)
o Ray-Cam
o PLEA
o Urban Native Youth Association
o Connexus
o Boys and Girls Club

ACTION: When reviewing the Intent and Responsibilities of the Rapid

Response Team Model and the coordination of youth services at the
Program Manager level please identify and forward individuals /
organizations that should be invited to the next Tier Two meeting.

o NUMBERS OF HIGH RISK YOUTH: Discussion around the number

of young people who are consider at extremely high risk and are
frequenting the DTES.
o Vancouver City Police had one of their analysts do a quick
statistical run to try and get a sense of the numbers.
o Over a five year period, identified the number of
youth age 12-19 that had one or more contact with
the police as either an offender or victim
o Covered the postal code addresses in the
geographic area from Richards St. to Clark Dr. and
Waterfront to Prior Street.
o 131 youth
o 28 % were Aboriginal
o 30 % were Caucasian
o 16% were Asian
o If the age range was 20 24 there were
296 youth.
o Lorraine indicated that several years ago she ran the
numbers of youth involvements at Insite and could
probable get the run again to provide that information.
1
ACTION: That each of the organizations review the youth numbers
that they have access to and bring to the next meeting so that we
can start to get a sense of the actual number of high risk street
involved youth in the DTES.
o WHO ARE THE HIGH RISK YOUTH: There was a discussion the
numbers although useful would not be as helpful as the
ability for the direct service providers to be able to share and
compare the actual names of the youth.
o There is concerns that there is probably considerable
duplication and overlap on the lists that each of the
service provider has
o There are also concerns without a definitive way of crossreferencing and checking that there may be young
people that are missed / overlook and who may not be
properly prioritizing services.
o A request has been made at the Tier One meeting for
organizations to bring forward any information sharing
protocols that they may currently have in place that will
assist in designing information sharing process at the tier
one level.
o A request has also gone in to the Ministry policy and
Information Privacy branches to see if they can find or

create an information sharing protocol that would work for

this purpose.
o Questions raised as to whether the duty to report
requirement was not ample to have this occur?
o MAPPING: Discussion around the geographic area defined by the
DTES and to be the focus of the RRT.
o It was acknowledged that there were multiple definitions
of the DTES depending on who was measuring it and for
what purpose.
o Some of the areas that were in the catchment area (i.e.
Strathcona) may not be appropriate to include.
o It was also acknowledged that there were other areas the
GVA where there were significant children at risk that
should be taken into account.
o That for as starting point for the RRT that has to be
operational by the end of September we need to confine
our approach to the more restrictive area of the DTES, but
once operational and we are confident that no children are
being missed, we could look at expanding the model to
other areas of need.
ACTION: Prior to the next Tier Two meeting, Pat to send out the
number of maps he has received and allow people to review and
select which would be the most appropriate. Consensus model
decision making o AGE OF YOUTH: Discussion around whether this initiative was
limited to youth age 12 18.
o There was an acknowledgement that there needed to by
active transition services for youth that have reached the
age of 19 and that this must be included in our planning
and thinking
o It was also stated that the report was based on a young
person who was beyond age 19 and we need to be
conscious that we outreach efforts we make cannot just
stop.
o Although the initial focus of this group needs to be to
ensure the safety of children under the age of 19, we are in
a position of being able to collect data, information and
proposals to present to Tier One executive to support the
possible expansion of the age of service
o In certain program areas the MCFD looks at continuing
support so this is not out of context if the right business
case is made. However, it should not be just MCFD that is

considered, but other Ministry and Organizations that have

a mandate to provide a service to the 19-24 age group.
o LISTING OF AGENCIES AND SERVICE PROVIDERS: Discussion
around ensuring that there is an up to date listing of service
providers that are providing services to youth in the DTES.
o It is important to have an up-to-date listing of service
provider to ensure that
o The right people are at the Tier Three Table
o That the direct service providers and youth are
aware of the services that are available
o One of the RCY recommendations was to establish an
inventory of service providers currently working in the
Downtown Eastside and identify any gaps in the services
provided.
o Pat has started to compile a listing but would like to share
with the Tier Two and Three groups to be reviewed for
completeness and accuracy.
ACTION: Pat has started to compile an inventory of service
agencies but would like to share with the Tier Two and Three groups
to be reviewed for completeness and accuracy. Listing to be
attached to Minutes.
o YOUTH ENGAGEMENT AND FEEDBACK: Discussion around
ensuring that there is opportunity for youth to have comment
and feedback onto the models that we are looking at creating
post September 30.
o It is recognized that most of the organization represented
here have youth engagement or advisory tables attached
to them.
o Rather than creating another youth table, would it be
possible to ask the Tier Two Managers to take back to their
existing youth reference groups, whatever model that we
arrive at and ask for their feedback.
o This will not take away from existing youth advisory
structures and has the potential of expanding the degree of
feedback received.
o There was interest in this idea and a number of groups
offered to bring the model proposals to their youth advisory
group when we were ready.
o

CONNECTION WITH EXISTING GROUPS OR TABLES:

o
o

Discussion that there are a number of existing Service providers

tables that met and that either directly or indirectly provided
services to the youth in the DTES.
Concerns were expressed that although we did not want to make
the Tier Three group too big and unwieldy, it was important to be
inclusive in our process and the provision of service to youth.
Suggestions was made that maybe a representative of each of
these groups could be a part of Tier Three and be responsible
for taking the information back and forth.
This will be especially true when trying to access services and
resources for youth on an urgent basis.
Needs further exploration when creating the membership for the
Tier Three Table

5. Other Issues: Raised But not Time for Fulsome Discussion

o Wet Safe House: The issue of finding Wet Safe homes for youth
under the age of 18 was raised as a service gap-need that needs to
be addressed.
6. Next Meeting: Although no specific date or time was established it was
suggested that our next meeting be scheduled for mid-September. Details to be
forthcoming.

SUMMARY OF ACTION ITEMS:

ACTION: Deb Kohen would be in contact with members of this group to
discuss Duty to report Awareness Options.
ACTION: When reviewing the Intent and Responsibilities of the Rapid
Response Team Model and the coordination of youth services at the
Program Manager level please identify and forward individuals /
organizations that should be invited to the next Tier Two meeting.

 ACTION: That each of the organizations review the youth numbers that
they have access to and bring to the next meeting so that we can start to
get a sense of the actual number of high risk street involved youth in the
DTES.
ACTION: Prior to the next Tier Two meeting, Pat to send out the number
of maps he has received and allow people to review and select which
would be the most appropriate. Consensus model decision making ACTION: Pat has started to compile an inventory of service agencies but
would like to share with the Tier Two and Three groups to be reviewed for
completeness and accuracy. Listing to be attached to Minutes.