w o r k p l a c e
iolence
dealing with
United States
Office of
Personnel
Management
Office of
Workforce Relations
OWR-09
February 1998
a Guide for
Agency Planners
A Guide forAgency Planners
FOREWORD
Preventing workplace violence is a growing concern in the United States. Public interest and
media attention have focused primarily on dramatic but very rare types of violence such as
shootings by disgruntled employees in office buildings. Planners of workplace violence programs
face the dual challenge of reducing employees’ anxiety about very rare risk factors while focusing
their attention on more likely sources of danger. Undue anxiety about the “office gunman” can
stand in the way of identifying more significant, but less dramatic, risk factors such as poorly
lighted parking lots or gaps in employee training programs. This anxiety can also make it more
difficult to cope with one of the most common workplace violence problems — the employee
whose language or behavior frightens coworkers.
Federal employees in organizations such as the National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration have played a leading role in
helping employers recognize and respond appropriately to the actual risks of workplace violence
faced by their employees. At the same time, the risk of violence against Federal employees
themselves has received increased attention, particularly in response to the tragic loss of life in the
terrorist bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995. For many
Federal workers, the anti-government sentiment they had handled on the job for years suddenly
acquired a new and terrifying context.
Even before the Oklahoma City tragedy, Federal managers and specialists, like their private sector
counterparts, were becoming aware of the dangers of workplace violence and concerned about
developing preventive programs for their employees. This was a challenging endeavor. When they
turned to the private sector for expert guidance, they often found advice that was not necessarily
compatible with Federal laws and regulations, or that failed to cover issues faced by Federal
employees. However, in attempting to develop their own programs, agencies often discovered that
they lacked the expertise necessary for a truly comprehensive approach. Depending on its mission,
an agency might be rich in law enforcement personnel but without the needed resources in mental
health or other disciplines whose input was essential.
In the spirit of reinventing government, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management organized the
Interagency Working Group on Violence in the Workplace. The purpose was to bring together a
multi-disciplinary group of experienced professionals from throughout the Federal Government in
order to develop comprehensive approaches to analyzing and responding to threats or incidents of
violence in the Federal workplace. This document is a product of the U.S. Office of Personnel
Management and the Interagency Working Group.
Dealing with Workplace Violence
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This handbook reflects the contributions of experts from many professions and many Federal
agencies. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) wishes to thank all those who contributed
to the development of the handbook. We especially appreciate the assistance given by the
Department of Justice and the General Services Administration’s Federal Protective Service on
issues concerning law enforcement and security. Special thanks also go to the individuals listed
below whose willingness to share their expertise, experience, and talents enabled OPM to develop
guidance that provides answers to some of the most difficult questions about handling potentially
violent situations.
Melvin Basye, Federal Protective Service
Gary Beard, Federal Protective Service
Bernard Beidel, U.S. House of Representatives
Thomas Bresson, Smithsonian Institution
Donna Byler, Department of Army
Cathleen Civiello, Ph.D., Department of Defense
Scott Cooper, Esq., Department of Justice
Ben Elliott, Department of Justice
Robert L. Eufemia, Ed.D., Government Printing Office
Yvonne Fair, Department of Navy
Robert A. Fein, Ph.D., Consultant
Cynthia Field, Consultant
Michael Gelles, Psy.D., Naval Criminal Investigative Service
Lauretta Grier, Department of Housing and Urban Development
Lana Katz, American Federation of Government Employees, retired
Mark Maggio, Federal Judicial Center
Peter McCauley, Internal Revenue Service, retired
Michael McClure, Department of Army
Randi Mendelsohn, Federal Emergency Management Agency
Lloyd Reese, Department of Veterans Affairs, retired
Milagro Rodriguez, American Federation of Government Employees
Eugene Rugala, Federal Bureau of Investigation
Lisa Teems, Department of Health and Human Services
Bryan Vossekuil, U.S. Secret Service
Janice Walker, Department of Navy
Patricia Willman, Department of Interior
John D. Zielinski, National Labor Relations Board
A Guide forAgency Planners i
INTRODUCTION
Purpose of Handbook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
The Importance of Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
PART I: THE BASIC STEPS
OF PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT
SECTION 1 PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Forming a Planning Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Working with Your Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Steps in the Planning Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
SECTION 2 DEVELOPMENT OF WRITTEN
POLICY STATEMENT
Advantages of Written Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Policy Statement Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Recommended Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
SECTION 3 PREVENTION
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Warning Signs of Violence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Pre-Employment Screening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Security Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Using Alternative Dispute Resolution
(ADR) as a Preventive Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
PART II: CASE STUDIES
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Basic Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
How to Use the Case Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Case Study 1 - A Shooting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Case Study 2 - Viciously Beating
and Wounding a Coworker . . . . . . . 35
Case Study 3 - A Suicide Attempt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Case Study 4 - Stalking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Case Study 5 - A Domestic Violence Situation . . . . 43
Case Study 6 - A Threat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Case Study 7 - Veiled Threats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Case Study 8 - A Threat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dealing with Workplace Violenceii
PART II: CASE STUDIES (continued)
Case Study 9 - A Threat Made During
an EAP Counseling Session . . . . . . 56
Case Study 10 - Threats Made By an Ex-Employee 58
Case Study 11 - Threats From Non-Employees . . . . 61
Case Study 12 - Intimidation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Case Study 13 - Intimidation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Case Study 14 - Frightening Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Case Study 15 - Frightening Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Case Study 16 - Disruptive Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
PART III: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
SECTION 1 FACT FINDING/INVESTIGATING
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Types of Investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Administrative Investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Preparation and Procedures in
Administrative Investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Interview Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Other Considerations for the Agency Planning Group 89
SECTION 2 THREAT ASSESSMENT
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Threat Assessment Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Excerpts from Threat Assessment:
An Approach to Prevent Targeted Violence . . . . . . . . 93
SECTION 3 EMPLOYEE RELATIONS CONSIDERATIONS
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Administrative Actions to Keep an
Employee Away from the Worksite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
Disciplinary Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Disabilities As a Defense Against Alleged Misconduct 108
Ordering and Offering Psychiatric Examinations . . . . 109
Disability Retirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
Appeals of a Disciplinary Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
SECTION 4 EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE
PROGRAM CONSIDERATIONS
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
Overview of the Employee Assistance Program . . . . . 113
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A Guide forAgency Planners iii
SECTION 4 EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE
PROGRAM CONSIDERATIONS (continued)
The Employee Assistance Program’s Role in
Dealing with Workplace Violence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
Other EAP Considerations for the
Agency Planning Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
SECTION 5 WORKPLACE SECURITY
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
Security Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
Law Enforcement and Security Assistance . . . . . . . . 122
Physical Security Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
Physical Security in GSA Owned or Leased Buildings 124
Physical Security Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
Computer Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
Examples of Handouts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
SECTION 6 ORGANIZATIONAL RECOVERY
AFTER AN INCIDENT
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
Management Steps to Help an Organization Recover 133
The Critical Incident Stress Management Process . . . 135
Critical Incident Stress Debriefing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
Critical Incident Stress Defusing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
PART IV: RESOURCES
Federal Government Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
Non-Government Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
Computer Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dealing with Workplace Violenceiv
A Guide forAgency Planners 1
Introduction
Purpose of This handbook, developed by the U.S. Office of Personnel
Handbook Management and the Interagency Working Group on Violence
in the Workplace, is the result of a cooperative effort of many
Federal agencies sharing their expertise in preventing and dealing
with workplace violence. It is intended to assist those who are
responsible for establishing workplace violence initiatives at their
agencies. However, we anticipate that its usefulness will extend
well beyond the planning phase since many of the sections provide
information that can be helpful for managers and specialists as
they deal with difficult workplace violence situations.
Overview Part I of the handbook introduces a process for developing an
effective workplace violence program. It guides an agency’s
planning group through the basic steps of developing programs,
policies, and prevention strategies.
Case studies Part II presents a set of case studies for the planning group to
use in analyzing agency needs, planning programs, and training
personnel to respond to workplace violence situations. The case
studies introduce a wide range of challenges an agency may face,
and they provide discussion questions to help the planning group
develop the most effective approach to these challenges.
Basic technical Part III offers basic technical information on several areas of
information expertise that may be involved in workplace violence programs.
Its purpose is to serve as a reference for planning group members
as they find themselves working with colleagues whose
professional background is different from their own. While in no
way comprehensive enough to serve as a training manual, it helps
the planning group become more familiar with the technical
language, legal constraints, and other special issues that each
profession brings to the interdisciplinary group.
Guidance The guidance is based on the collective expertise and
experience of Federal Government law enforcement off i c e r s ,
security specialists, criminal investigators, attorneys, employee
relations specialists, Employee Assistance Program counselors,
Introduction
Dealing with Workplace Violence2
Overview forensic psychologists, and union officials. It consists
(continued) primarily of “lessons learned” from many years of experience
with actual cases involving potentially violent employees.
The guidance covers not only incidents of physical violence, such
as shootings and assaults, but also the far more prevalent incidents
of intimidating, “bullying,” and other inappropriate behavior that
frighten employees. It covers incidents involving employees and
incidents involving individuals from outside the agency
threatening violence against agency employees.
The Importance The central theme which emerges from the shared experience of
of Planning these specialists from different disciplines is this: While some
cases of workplace violence can be dealt with swiftly and easily
by a manager with the assistance of just one specialist or one
office, most cases can be resolved far more easily and effectively
if there is a joint effort which has been planned out in advance by
specialists from different disciplines.
Be prepared Many who have never experienced workplace violence say, I
don’t need to worry about this. It would never happen in my
office. Violent incidents are relatively rare, but they do occur, and
lives can be lost. A little preparation and investment in prevention
now could save a life. There is no strategy that works for every
situation, but the likelihood of a successful resolution is much
greater if you have prepared ahead of time.
The benefits of The experience of agencies who have developed programs has
a joint effort shown that managers are more willing to confront employees
who exhibit disruptive and intimidating behavior when they
are supported by a group of specialists who have done their
homework and are prepared to reach out to others when they
know a situation is beyond their expertise. This team approach
promotes creative solutions and much needed support for the
manager in dealing with difficult situations that might otherwise
be ignored.
Deal with Ignoring a situation usually results in an escalation of the problem.
disruptive situations Morale and productivity are lowered; effective employees leave
the organization. On the other hand, dealing effectively with
situations like hostility, intimidation, and disruptive types of
conflict creates a more productive workplace. This can have a
Introduction
A Guide forAgency Planners 3
The Importance deterrent effect on anyone contemplating or prone to committing
of Planning acts of physical violence. Employees will see that there are
(continued) consequences for their actions and that disruptive behavior is not
tolerated in their organization.
This handbook is intended to complement existing Federal
Government publications on workplace violence, such as the
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health’s Violence
in the Workplace Risk Factors and Prevention Strategies, and the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s Guidelines for
Preventing Workplace Violence for Health Care and Social
Service Workers.
Dealing with Workplace Violence4
PART I
The Basic Steps of
Program Development
A Guide forAgency Planners 5
Dealing with Workplace Violence6
Program Development
Overview There are many different approaches agencies can take in
developing plans to prevent workplace violence. An approach that
works well in one agency may not be suitable for another. T h i s
section outlines some broad guidelines that can help agencies in:
◆ Analyzing their current ability to handle potentially
violent situations,
◆ Filling in any skills gaps that exist,
◆ Developing a procedure for employees to report incidents, and
◆ Developing response plans.
Forming a Successful agency programs usually start by forming a planning
Planning Group group. The planning group evaluates the agency’s current ability
to handle violent incidents and recommends ways to strengthen its
response capability.
Typically, members of a planning group include representatives
from management, Employee Relations, Employee Assistance
Program (EAP), Law Enforcement, and Security. Organizations
that are too small to have a law enforcement/security component
often have a representative of the Federal Protective Service
(when they have jurisdiction) or the local police on their planning
group. Depending on the size and structure of the agency,
membership may also include representatives from Safety, Health
Unit, Medical Department, Office of Equal Employment
Opportunity, Public Affairs, and other appropriate offices.
Participation on the planning group should always be offered to
the Office of the General Counsel and the Office of Inspector
General. When these offices are not represented on the planning
group, they usually act as consultants to it.
While many offices may be represented on the planning group,
only a few of them will generally be involved in responding to
reported incidents. For example, representatives from Employee
A Guide forAgency Planners 7
PART I: SECTION 1
Program Development
Forming a Relations, EAP, and Security often make up the incident response
Planning Group team. Typically, representatives from the other offices will not be
(continued) involved in responding directly to incidents, but they will act as
consultants to the incident response team or play an active role
only in certain types of situations.
Working with An agency should involve the union early on in the process of
Your Union planning workplace violence programs. Unions are the elected
representatives of bargaining unit employees and are legally
entitled to negotiate over many conditions of employment of
those employees. Although some of the substantive issues
relating to workplace violence, including issues concerning
internal security, may be outside the duty to bargain, this does not
mean that consultation and discussion with the union cannot occur.
Union involvement is particularly appropriate where there are
labor-management partnership councils. It is a good practice to
involve recognized unions up-front, before decisions are made,
so that they can have an opportunity both to express employees’
concerns and to bring to bear their expertise and knowledge.
For example, the union may be aware of employees in the agency
who have special skills in conflict resolution or crisis counseling.
The union may also be helpful in identifying training needs
of employees with regard to workplace violence prevention.
Union involvement demonstrates both the agency’s and union’s
commitment to the success of a workplace violence program.
Steps in the
Planning Process
#1. Analyze agency’s Conducting an analysis of the agency’s current ability to handle
current ability to potentially violent situations is a necessary effort. Looking at
handle potentially previous incidents that have occurred at your agency and
violent situations evaluating how effectively they were handled is a good way to start.
Attention should be given to identifying patterns of risk and potential
prevention strategies, for example, where a particular workgroup is
having a number of complaints in a given period of time.
Also, reviewing the case studies in Part II of this handbook and
analyzing how they were handled in other agencies can help
planning groups determine if their own agency would be prepared
to handle similar incidents.
Dealing with Workplace Violence8
Program Development
Steps in the Staff expertise. Because of their different missions, agencies
Planning Process have different areas of staff expertise. Some organizations have
(continued) strong law enforcement capabilities, some have an in-house
medical staff, some have in-house Employee Assistance Program
(EAP) counselors, and some have criminal investigators.
Agencies may have employees who have special skills that
could be put to good use in a potentially violent situation, such as
employees who are skilled in mediation, conflict resolution, crisis
counseling, investigations, or threat assessment. Identifying
offices and individuals ahead of time, working with them in the
planning stages, and agreeing on a coordinated response effort is
one of the most effective ways of preparing an agency to handle
potentially violent situations should they arise.
Level of security and jurisdictional issues. An important part of
the analysis is to examine the current level of security at your agency.
Follow the advice of your security office or, if you are in a building
without a security staff, contact the General Services A d m i n i s t r a t i o n ’s
Federal Protective Service (when they have jurisdiction) or local law
enforcement about recommended basic security measures.
Work out in advance all jurisdictional issues among the various
security and law enforcement entities that may be involved should
an emergency occur. There have been cases where an employee
has called 911 and critical moments were lost because the Federal
Protective Service or in-house law enforcement were the ones
with jurisdiction, rather than the local police. In other cases,
employees called their in-house security guards and time was lost
while local police were being contacted because the security
guards did not carry firearms.
A Guide forAgency Planners 9
“Identifying offices and individuals ahead of
time, working with them in the planning stages,
and agreeing on a coordinated response effort
is one of the most effective ways of pre p a r i n g
an agency to handle potentially violent
situations should they arise.”
Program Development
Steps in the Jurisdictional issues are sometimes complicated and must be
Planning Process worked out ahead of time. See Part III, Section 5 for further
(continued) discussions of security issues and considerations.
#2. Fill the skills gaps Skills deficiencies exist even in large agencies with numerous
resources at hand. In some organizations training is needed. (See
page 18 for a discussion of training.) However, crisis situations
occur infrequently and it is often not practical to maintain in-
house expertise for every aspect of the agency’s response plan.
If this is the case, suggested sources of outside assistance include:
◆ Other government agencies. Get to know specialists in
other government agencies. Federal agencies often share
expertise, especially when crisis situations occur. They are also
an invaluable source for learning about new training materials and
effective training approaches.
◆ Local Police. If you do not have in-house law enforcement,
or are not in a building served by the Federal Protective Service,
get to know your local police officers. Invite them in to work with
your planning group. They can recommend security measures.
They can tell you about jurisdiction and what they would do if you
called them during an incident. They can teach employees
personal safety techniques and how to avoid becoming a victim.
◆ Other community resources. Locate and work with
resources in your community. For example, if you don’t have
immediate access to emergency mental health consultation, you
can work with your local community mental health department,
“hotline” staff, hospital, or emergency crisis center. A nearby
university may have faculty who are willing to be consulted.
#3. Develop The primary consideration in developing a reporting procedure is
a procedure for to make sure that it encourages employees to report all incidents,
employees to even minor ones. Some agencies use hotlines. Some arrange for
report incidents a member of the team to take the calls, usually a specialist from
Employee Relations or Security. Other agencies require employees
to report incidents to their supervisor (or to any agency supervisor),
who in turn reports these incidents to Employee Relations or Security.
Credibility for any reporting system will be dependent upon
whether reports are handled quickly and effectively. Word
Dealing with Workplace Violence10
Program Development
Steps in the spreads quickly among employees when a report is made and
Planning Process nothing is done, when a report is handled improperly, or when
(continued) the allegations are not treated confidentially. Therefore, before a
reporting procedure is announced to employees, ensure that the
agency staff who will be responding to reported incidents are
trained and able to handle any reported incidents.
Also important to the success of any reporting system is
m a n a g e m e n t ’s encouragement for reporting incidents. A g e n c y
managers must create an environment that shows that management
will always respond to reports of incidents and to employee concerns.
Incident reports should be reviewed on a periodic basis to provide
feedback on the effectiveness of existing intervention strategies
and prevention efforts.
#4. Develop plans to Given the wide range of incidents and situations that can occur at
respond to workplace the worksite (from disruptive behavior to shootings) and, within
violence incidents that range, the wide variation in threatening and disruptive behaviors,
it is difficult for agencies to define specifically the responsibilities
of the different offices that would be involved in responding to an
incident under a workplace violence program. Agencies have
found it useful to classify incidents in broad categories, for example,
e m e rg e n c y / n o n - e m e rg e n c y, or emerg e n c y / t h r e a t s / b u l l y i n g / d i s r u p t i v e
b e h a v i o r, or coworker/outsider.
Using these broad categories, agencies can determine which off i c e s
will generally respond to each type of incident and what role each
o f fice would play in the response effort. Agencies can plan for both
immediate responses and long-term responses, when appropriate. For
example, in the case of a suicide threat, the plan may state that the
Employee Assistance Program (EAP) counselor determines whether
further action is necessary. If the suicide threat seems imminent, the
plan may state that the community’s emergency services (or local
police) are contacted. The plan would also state what management
would do if the EAP counselor were not immediately available.
A Guide forAgency Planners 11
Take threats seriously. Employees may
not step forward with their concerns if
they think that management will minimize
these concerns.
Program Development
Steps in the To facilitate developing a plan that works for your agency, a series
Planning Process of case studies are provided in Part II of this handbook. There
(continued) you will find examples of the plans that were in place to handle a
number of situations.
It will become apparent from reviewing these examples that plans
for a coordinated response to reported incidents must be kept
flexible. Responsibility for overall coordination and direction is
usually assigned to one individual or one office. The coordinator
must have the flexibility to use the plan as a guideline, not a
mandatory set of procedures. More important, the coordinator
must have the flexibility to tailor the recommended response
to the particular situation. It is important to recognize that
threatening situations often require creative responses. Given
this, the importance of flexibility cannot be overemphasized.
The case studies in Part II highlight the need for backup plans in
situations calling for an immediate response where the individual
responsible for a certain aspect of the response effort has gone
home for the day, is on vacation, or is out of the building at a
meeting. Taking a team approach in responding to a potentially
violent situation is an ideal way to provide backup coverage.
A team approach ensures that all staff in Employee Relations,
the Employee Assistance Program, Security, and other offices
are thoroughly trained and prepared to work together with
management to deal with potentially violent situations. It
ensures coverage, regardless of which staffer in each of the
offices is on duty when the incident occurs.
Dealing with Workplace Violence12
You can’t always prevent violence because
violent incidents are sometimes unpredictable,
but you can reduce the risk by planning ahead
and being prepared to act swiftly to deal with
threats, intimidation, and other disruptive
behavior at an early stage.
Development of
Written Policy
Statement
Advantages of Once a workplace violence program is ready to be implemented,
Written Policies agencies must decide whether to issue a written policy statement.
Among the advantages of issuing a statement are:
◆ It informs employees that the violence policy covers
intimidation, harassment, and other inappropriate behavior that
threatens or frightens them;
◆ It encourages employees to report incidents;
◆ It informs employees whom to call; and
◆ It demonstrates senior management’s commitment to dealing
with reported incidents.
Agency programs can also be implemented without a written
policy statement. In these agencies, employees are often given
information about the program (especially whom to call) in training
sessions, on posters, in newsletter articles, or by other similar
methods. Note: Agencies have an inherent right to take action
against employees who engage in disruptive or threatening behavior
whether or not they have issued a written policy statement.
Policy Statement A workplace violence policy statement should convey that:
Contents
◆ All employees are responsible for maintaining a safe
work environment;
◆ The policy covers not only acts of physical violence, but
harassment, intimidation, and other disruptive behavior;
◆ The policy covers incidents involving coworkers and incidents
involving individuals from outside the agency perpetrating
violence against agency employees;
A Guide forAgency Planners 13
PART I: SECTION 2
Development of Written Policy Statement
Policy Statement ◆ The agency will respond appropriately to all reported incidents;
Contents (continued)
◆ The agency will act to stop inappropriate behavior; and
◆ Supervisors and all of the offices involved in responding to
incidents will be supported by agency management in their
efforts to deal with violent and potentially violent situations.
Recommended Consider the following recommendations in developing your
Approaches written policy statement:
Keep it brief A written policy statement should be brief and simple.
Implementation details can be provided in training and in
more detailed backup documents. For example, roles and
responsibilities of the various offices involved in responding to
potentially dangerous situations can be outlined in memoranda of
understanding or in operating manuals/instructions rather than in
the written policy statement that is issued to all agency employees.
This approach gives agency staff the flexibility they will need to
deal creatively with these fluid, unpredictable situations.
Consider the T h e r e are disadvantages to using definitions of terms such
disadvantages of as violence, threats, and harassment in your written policy
using definitions statement. Definitions can discourage employees from reporting
incidents that they do not believe fall within the definition. The
reporting system should not deter employees from reporting
situations that frighten them. An employee knows a threat or
intimidation or other disruptive behavior when he or she
experiences it — definitions are not necessary. If you want to
clarify the scope of your organization’s concept of one or more
of the terms in the policy, you could use examples. For example,
you may want to give examples of verbal and non-verbal
intimidating behavior.
Another consideration is that definitions are often restrictive and
may create legal problems in the future when you are taking
disciplinary actions against the perpetrators of workplace
violence. Use of definitions can make it more difficult to defend
a case on appeal.
Be cautious with C o n s i d e r that there could be negative consequences from using
“Zero Tolerance” the term “zero tolerance.” It could create legal problems in the
Dealing with Workplace Violence14
Development of Written Policy Statement
Recommended future when you are taking disciplinary actions against the
Approaches perpetrators of workplace violence. Use of the term could make it
(continued) more difficult to defend a case on appeal because a third party could
conclude, however mistakenly and inappropriately, that the agency
has not considered a penalty appropriate for the particular offense.
There are other possible consequences. The term “zero tolerance”
might appear to eliminate any flexibility an agency has in dealing
with difficult situations even if this is not intended. Another
undesirable side effect is that the appearance of inflexibility can
discourage employees from reporting incidents because they do
not want to get their coworker fired — they just want the
behavior stopped. This appearance of inflexibility also may
discourage early intervention in potentially violent situations.
The sample policy on the next page contains language that is
similar to “zero tolerance” but takes care of the previously
mentioned concerns. It says the agency will not tolerate violent
or disruptive behavior and then clarifies what that means by
saying “that is, all reports of incidents will be taken seriously
and dealt with appropriately.”
Consult with Consult your Office of General Counsel for the legal
Legal Counsel implications of your draft policy.
A Guide forAgency Planners 15
Development of Written Policy Statement
Agencies that wish to issue a written policy statement can use the following sample, changing the
format and tone as appropriate, and adapting it for their own situations.
Sample Written Policy Statement
MEMORANDUM FOR EMPLOYEES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF _________
FROM: DEPARTMENT OR AGENCY HEAD
SUBJECT: Workplace Violence
It is the [insert Department or Agency name]’s policy to promote a safe environment for its
employees. The Department is committed to working with its employees to maintain a work
environment free from violence, threats of violence, harassment, intimidation, and other disruptive
behavior. While this kind of conduct is not pervasive at our agency, no agency is immune. Every
agency will be affected by disruptive behavior at one time or another.
Violence, threats, harassment, intimidation, and other disruptive behavior in our workplace will
not be tolerated; that is, all reports of incidents will be taken seriously and will be dealt with
a p p r o p r i a t e l y. Such behavior can include oral or written statements, gestures, or expressions that
communicate a direct or indirect threat of physical harm. Individuals who commit such acts may be
removed from the premises and may be subject to disciplinary action, criminal penalties, or both.
We need your cooperation to implement this policy effectively and maintain a safe working
environment. Do not ignore violent, threatening, harassing, intimidating, or other disruptive
behavior. If you observe or experience such behavior by anyone on agency premises, whether he
or she is an agency employee or not, report it immediately to a supervisor or manager. Supervisors
and managers who receive such reports should seek advice from the Employee Relations Office at
xxx-xxxx regarding investigating the incident and initiating appropriate action. [PLEASE NOTE:
Threats or assaults that require immediate attention by security or police should be reported
first to security at xxx-xxxx or to police at 911.]
I will support all efforts made by supervisors and agency specialists in dealing with violent,
threatening, harassing, intimidating or other disruptive behavior in our workplace and will monitor
whether this policy is being implemented effectively. If you have any questions about this policy
statement, please contact ______________ at xxx-xxxx.
Dealing with Workplace Violence16
Prevention
Overview One major component of any workplace violence program is
prevention. The topics in the previous sections, such as program
development and union involvement, are important parts of a
workplace violence prevention program. This section will focus
on additional measures that can be taken to reduce the risk of
violent behavior.
Warning Signs The first question many people ask when starting to develop a
of Violence workplace violence prevention program is, How can we identify
potentially violent individuals? It is understandable that people
want to know this — and that “early warning signs” and “profiles”
of potentially violent employees are in much of the literature on
the subject of workplace violence. It would save time and solve
problems if managers could figure out ahead of time what behaviors
and personality traits are predictive of future violent actions.
Indicators of No one can predict human behavior and there is no specific
potentially “profile” of a potentially dangerous individual. However,
violent behavior indicators of increased risk of violent behavior are available.
These indicators have been identified by the Federal Bureau of
I n v e s t i g a t i o n ’s National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime,
Profiling and Behavioral Assessment Unit in its analysis of past
incidents of workplace violence. These are some of the indicators:
◆ Direct or veiled threats of harm;
◆ Intimidating, belligerent, harassing, bullying, or other
inappropriate and aggressive behavior;
◆ Numerous conflicts with supervisors and other employees;
◆ Bringing a weapon to the workplace, brandishing a weapon in
the workplace, making inappropriate references to guns, or
fascination with weapons;
◆ Statements showing fascination with incidents of workplace
violence, statements indicating approval of the use of violence
to resolve a problem, or statements indicating identification
with perpetrators of workplace homicides;
A Guide forAgency Planners 17
PART I: SECTION 3
Prevention
Warning Signs of ◆ Statements indicating desperation (over family, financial, and
Violence (continued) other personal problems) to the point of contemplating suicide;
◆ Drug/alcohol abuse; and
◆ Extreme changes in behaviors.
Each of these behaviors is a clear sign that something is wrong.
None should be ignored. By identifying the problem and dealing
with it appropriately, managers may be able to prevent violence
from happening. Agency planning groups should ensure that the
appropriate staff member (or an incident response team) is
prepared to assist supervisors and other employees in dealing with
such situations. Some behaviors require immediate police or
security involvement, others constitute actionable misconduct and
require disciplinary action, and others indicate an immediate need
for an Employee Assistance Program referral.
On the other hand, it is seldom (if ever) advisable to rely on what
are inappropriately referred to as “profiles” or “early warning
signs” to predict violent behavior. “Profiles” often suggest that
people with certain characteristics, such as “loners” and “men in
their forties,” are potentially violent. This kind of categorization
will not help you to predict violence, and it can lead to unfair and
destructive stereotyping of employees.
The same can be said of reliance on “early warning signs” that
include descriptions of problem situations such as “in therapy,”
“has had a death in the family,” “suffers from mental illness,” or
“facing a RIF (reduction in force).” Everyone experiences stress,
loss, or illness at some point in life. All but a very few people
weather these storms without resorting to violence. Managers
should, of course, be trained to deal with the kinds of difficulties
mentioned here, such as bereavement or mental illness. However,
this training should focus on supporting the employee in the
workplace, and not in the context of, or on the potential for,
workplace violence.
Training Training is a critical component of any prevention strategy.
Training is necessary for employees, supervisors, and the staff
members of each office that may be involved in responding to an
incident of workplace violence.
Dealing with Workplace Violence18
Prevention
Training (continued) Training sessions conducted by the agency’s Employee A s s i s t a n c e
Program, Security, and Employee Relations staffs are particularly
helpful, enabling employees to get to know experts within the
agency who can help them when potentially violent situations
arise. Employees and supervisors seek assistance at a much earlier
stage when they personally know the agency officials who can
help them. The following are types of training that have proved
e f fective in preventing violence and other threatening behavior.
Employee training All employees should know how to report incidents of violent,
intimidating, threatening and other disruptive behavior. All
employees should also be provided with phone numbers for quick
reference during a crisis or an emergency. In addition, workplace
violence prevention training for employees may also include
topics such as:
◆ Explanation of the agency’s workplace violence policy;
◆ Encouragement to report incidents;
◆ Ways of preventing or diffusing volatile situations or
aggressive behavior;
◆ How to deal with hostile persons;
◆ Managing anger;
◆ Techniques and skills to resolve conflicts;
◆ Stress management, relaxation techniques, wellness training;
◆ Security procedures, e.g., the location and operation of safety
devices such as alarm systems;
A Guide forAgency Planners 19
Providing appropriate training informs
employees that management will take threats
seriously, encourages employees to report
incidents, and demonstrates management’s
commitment to deal with reported incidents.
Prevention
Training (continued) ◆ Personal security measures; and
◆ Programs operating within the agency that can assist
employees in resolving conflicts, e.g., the Employee
Assistance Program, the ombudsman, and mediation.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
recommends that employees in health care and social services
organizations should receive formal instruction on the specific
safety and security hazards associated with their particular job or
f a c i l i t y. Detailed information is available in OSHA’s Guidelines for
P reventing Workplace Violence for Health Care and Social Serv i c e
Wo r k e r s (see page 147 for website and ordering information).
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH) also discusses the importance of training that is tailored
to the specific risks in the employee’s workplace. NIOSH’s
publication Violence in the Workplace: Risk Factors and
Prevention Strategies discusses clearly identifiable workplace risk
factors, such as dealing with the public, and emphasizes that
training will be more useful and credible when it addresses risk
factors specific to job tasks or locations (see page 145 for website
and ordering information).
Supervisory training In addition to the training suggested above, special attention
should be paid to general supervisory training. The same
approaches that create a healthy, productive workplace can also
help prevent potentially violent situations. It is important that
supervisory training include basic leadership skills such as setting
clear standards, addressing employee problems promptly, and
using the probationary period, performance counseling, discipline,
and other management tools conscientiously. These interventions
can keep difficult situations from turning into major problems.
Supervisors don’t need to be experts on violent behavior; what is
needed is a willingness to seek advice from the experts.
Some agencies include training on workplace violence as part of
general supervisory training, some conduct separate training
sessions on workplace violence, and some include it in crisis
management training. Whichever approach is taken, supervisory
training should cover:
Dealing with Workplace Violence20
Prevention
Training (continued) ◆ Ways to encourage employees to report incidents in which
they feel threatened for any reason by anyone inside or
outside the organization,
◆ Skills in behaving compassionately and supportively towards
employees who report incidents,
◆ Skills in taking disciplinary actions,
◆ Basic skills in handling crisis situations,
◆ Basic emergency procedures, and
◆ How to ensure that appropriate screening of pre-employment
references has been done.
Incident response The members of the incident response team need to be competent
team training in their own professions and they need to know when to call for
outside resources. Participating in programs and training sessions
sponsored by government and professional organizations, reading
professional journals and other literature, and networking with
others in the profession are all helpful in dealing with workplace
violence situations.
Team members also need to understand enough about each other’s
professions to allow them to work together eff e c t i v e l y. Response
team training should allow discussion of policies, legal constraints,
technical vocabulary, and other considerations that each profession
brings to the interdisciplinary group. Part III of this handbook is
intended to introduce team members to key issues in professions
other than their own.
A Guide forAgency Planners 21
“Training sessions conducted by the agency’s
Employee Assistance Program, Security, and
Employee Relations staffs are particularly
helpful, enabling employees to get to know
experts within the agency who can help them
when potentially violent situations arise.”
Prevention
Training (continued) Much of the incident response team training can be accomplished
by practicing responses to different scenarios of workplace
violence. The case studies in Part II of this handbook are
intended for this purpose. Practice exercises can help the staff
understand each other’s responses to various situations so that
there is no confusion or misunderstanding during an actual
incident. In addition, practice exercises can prepare the staff to
conduct the supervisory training suggested above.
The team members also need to consult regularly with other
personnel within the organization who may be involved in dealing
with potentially violent situations. Those who are consulted on an
ad hoc basis should receive some appropriate training as well.
Pre-Employment Pre-employment screening is an important part of workplace
Screening violence prevention. Prior to hiring an employee, the agency
should check with its servicing personnel office and legal office,
if necessary, to determine what pre-employment screening
techniques (such as interview questions, background and reference
checks, and drug testing) are appropriate for the position under
consideration and are consistent with Federal laws and regulations.
Security Measures Maintaining a physically safe work place is part of any good
prevention program. Agency facilities use a variety of security
measures to help ensure safety. These include:
◆ Employee photo identification badges;
◆ On-site guard services and/or individually coded card keys for
access to buildings and areas within buildings according to
individual needs; and
Dealing with Workplace Violence22
Use practice exercises to see how the
incident response team would deal with
different situations.
Prevention
A Guide forAgency Planners 23
Security Measures ◆ Guard force assistance in registering, badging, and directing
(continued) visitors in larger facilities.
Part III, Section 5 contains additional suggestions for preventive
security measures and resources for obtaining additional information.
Using Alternative Some agencies use ombudsman programs, facilitation, mediation,
Dispute Resolution and other methods of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) as
(ADR) as a preventive strategies in their workplace violence programs. ADR
Preventive Strategy approaches often involve a neutral third party who can assist
disputing parties resolve disagreements. ADR is most helpful in
workplace violence programs at the point when a problem first
surfaces, i.e., before an employee’s conduct rises to a level that
warrants a disciplinary action.
Weapons Prohibition
Possession or use of firearms and other dangerous weapons
on a Federally owned or leased facility, including grounds,
parking lots and buildings, is illegal. 18 USC Section 930 (a)
and (b) state:
“Whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present
a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal
f a c i l i t y, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.”
(Certain exceptions apply. See 18 USC Section 930(c).)
“Whoever with intent that a firearm or other
dangerous weapon be used in the commission of a
crime, knowingly possesses or causes to be present
such firearm or dangerous weapon, in a Federal
facility, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.”
It is important to post signs of the prohibition against weapons at
the entrances to Federal buildings. Agency employees should be
trained to report suspected violations immediately to a building
security official, a supervisor, or other appropriate authority.
Prevention
Using ADR as a The following is a short description of some ADR techniques that
Preventive Strategy agencies have found useful in dealing with potential workplace
(continued) violence problems at the very earliest stages.
Ombudsmen Ombudsmen are individuals who rely on a number of techniques
to resolve workplace disputes. These techniques include
counseling, mediating, conciliating, and fact-finding. Usually,
when an ombudsman receives a complaint, he or she interviews
the parties, reviews available information and policies, and offers
options to the disputants. Typically, ombudsmen do not impose
solutions. The effectiveness of the ombudsman lies in his or her
problem-solving ability. Generally, an individual not accepting an
option offered by the ombudsman is free to pursue a remedy using
another forum for dispute resolution.
Facilitation Facilitation techniques improve the flow of information in a
meeting between parties to a dispute. The term “facilitator” is often
used interchangeably with the term “mediator,” but a facilitator
does not typically become as involved in the substantive issues as
does a mediator. The facilitator focuses more on the process
involved in resolving a matter. Facilitation is most appropriate
when the intensity of the parties’emotions about the issues in
dispute are low to moderate, the parties or issues are not extremely
polarized, or the parties have enough trust in each other that they
can work together to develop a mutually acceptable solution.
Mediation Mediation uses an impartial and neutral third party who has no
decision-making authority. The objective of this intervention is to
assist the parties to voluntarily reach an acceptable resolution of
issues in dispute. Mediation is useful in highly polarized disputes
where the parties have either been unable to initiate a productive
dialogue, or in cases where the parties have been talking and have
reached a seemingly insurmountable impasse.
A mediator, like a facilitator, makes primarily procedural
suggestions regarding how parties can reach agreement.
Occasionally, a mediator may suggest some substantive options
as a means of encouraging the parties to expand the range of
Dealing with Workplace Violence24
Prevention
Using ADR as a possible resolutions under consideration. A mediator often works
Preventive Strategy with the parties individually to explore acceptable resolution
(continued) options or to develop proposals that might move the parties
closer to resolution.
Interest-Based Interest-Based Problem Solving is a technique that creates
Problem Solving effective solutions while improving the relationship between the
parties. The process separates the person from the problem,
explores all interests to define issues clearly, brainstorms
possibilities and opportunities, and uses some mutually agreed
upon standard to reach a solution. It is often used in collective
bargaining between labor and management in place of traditional,
position-based bargaining. However, as a technique, it can be
effectively applied in many contexts where two or more parties
are seeking to reach agreement.
Peer Review Peer Review is a problem solving process in which an employee
takes a dispute to a panel of fellow employees and managers
for a decision. The decision may or may not be binding on the
employee and/or the employer, depending on the conditions of the
particular process. If it is not binding on the employee, he or she
would be able to seek relief in traditional forums for dispute
resolution if dissatisfied with the decision under peer review.
The principal objective of the method is to resolve disputes early
before they become formal complaints or grievances.
For a resource about these and other alternative dispute resolution
techniques, see page 145.
A Guide forAgency Planners 25
Dealing with Workplace Violence26
PART II
Case Studies
A Guide forAgency Planners 27
Dealing with Workplace Violence28
Case Studies
Introduction The call comes in.
Someone’s been shot — there is a fight going on — someone’s
been threatened — someone’s being stalked by an ex-boyfriend —
someone’s threatening suicide — someone wants to put a stop to
the “Bullying” behavior that’s been going on in his office.
These are just a few examples of the types of incidents reported.
How each agency responds to these reports will differ, not only
among agencies but also within each agency, because the
circumstances surrounding each situation are different. Even in
agencies that are highly structured and have well-thought-out
procedures in place, the response will necessarily depend on:
◆ The nature of the incident,
◆ The circumstances surrounding the incident,
◆ Who is available to respond, and
◆ Who has the skills to deal with the particular situation.
What has been learned from agencies’many years of experience is
that the most effective way to handle these situations is to take a team
approach, rather than having one office handle a situation alone. In
some cases of workplace homicides, it became apparent that the
situation got out of control because personnel specialists did not
inform security about a problem employee, or coworkers were not
warned about the threatening behavior of an ex-employee, or one
agency specialist felt he had to “go it alone” in handling the situation.
Agencies should have plans in place ahead of time so that
emergency and non-emergency situations can be dealt with as
soon as possible. However, it is also necessary to build the
maximum amount of flexibility possible into any plan.
Basic Concepts Since agencies and situations differ, specific steps or procedures
to follow on a Governmentwide basis would be inappropriate and
A Guide forAgency Planners 29
PART II
Case Studies
Basic Concepts impractical. However, there are some basic concepts that all
(continued) agencies should keep in mind when formulating their strategy to
address workplace violence.
◆ Respond promptly to immediate dangers to personnel
and the workplace.
◆ Investigate threats and other reported incidents.
◆ Take threats and threatening behavior seriously; employees
may not step forward with their concerns if they think that
management will dismiss their worries.
◆ Deal with the issue of what may appear to be frivolous
allegations (and concerns based on misunderstandings) by
responding to each report seriously and objectively.
◆ Take disciplinary actions when warranted.
◆ Support victims and other affected workers after an incident.
◆ Attempt to bring the work environment back to normal after
an incident.
How to Use the The case studies presented in this section are derived from real
Case Studies life situations that have arisen in Federal agencies. They are
intended to provide assistance to agency planners as they develop
workplace violence programs and assess their readiness to handle
these types of situations. It should be noted that, in some of the
case studies, the circumstances have been modified to make them
better learning tools.
As you read the case studies, keep in mind that there is no one
correct way to handle each situation. The case studies should not
be taken as specific models of how to handle certain types of
situations. Rather, they should be a starting point for a discussion
and exploration of how a team approach can be instituted and
adapted to the specific needs and requirements of your agency.
Dealing with Workplace Violence30
Case Studies
How to Use the
Case Studies
(continued)
Questions for discussion The case studies are intended to raise questions such as:
1. Do we agree with the approach the agency took in the case study?
2. If not, why wouldn’t that approach work for us?
3. Do we have adequate resources to handle such a situation?
Questions for Establish a system to evaluate the effectiveness of your response
program evaluation in actual situations that arise so that you can change your
procedures if necessary. Ask the following questions after
reviewing each of the case studies and after planning how your
agency would respond to the same or a similar situation:
1. Does our workplace violence program have a process for
evaluating the effectiveness of the team’s approach following
an incident?
2. Would our written policy statement and written procedures
limit our ability to easily adopt a more effective course of
action in the future, if an evaluation of our response showed
that a change in procedures was necessary?
3. Do we have plans to test our response procedures and
capability through practice exercises and preparedness drills
and change procedures if necessary?
Although these case studies are derived from real life situations,
the characters in them are fictional and have been created for
educational purposes. No reference to any individual living or
dead is intended or should be inferred.
A Guide forAgency Planners 31
The Incident The report comes in: Two employees have been killed in the
workplace and two have been wounded. A witness has called 911
and the police and ambulances have arrived. The perpetrator (an
agency employee) has been taken into custody, the victims are
being sent to the hospital, and the police are interviewing
witnesses and gathering evidence.
Response In this situation, the agency’s crisis response plan called for the
immediate involvement of:
(1) A top management representative,
(2) A security officer,
(3) An employee relations specialist,
(4) An Employee Assistance Program counselor, and
(5) An official from the public affairs office.
Top management representative. The manager, an Assistant
Director of a field office with 800 employees, coordinated the
response effort because she was the senior person on duty at the
time. In addition to acting as coordinator, she remained available
to police throughout the afternoon to make sure there were no
impediments to the investigation.
She immediately called the families of the wounded and assigned
two other senior managers to notify the families of the deceased.
She also arranged for a friend of each of the deceased coworkers
to accompany each of the managers. She took care of numerous
administrative details, such as authorizing expenditures for
additional resources, signing forms, and making decisions about
such matters as granting leave to coworkers. (In this case, the
police evacuated the building, and employees were told by the
Assistant Director that they could go home for the rest of the day,
but that they were expected to return to duty the following day.)
Dealing with Workplace Violence32
CASE STUDY
Case Study 1 –
A Shooting
A Guide forAgency Planners 33
CASE STUDY
Case Study 1 – To ensure a coordinated response effort, she made sure that
A Shooting agency personnel involved in the crisis had cell phones for
(continued) internal communication while conducting their duties in various
offices around the building.
Security staff. The security staff assisted the police with
numerous activities such as evacuating the building.
Employee Relations Specialist. The employee relations
specialist contacted the agency’s Office of the General Counsel
(OGC) and Office of Inspector General (OIG) and alerted them to
the situation so that they could immediately begin to monitor any
criminal proceedings. He made a detailed written record of the
incident, but he did not take statements from witnesses because
it could have impeded the criminal investigation and possible
subsequent prosecution of the case. He also helped the supervisor
draft a letter of proposed indefinite suspension pending the
outcome of the potential criminal matter. He worked closely
with the OGC, OIG, and prosecutor’s office to obtain relevant
information as soon as it was available so the agency could
proceed with administrative action when appropriate.
Employee Assistance Program (EAP) counselor. The agency
had only one EAP counselor on duty at the time. However, in
prior planning for an emergency, the agency had contracted with a
local company to provide additional counselors on an “as needed”
basis. The one EAP counselor on duty called the contractor and
four additional counselors were at the agency within an hour.
The counselors remained available near the scene of the incident
to reassure and comfort the employees. Since they were not
agency employees, they wore readily visible identification badges.
After the Office of Inspector General received permission from
the prosecutor’s office, the agency EAP counselor arranged for a
series of Critical Incident Stress Debriefings (CISD) to take place
two days later (see page 136 for a discussion of CISD). She also
arranged for two contract EAP counselors to be at the workplace
for the next week to walk around the offices inquiring how the
employees were doing and to consult with supervisors about how
to help the employees recover.
Dealing with Workplace Violence34
CASE STUDY
Case Study 1 – Public Affairs Officer. The Public Affairs Officer handled all
A Shooting aspects of press coverage. She maintained liaison with the
(continued) media, provided an area for reporters to work, and maintained
a schedule of frequent briefings. She worked closely with the
agency’s Office of Congressional Relations, who handled calls
from congressional offices about the incident.
Questions for the 1. How would your agency have obtained the services of
Agency Planning Gro u p additional EAP counselors?
2. How would employees be given information
about this incident?
3. Who would clean up the crime scene?
4. Would you relocate employees who worked in the area of the
crime scene?
5. What approach would your agency take regarding granting
excused absence on the day of the incident and requests for
leave in the days/weeks following the incident?
6. How would you advise management to deal with work
normally assigned to the victims/perpetrator?
7. What support would your agency provide to supervisors to
get the affected work group(s) back to functioning?
The Incident The following incident was reported to the agency’s Incident
Response Team. A female employee had broken off a romantic
relationship with a male coworker, but he wouldn’t leave her
alone. She finally had a restraining order served to him. After
receiving the restraining order, the perpetrator lost control and
entered the woman’s office. He hit her; she fell from her chair.
While she was on the floor, he broke a soda bottle and cut her
face with the broken glass. While this was going on, coworkers
heard the commotion and called the police. The perpetrator fled
the scene before police arrived and the victim was transported to
the hospital.
Response The Incident Response Team immediately implemented the
following plan.
Security. The Security officer worked with hospital security to
ensure that the victim got around-the-clock security while she was
in the hospital. He ensured that the hospital staff knew not to
give out any information about the victim to callers. He gave the
victim advice, reading material, and a video on personal safety.
He made sure the perpetrator’s card key was inactivated, and he
had pictures of the perpetrator made for the building guards. He
coordinated efforts with local police.
Employee Assistance Program (EAP). The EAP c o u n s e l o r
visited the victim in the hospital and ensured that she was being
seen regularly by a social worker on the hospital staff. She
worked with the victim’s colleagues to help them be supportive of
the victim when she came back to work. The EAP c o u n s e l o r
visited the worksite to let coworkers know she was available to
t h e m .
Employee Relations. The employee relations specialist contacted
the agency’s Office of General Counsel and Office of Inspector
General and alerted them to the situation so that they could begin
to monitor any criminal proceedings. He helped the supervisor
develop a notice of proposed indefinite suspension using the
crime provision set forth in 5 USC 7513(b).
A Guide forAgency Planners 35
CASE STUDY
Case Study 2 –
Viciously Beating and
Wounding a Coworker
Dealing with Workplace Violence36
CASE STUDY
Case Study 2 – Union. The union was fully supportive of the agency’s efforts to
Viciously Beating help the victim. Since both the victim and the perpetrator were
and Wounding bargaining unit employees, the union was aware of its role to
a Coworker represent all employees in the bargaining unit. In this particular
(continued) case, the perpetrator grieved, but because of the viciousness of
the attack, union officials were reluctant to take the case to
arbitration. In addition, realizing that this could happen to other
employees, the union officials obtained brochures on stalking
from their national headquarters and invited an expert speaker on
the subject to a chapter meeting.
Supervisor. The employee’s supervisor obtained all the necessary
forms and assisted the employee in filing an Office of Workers
Compensation Programs (OWCP) claim to pay for hospital and
medical costs. The supervisor and the employee’s coworkers
visited her in the hospital, kept in touch with her during her
convalescence, and kept her up-to-date on news from the office.
Agency Attorney. An agency attorney maintained contact with
the local prosecutor’s office.
Resolution The police caught and arrested the perpetrator after about 10 days.
The agency proposed and effected a removal action against the
perpetrator based on a charge of “Wounding a coworker.” He did
not appeal the action.
The employee remained hospitalized for two days and then went
to the home of a friend until the perpetrator was apprehended.
She remained at home for another two weeks before returning to
work. Her OWCP claim was accepted. She continues to stay in
touch with the Employee Assistance Program counselor who had
visited her at the hospital and assisted her during her time away
from the office. The counselor referred her to a support group for
battered women, and she finds it very helpful.
The perpetrator was found guilty and received jail time. After jail
time was served, and at the suggestion of an agency attorney, the
court forbade the perpetrator to contact the victim or the agency
as one of the conditions of probation. The security officer alerted
security guards and discussed security precautions with the
victim, ensuring that there would be an effective response if the
perpetrator violated this restriction.
Questions for the 1. Who at your agency would monitor the proceedings of the
Agency Planning Gro u p criminal case, e.g., to be aware of the situation if the
perpetrator got out of jail on bail or probation?
2. Does your security office maintain liaison with and keep in
contact with agency or local law enforcement authorities in
order to coordinate efforts in these type of cases?
3. Do you have a procedure in place for cleaning up the scene of
the incident after investigators are finished examining it?
4. Would employees at your agency know who to call in an
emergency — for example, 911, the Federal Protective
Service, in-house security, or in-house law enforcement?
A Guide forAgency Planners 37
CASE STUDY
Case Study 2 –
Viciously Beating and
Wounding a Coworker
(continued)
The Incident A member of the agency’s Incident Response Team received a
frantic call from an employee saying that her coworker just left
her office muttering about the final straw — you all won’t have
me to push around any more. She said she’s been worried for
weeks about the possibility of her coworker committing suicide
and knows now she should have called earlier. The staff member
who took the call told the employee to see if she could find her
coworker and remain with her. Help was on its way.
Response For incidents involving suicide threats, the agency’s plan was to
call local police if there seemed to be imminent danger and, if
not enough was known about the situation, to contact security
and the Employee Assistance Program (EAP) counselor to do an
immediate assessment of the situation.
The team member who took the initial call first contacted a Security
o fficer who immediately located the two employees. The EAP
counselor could not be reached immediately, so the team member
called an employee in the Human Resources (HR) department who
had earlier volunteered to help out in emergency situations (she had
been trained in her community in dealing with suicide attempts).
The HR specialist arrived at the distressed employee’s off i c e
within two minutes of the call. The employee was crying at this
point and making statements such as, No one can help me a n d I t ’ l l
be over soon. The HR specialist recognized what was happening
and asked the security officer to call police and an ambulance and
tell them there was a suicide attempt. After calling the police, the
security officer went outside to meet the emergency workers and
direct them to the scene. The HR specialist then learned from the
woman that an hour earlier she had swallowed 10 pills. The police
and ambulance were on the scene within three minutes of the call
and the woman was hospitalized.
The HR specialist contacted the employee’s family and then
prepared a report of the incident. The Employee Assistance
Program counselor consoled and supported the coworker who
had initially called the Incident Response Team.
Dealing with Workplace Violence38
CASE STUDY
Case Study 3 –
A Suicide Attempt
Case Study 3 – Emergency treatment was successful, and the employee was
A Suicide Attempt admitted to the hospital’s psychiatric unit. The EAP counselor
(continued) and HR specialist stayed in touch with the employee and
supported her in planning her return to work. She returned
to work four weeks later, functioning with the help of anti-
depressant medication and twice-weekly psychotherapy sessions.
With the employee’s consent, the EAP counselor arranged a
meeting involving the employee, her supervisor, and the Human
Relations specialist to coordinate her treatment and work
activities. The supervisor agreed to adjust the employee’s work
schedule to fit her therapy appointments as a reasonable
accommodation, and the supervisor provided guidance on
procedures and medical documentation requirements for leave
approval. The counselor, supervisor, and employee agreed on a
plan for getting the employee immediate emergency help if she
should feel another crisis coming on.
Resolution Two years later, the employee is doing well, working a normal
schedule, and continues to be a productive employee. She no
longer takes anti-depressant medication, but she stays in touch
with both her psychiatrist and the EAP counselor.
Questions for the 1. Do you agree with the agency’s approach in this case?
Agency Planning Group
2. Does your agency have back-up plans for situations where key
team members are not available?
3. Has your agency identified employees with skills in
handling emergencies?
4. Does your workplace violence policy and training encourage
employees to report incidents at an early stage?
5. Does your workplace violence policy and training encourage
employees to seek guidance with regard to problems that
trouble them even when they don’t fully understand the nature
of the problem?
6. If the employee had left the building before emergency
personnel arrived, does your plan provide for contacting the
appropriate authorities?
A Guide forAgency Planners 39
CASE STUDY
The Incident A supervisor called the Employee Relations office to request a
meeting of the workplace violence team for assistance in handling
a situation he’s just learned about. He was counseling one of his
employees about her frequent unscheduled absences, when she
told him a chilling story of what she’s been going through for the
past year. She broke up with her boyfriend a year ago and he’s
been stalking her ever since. He calls her several times a week
(she hangs up immediately). He shows up wherever she goes on
the weekends and just stares at her from a distance. He often
parks his car down the block from her home and just sits there.
He’s made it known he has a gun.
Response This agency’s plan calls for the initial involvement of security, the
Employee Assistance Program (EAP), and employee relations in
cases involving stalking. The security officer, the EAP counselor,
and employee relations specialist met first with the supervisor and
then with the employee and supervisor together. At the meeting
with the employee, after learning as much of the background as
possible, they gave her some initial suggestions.
◆ Contact her local police and file a report. Ask them to assess her
security at home and make recommendations for improvements.
◆ Log all future contacts with the stalker and clearly record the
date, time, and nature of the contact.
◆ Let voice mail screen incoming phone calls.
◆ Contact her own phone company to report the situation.
◆ Give permission to let her coworkers know what was going on
(she would not agree to do this).
◆ Vary her routines, e.g., go to different shops, take different
routes, run errands at different times, report to work on a
variable schedule.
The team then worked out the following plan:
Dealing with Workplace Violence40
CASE STUDY
Case Study 4 –
Stalking
Case Study 4 – 1. The Employee Relations specialist acted as coordinator of the
Stalking (continued) response effort. He made a written report of the situation and
kept it updated. He kept the team members, the supervisor,
and the employee apprised of what the others were doing to
resolve the situation. He also looked into the feasibility of
relocating the employee to another worksite.
2. The S e c u r i t y o f ficer immediately reported the situation to the local
police. With the employee’s consent, she also called the police
where the employee lived to learn what steps they could take to
help the employee. She offered to coordinate and exchange
information with them. The security officer arranged for increased
surveillance of the building and circulated photos of the stalker to
all building guards with instructions to detain him if he showed up
at the building. She brought a tape recorder to the employee’s
desk and showed her the best way to tape any future voice mail
messages from the stalker. She also contacted the agency’s phone
company to arrange for its involvement in the case.
3. The Employee Assistance Pro g r a m counselor provided support
and counseling for both the employee and the supervisor
throughout the time this was going on. He suggested local
o rganizations that could help the employee. He also tried to
convince her to tell coworkers about the situation.
4. The Union arranged to sponsor a session on stalking in order
to raise the consciousness of agency employees about the
problem in general.
After a week, when the employee finally agreed to tell coworkers
what was going on, the EAP counselor and security officer jointly
held a meeting with the whole work group to discuss any fears or
concerns they had and give advice on how they could help with
the situation.
Resolution In this case, the employee’s coworkers were supportive and
wanted to help out. They volunteered to watch out for the stalker
and to follow other security measures recommended by the
security specialist. The stalker ended up in jail because he tried to
break into the employee’s home while armed with a gun. The
security officer believes that the local police were able to be more
responsive in this situation because they had been working
together with agency security on the case.
A Guide forAgency Planners 41
CASE STUDY
Case Study 4 –
Stalking (continued)
Questions for the 1. Do you agree with the agency’s approach in this case?
Agency Planning Gro u p
2. What would you do in a similar situation if your agency
doesn’t have security guards?
3. What would you do if coworkers were too afraid of the stalker
to work in the same office with the employee?
4. What would you do if/when the stalker gets out of jail on bail
or out on probation?
5. Would your Office of Inspector General have gotten involved
in this case, e.g., coordinated agency efforts with local law
enforcement agencies?
Dealing with Workplace Violence42
CASE STUDY
The Incident A team member, the employee relations specialist, receives a
phone call from an employee. She reports that she has just
finished a long conversation with a friend and coworker, a part-
time employee, who revealed to her that she is a victim of
domestic violence. To her surprise, she learned that the woman’s
husband has been abusing her since their first child was born.
He is careful to injure her only in ways that do not leave visible
signs, and she feels sure no one would ever believe her word
against his. The family’s assets, even "her” car, are all in his
name, and her part-time salary would not be enough for herself
and the children to live on. Further, he has threatened to kill her
if she ever leaves him or reveals the truth. After talking with the
employee, the coworker agreed to let the situation be reported to
the workplace violence team.
Response The Employee Relations specialist agreed to meet with both
employees immediately. The abused woman asked to have her
friend along and, at the employee relations specialist’s suggestion,
gave her permission to explain the situation to the two employees’
supervisor. After interviewing her in a caring, supportive way to
get basic information, she asked other team members, the security
director and the Employee Assistance Program (EAP) counselor,
to join her in analyzing the situation. Then she met with the
abused employee, her friend (at her request), and her supervisor to
report on the team’s recommendations.
The Employee Assistance Program counselor arranged for the
abused woman to see another counselor, who had an open
appointment that same day, for counseling and referral to the
community agencies that could help her.
The counselor referred her to a comprehensive shelter for victims
of abuse. She explained the comprehensive services the shelter
could offer her: a safe place to stay with her children, advice on
how to get out of her home situation safely, legal advice, and
much other helpful information. At first, the employee was
afraid to change the status quo. After several meetings with the
Employee Assistance Program counselor and encouraging talks
A Guide forAgency Planners 43
CASE STUDY
Case Study 5 –
A Domestic Violence
Situation
Case Study 5 – with her friend, she agreed to talk with the shelter staff. Her
A Domestic Violence friend drove her to the meeting. They worked with her to develop
Situation (continued) a safe plan for leaving home with her children.
The employee asked the workplace violence team to coordinate
with the shelter staff. After discussing her plan with them, the
Security director identified that right after she left home would be
a high risk period and arranged for a guard to be at the workplace
during that time. He supplied photographs of the husband to the
guard force.
With the woman’s consent, the supervisor and security director
discussed the situation with coworkers, shared the picture with
them, and explained what they should do in various contingencies.
At the meeting one coworker began complaining about danger to
herself. The friend argued persuasively that, This could happen
to any of us. Would you rather we stick together, or leave one
another to suffer alone? This rallied the group, and the coworker
decided to go along with the others.
The Supervisor agreed to use flexitime and flexiplace options to
make the employee more difficult to find. Not only would she be
working a different schedule; she would report to a suburban
telecommuting center instead of the agency’s central office.
The supervisor explained to the employee that she would like
very much to have her on board full time, as she was an excellent
worker, but that there was no position available. However, she
encouraged her to seek a full time job, and made phone calls to
colleagues in other departments to develop job leads for her. One
of her professional associates offered to allow the employee to use
their organization’s career transition center, which had excellent
job search resources, and was located in a different part of town
from her normal worksite.
Resolution The employee executed her plan for leaving home and moved to
the shelter with her children. She worked with an attorney to
obtain financial support and to begin divorce proceedings. She
often had times of doubt and fear but found the shelter staff very
supportive. Her coworkers encouraged her to call daily with
reports on her progress.
Dealing with Workplace Violence44
CASE STUDY
Case Study 5 – The husband appeared at the office only once, a few days after his
A Domestic Violence wife moved into the shelter. He shouted threats at the security
Situation (continued) guard, who calmly called for backup from the local police.
Fearing for his reputation, he fled the scene before police could
arrive. The guard force continued to monitor any efforts by the
husband to gain entry to the building.
Six months later, the employee has obtained a full-time position at
a nearby office within the same agency. She discovered that they
also had a workplace violence team and made them aware of her
situation, just in case she should need their help. She and her
children have moved into an apartment. The children are seeing
a child psychologist, recommended by the Employee Assistance
Program counselor, to help them make sense of an upsetting
situation, and she attends a support group for battered women.
Her friend from her former office has helped her with
encouragement, support, and suggestions on how to handle the
stresses of single parenthood.
Questions for the 1. Are your team members knowledgeable about
Agency Planning Gro u p domestic violence?
2. What do you think about the role of the friend? How would
you encourage agency employees to support coworkers in
these types of situations?
3. Does your agency have access to career transition services to
help in these types of situations?
4. Has your planning group identified someone knowledgeable
about restraining/protective orders to discuss with the
employee the pros and cons of obtaining one?
A Guide forAgency Planners 45
CASE STUDY
The Incident At a smoking break with one of his colleagues from down the hall, an
employee was re p o r ted to have said, I like the way some employees
handle problems with their supervisors — they eliminate them.
One of these days I’m going to bring in my gun and take care of
my problem. The employee who heard the statement re p o rted it to
his superv i s o r, who in turn re p o rted it to his superv i s o r, who called a
member of the workplace violence team.
Response In the case of a reported threat where there does not appear to be
an imminent danger, the agency’s plan called for the employee
relations specialist to conduct an immediate preliminary
investigation and for the team to meet with the supervisor
immediately afterward to look at the available evidence and
strategize a preliminary response.
That afternoon, the Employee Relations specialist interviewed
the employee who heard the threat, that employee’s supervisor,
the supervisor of the employee who made the threat, and
subsequently the employee who allegedly made the threat.
The employee who made the threat denied saying any such
thing. There were no witnesses.
The supervisor of the employee who allegedly made the threat
reported that, several months earlier, the same employee had
responded to his casual question about weekend plans by saying,
I’m going to spend the weekend in my basement with my guns
practicing my revenge. At that time, the supervisor had warned
the employee that such talk was unacceptable at work and
referred the employee to the Employee Assistance Program
(EAP). Both supervisors expressed concern for their staff’s
safety. Based on comments from supervisors and the employee
who made the threat, the employee relations specialist
recommended that a more thorough investigation be done.
At the meeting where the employee relations specialist’s findings
were discussed, the following people were present: the first- and
second-level supervisor of the employee who allegedly made the
threat, an Associate Director of the agency, the agency security
Dealing with Workplace Violence46
CASE STUDY
Case Study 6 –
A Threat
Case Study 6 – officer, the employee relations specialist, the EAP counselor, and
A Threat (continued) an attorney with the General Counsel’s Office.
One of the team members recommended that the employee be
given a counseling memo and referred to the Employee A s s i s t a n c e
Program. The consensus of the others, however, based on the
employee relations specialist’s oral report, was to recommend to
the supervisor that the employee be placed on excused absence
pending an investigation and that he be escorted from the premises.
The Security Off i c e r and the employee’s second-level S u p e r v i s o r
went together to give the alleged threatener a letter that stated, T h i s
is to inform you that effective immediately you will be in a paid,
non-duty status, pending an agency determination re g a rding your
actions on June 10. You are re q u i red to provide a phone number
w h e re you can be reached during working hours. They also took
away his identification badge and office keys, and escorted him to
the building exit.
The team consulted with the agency’s Office of Inspector General
which arranged for a criminal investigation to be conducted. The
Criminal Investigator interviewed all of the employee’s
coworkers and two other employees who the coworkers indicated
had knowledge of this employee’s prior statements against his
supervisors. He then interviewed the alleged threatener.
The criminal investigator checked to see if the employee had a
police record. He did not. The investigator also checked his
workplace to see if he had any weapons at the office or if he had
any written material of a threatening nature. The search of his
workplace found nothing of consequence.
The investigative report showed that the employee told his
coworkers on several occasions that he had no respect for his
supervisor and that he thought that threatening him was an
effective way to solve his problems with him. Signed statements
indicated that he bragged about knowing how to get his way with
his boss.
The prosecutor’s office, after receiving the investigative report,
made a determination that it would not prosecute the case and
informed management that they could proceed with administrative
action. The team recommended a proposed removal action since
A Guide forAgency Planners 47
CASE STUDY
Case Study 6 – the evidence showed that the employee was using threats to
A Threat (continued) intimidate his supervisor.
Resolution The second-level supervisor proposed a removal action based on a
charge of “threatening a supervisor.” A top manager who had not
been directly involved in the case initially insisted that the agency
enter into a settlement agreement that would, among other things,
give the employee a clean Standard Form (SF) 50. However,
based on the particular facts in this case, the team convinced him
that he was not solving any problems by settling the case in this
way and was, in fact, just transferring the problem to another
unsuspecting employer. The top manager finally agreed and the
employee was removed from Federal service.
Questions for the 1. What would your agency have done about checking references
Agency Planning Gro u p before hiring this employee?
2. What do you think would have been the risks of settling the
case with a clean SF 50?
3. How would your agency have handled the case if the key
witness (i.e., the employee who heard the threat) had
demonstrated certain behavior that cast doubt on his credibility?
Dealing with Workplace Violence48
CASE STUDY
Even though the agency did not settle the case, and did, in
fact, effect a removal action, the employee was soon hired by
another agency anyway. The new agency never checked his
references and is now experiencing the same type of
intimidating behavior from the employee.
The Incident A team member took a phone call from a supervisor who said,
One of my employees said this morning that he knows where my
kids go to school. I know that doesn’t sound like much to you,
but if you saw the look in his eyes and heard the anger in his
voice, you’d know why I need your help in figuring out what to do.
Response The team member who took the call heard more details about the
incident and then set up a meeting with the supervisor who made
the report, a security specialist, an employee relations specialist,
and an Employee Assistance Program (EAP) counselor.
At the meeting, the Supervisor who made the report told the team
that the employee who said that he knows where his kids go to
school has been engaging in intimidating behavior against him for
the past year since he became his supervisor. The supervisor had
spoken with him on several occasions to let him know that his
behavior was unacceptable. He also had given him a written
warning along with a written referral to the EAP.
Because the office was in a General Services Administration
controlled building, the Security specialist then called the
regional office of the Federal Protective Service (FPS). The FPS
contacted the threat assessment unit of the state police, who
agreed to assign a threat assessment consultant to assist the
agency. In a phone consultation with the team, the Threat
Assessment Consultant suggested that the team arrange for an
immediate investigation by an investigator who was experienced
in workplace violence cases. The investigator should explore the
following areas:
1. What further background information can be learned about the
relationship between the supervisor and alleged threatener?
2. What is the relationship between the supervisor and his other
employees and coworkers?
3. Have there been problems of a similar nature with the alleged
t h r e a t e n e r’s previous supervisors? If so, how were they resolved
A Guide forAgency Planners 49
CASE STUDY
Case Study 7 –
Veiled Threats
Case Study 7 – or handled? If there were problems with previous supervisors,
Veiled Threats were they similar to or different from the current situation?
(continued)
4. What are the alleged threatener’s relationships with
coworkers? Might there be other potential victims? Are there
also interpersonal problems between the alleged threatener and
other employees?
5. Are there unusually stressful problems in the life of the alleged
threatener, e.g., divorce, financial reversal, or any other recent
significant traumatic event?
6. Does anyone else feel threatened based on their interaction
with the alleged threatener?
7. Does the alleged threatener have access to weapons? Has he
recently acquired weapons?
The threat assessment consultant scheduled another telephone
consultation with the team for three days later. He also suggested
that the investigator not interview the alleged perpetrator until
after the next phone consultation.
The investigation was conducted immediately by a Professional
Investigator and the team reviewed the investigative report prior
to the next phone conversation with the threat assessment
consultant. The report contained statements by the employee’s
supervisor about veiled threats the employee had made, such as
If you give me that assignment, you’ll be sorry, I know where
you live, and I see you every day on your way to work. (The
employee lives at the opposite end of town from the supervisor.)
Also in the investigative report was a transcript (and a tape
recording) of two voice mail messages that the supervisor found
intimidating—one in which the employee said he needed annual
leave that day to go for target practice and another one in which
he said he couldn’t come to work that day because he had to go
hunting. Again, the supervisor’s statement showed that he
considered the employee’s tone of voice to be intimidating and
said that, on the day previous to each of these phone calls, the
employee had acted as though he was angry about new
assignments the supervisor had given him. The supervisor said
he has taken several precautions as a result of the threats.
Dealing with Workplace Violence50
CASE STUDY
Case Study 7 – For example, he told his children to take precautions, installed
Veiled Threats dead bolt locks at his home, and asked the local police to do a
(continued) security survey of his home. In addition to the investigative
report, the security office obtained a police record showing a
misdemeanor conviction for spousal abuse several years earlier.
Participating in the phone consultation with the threat assessment
consultant was the workplace violence team, the second-line
supervisor, and the director of the office. The purpose of the
consultation was to:
◆ Analyze the information contained in the investigative report,
◆ Determine what additional information was needed,
◆ Determine whether to interview the alleged perpetrator,
◆ Help the team members organize their thinking about how to
proceed with the case, and
◆ Discuss a range of options that could be taken.
The threat assessment consultant recommended that the
investigator interview three coworkers, the employee’s ex-wife,
and subsequently the alleged threatener. The purpose of the
interview with the alleged threatener would be to corroborate
what was said by the others and get his explanation of why he
made the statements. The interview would also communicate to
him that this kind of conduct has been noticed, troubles people,
and is not condoned. He advised that security measures,
including having a security officer in the next room, be taken
when the alleged threatener was interviewed. The threat
assessment consultant also gave the team guidance in the
preservation of evidence, such as written material and tape
recordings, and in the documentation of all contacts.
During the interview, the alleged threatener made what the
investigator believed were several additional veiled threats
against the supervisor. He even behaved in a way that led the
investigator to be concerned about his own safety.
Based on the findings of the investigation, the threat assessment
consultant concluded that the employee presented behaviors that
A Guide forAgency Planners 51
CASE STUDY
Case Study 7 – showed that a real possibility existed that the employee, if pushed,
Veiled Threats might carry out some of his threats toward the supervisor and his
(continued) family. He expressed concern that, if the employee continued to
work in the same office, the situation could escalate. Management
decided to place the employee on excused absence for the safety
of the threatened supervisor.
The threat assessment consultant worked with team members to
develop a plan for ongoing security. For example, he suggested
the team identify one member to coordinate case management,
recommended monitoring any further communication between the
employee and other agency employees (e.g., any phone calls, any
email messages, and any showing up at residences were to be
reported to the case manager). He recommended that security
officials be in the area, though not visible, whenever meetings
were held with the employee. The threat assessment consultant
remained available for telephone consultation as the team carried
out the plan.
Resolution Though the agency had concerns that any agency action might
trigger an action against the supervisor’s family, the agency went
ahead and removed the employee based on a charge of threatening
behavior. The agency’s analysis considered the credibility of the
supervisor and employee, and the information and evidence
gathered. The employee did not appeal the removal action.
The agency security officer gave the supervisor advice on
personal safety and discussed with him the pros and cons of
obtaining a restraining order for his family. The security officer
also helped the supervisor get in touch with the local office of
victim assistance for additional ideas on ways to protect his
family. The threat assessment consultant also spoke with the
supervisor and suggested that he may want to go to the school,
school bus driver, and neighbors and make them aware of the
problem and the alleged threatener’s appearance (show them his
picture). The reason for involving the school and neighbors
would be to encourage them to report any suspicious activities
to the police. He also talked to the supervisor about police
involvement and discussed filing criminal charges. If the police
said the situation was not serious enough to file criminal charges,
he suggested finding out from the police what was serious enough
to warrant an arrest. For example, he could explore with police
Dealing with Workplace Violence52
CASE STUDY
Case Study 7 – what would constitute a pattern of behavior that might be
Veiled Threats considered serious enough to pursue action under the state’s
(continued) stalking or harassment statute.
Questions for the 1. If this incident were reported at your agency, would you have
Agency Planning Gro u p used a criminal investigator or administrative investigator to
conduct the initial investigation?
2. If your agency has a criminal investigative service, have you
discussed the feasibility of involving agency criminal
investigators at an early stage in the process of dealing with
threatening behavior, i.e., in situations where threatening
behavior does not yet rise to the level of a crime?
3. Has your agency identified a threat assessment professional to
whom you could turn for assistance if the need arose?
4. How does your agency keep up with Merit Systems Protection
Board case law on charges and threats?
5. If this happened at your agency, and the threatening behavior
continued, what would you do to protect the supervisor and
his family?
A Guide forAgency Planners 53
CASE STUDY
The Incident A visibly upset male employee cornered a female employee in
her office, and said quietly and slowly that she will pay with her
life for going over his head to ask about his work. The male
employee then stared at his coworker with his hands clenched
rigidly at this side before leaving the office and slamming the
door behind him. The female employee, fearful and shaken,
reported this to her supervisor, who immediately reported the
incident to the director of Employee Relations.
Response The agency’s response plan calls for involvement of Employee
Relations, Security and the Employee Assistance Program (EAP)
in cases involving threats. Immediately following the report to
the response team, the Security Officer contacted the female
employee to assist her in filing a police report on the threat and to
discuss safety measures that she should be taking. The victim
was also referred to the EAP, where she received brief counseling
and educational materials on handling severe stress.
An investigation was immediately conducted by an investigator
from the Office of Inspector General. In her statement, the
female employee repeated what she had reported to the supervisor
earlier about the threat. In his statement, the male employee
stated that, on the day in question, he had been upset about what
he felt were some underhanded activities by the female employee
and his only recollection about the conversation was that he made
a general statement like You’ll pay to her. He stated that this was
not a threat, just an expression. The investigation showed that the
employee had several previous incidents of intimidating behavior
which had resulted in disciplinary actions.
Resolution After reviewing the results of the investigation, the supervisor
proposed a removal action, finding that the female employee’s
version of the incident was more credible. In his response to the
proposed notice, the employee brought in medical documentation
that said he had a psychiatric disability of Post Traumatic Stress
Disorder, which caused his misconduct, and he requested a
reasonable accommodation. The deciding official consulted with
Dealing with Workplace Violence54
CASE STUDY
Case Study 8 –
A Threat
Case Study 8 – an agency attorney and employee relations specialist who explained
A Threat (continued) that nothing in the Rehabilitation Act prohibits an agency from
maintaining a workplace free of violence threats of violence.
F u r t h e r, they explained that a request for reasonable accommodation
does not excuse employee misconduct nor does it shield an
e m p l o y e e from discipline. The deciding official determined that
removal was the appropriate discipline in this case. The employee
did not appeal the action.
Questions for the 1. Do you agree with the agency’s approach in this case?
Agency Planning Gro u p
2. If this situation occurred at your agency, would you have
involved law enforcement early in the process?
3. Who would conduct the investigation at your agency?
4. What else would your agency have done to protect the employee?
5. Would you have requested more medical documentation from
the employee?
6. What risks must be balanced when selecting a penalty?
A Guide forAgency Planners 55
CASE STUDY
The Incident When the employee first contacted the in-house Employee
Assistance Program (EAP) counselor several months earlier,
he said that he had been referred by his supervisor because of
frequent tardiness and his inability to complete his assignments
on time. He complained of listlessness, lack of interest in his job,
and inability to sleep. The counselor referred the employee to a
psychiatrist for evaluation. The employee agreed to sign releases
so the counselor could contact both his supervisor and the
psychiatrist. The psychiatrist diagnosed depression, prescribed an
anti-depressant, and referred the employee for psychotherapy.
Several weeks later, the supervisor called the EAP counselor
to report that the employee often came in looking disheveled,
coworkers complained that his speech and manner were
sometimes bizarre, and he bragged of drinking large amounts
of alcohol each evening. The counselor immediately called the
employee and asked him to come in for a follow-up visit. He
agreed and appeared late that afternoon in a euphoric state.
He said that he had never felt better in his life and had decided
against psychotherapy. The counselor encouraged him to return
to the psychiatrist for re-evaluation but he refused.
The employee was in a talkative mood and began to reminisce
about his Federal career — first his early successes, then recent
disappointments, such as being passed over repeatedly for
promotions and failure to receive any type of recognition. As he
continued, he revealed in a matter-of-fact tone that he had been
spending his evenings planning revenge on his managers because
they had treated him unfairly for many years and they deserved to
be punished. He believed he had planned the “perfect murder”
and that he would never be caught. Thinking at first that he was
just venting his frustration, the counselor questioned him further
and quickly realized that he was very serious. She urged him to
call his psychiatrist immediately and he again refused but said he
would “think about calling” in a day or two.
Dealing with Workplace Violence56
CASE STUDY
Case Study 9 –
A Threat Made During
an EAP Counseling
Session
A Guide forAgency Planners 57
CASE STUDY
Case Study 9 –
AT h reat Made
During an EAP
Counseling Session
(continued)
Response As soon as the employee left her office, the EAP counselor called
the psychiatrist and asked whether he viewed the employee’s
statement as a threat. The psychiatrist said he believed it was a
serious threat and recommended that she take immediate action.
The EAP counselor called the police and agency officials and
informed them about the situation. The following morning when
the employee reported to the office, he was met by the local police.
A police officer brought him to the community’s emerg e n c y
services clinic for an evaluation and subsequently transported him
to the hospital. He remained in the hospital for several weeks.
Resolution Following discharge, the employee remained at home for several
more weeks, during which time agency management held many
discussions with his treating and consulting physicians. It was
finally decided that the employee would be allowed to return to
work, and not removed from his position, on the condition that, as
long as he remained an employee of the agency, he would continue
in psychotherapy, remain on medication as prescribed, refrain from
alcohol and other drug abuse, and be seen on a regular basis by a
psychiatric consultant to the agency. The employee agreed to the
plan, often known as a last chance agreement.
Although coworkers had been concerned about the employee’s
strange behavior and had seen him removed from the premises by the
police, several had visited him in the hospital and were supportive of
his return to the office. He worked his remaining years with no
further problems, then retired and moved to another state.
Questions for the 1. Do you agree with the agency’s approach in handling this case?
Agency Planning Gro u p
2. Would you have let the employee back to work after his
hospitalization? What information would you need to make
this determination?
3. What safety precautions would your agency take if you
did/did not take him back?
4. What should the EAP counselor have done if he denied
making the threat?
5. Would your agency have proposed disciplinary action prior
to the last chance agreement?
The Incident The first incident report that came in to the agency’s newly
formed workplace violence team was from a field office. Two
months after an employee retired on disability retirement, he
began threatening his ex-supervisor. He knocked on his ex-
supervisor’s apartment door late one evening. He left threatening
statements on the supervisor’s home answering machine, such as
I just wanted to let you know I bought a gun. On one occasion,
a psychiatrist called the supervisor and the agency’s security
office and told them that the ex-employee threatened to murder
his ex-supervisor. The psychiatrist said the threat should be taken
seriously especially because he was drinking heavily. A coworker
received an anonymous letter stating, It is not over with [name of
supervisor]. Each time a threat was reported, the agency’s
security office would take extra measures to protect the supervisor
while at the workplace and the supervisor would report the
incident to the local police. Each time, the supervisor was
informed that the police were unable to take action on the threats
because they did not rise to a criminal level. The supervisor
spoke with the county magistrate about a restraining order, but
again was told the threats did not rise to the level required to
obtain a restraining order.
Response The workplace violence team held a conference call with the
threatened supervisor, the director of the office, and the security
chief of the field office. They suggested the following actions.
Recommendations for the Security Officer:
◆ Confirm the whereabouts of the ex-employee and periodically
reconfirm his whereabouts.
◆ Meet with local police to determine whether the ex-employee’s
behavior constitutes a crime in the jurisdiction and whether
other applicable charges (such as stalking or harassment)
might be considered. Ask if the police department has a threat
assessment unit or access to one at the state level. Ask police
about contacting the U.S. Postal Service for assistance in
tracing the anonymous letter (18 USC 876).
Dealing with Workplace Violence58
CASE STUDY
Case Study 10 –
Threats Made by
an Ex-Employee
Case Study 10 – ◆ Meet with the psychiatrist who called the agency and ask him
Threats Made by to send a letter to the chief of police reporting the threats. A l s o ,
an Ex-Employee inform the psychiatrist about the ex-employee’s behavior and
(continued) discuss whether or not involuntary hospitalization might be an
option. Attempt to establish an ongoing dialogue with the
psychiatrist and try to get a commitment from him to share
information about the case to the extent allowed by confidentiality.
◆ Provide periodic updates to the threatened supervisor on the
status of the case, actions taken, and actions being contemplated.
◆ Provide support and advice to the threatened supervisor,
including telephone numbers and points of contact for local
telephone company, local law enforcement, and local victim
assistance organizations.
Recommendations for the Director of the Field Office:
◆ Meet with security and police to consider options (and their
ramifications) for encouraging the ex-employee to cease and
desist his threatening activities.
◆ Provide support to the supervisor by encouraging the
supervisor to utilize the Employee Assistance Program.
Recommendations for the threatened Supervisor:
◆ Keep detailed notes about each contact with the ex-employee.
Give copies of all the notes to the police. (They explained to
the supervisor that in all probability, each time he went to the
police, it was treated like a new report, and thus, as individual
incidents, they did not rise to the level of a crime.)
◆ Contact the phone company to alert them to the situation.
◆ Tape record all messages left on the answering machine.
◆ Contact the local office of victim assistance for additional ideas.
Resolution Contact with the local police confirmed that each report had been
taken as a new case. When presented with the cumulative
evidence, in fact, the ex-employee’s behavior did rise to the level
of stalking under state law. The police visited the ex-employee
A Guide forAgency Planners 59
CASE STUDY
Case Study 10 – and warned him that further threats could result in an arrest. At
Threats Made by the threatened supervisor’s request, the county magistrate issued a
an Ex-Employee restraining order prohibiting personal contact and any (continued)
communication. Two months after the restraining order was issued,
the ex-employee was arrested for breaking the restraining order.
The agency security office and the supervisor kept in contact with
the police about the case to reduce any further risk of violence.
Questions for the 1. Do you think the agency’s approach in this case was adequate
Agency Planning Gro u p protect the supervisor?
2. Have you already established liaison with appropriate law
enforcement authorities to ensure that situations such as this
get the proper attention from the beginning?
3. What would your agency do if the psychiatrist refused to get
involved? Are there any laws in your state requiring mental
health professionals to protect potential victims when threats
have been made?
4. How would you continue to monitor the ex-employee’s
activities after he is released from jail?
5. What would your agency do if the case continued without the
ex-employee being arrested?
Dealing with Workplace Violence60
CASE STUDY
(continued)
The Incident The agency’s new workplace violence team receives a call from a
small field office. The office staff consists of three employees, two
of whom spend much of their workday outside of the office. All
three employees have had close calls in the past in dealing with
violent individuals. On two occasions, clients who came into the
office lost their tempers because they received answers they did
not like. Several times the employees who conducted their
business outside the office were the targets of threats and
aggressive behavior. How can you help us out here in the
field? they asked the workplace violence team.
Response Presented with this problem, the workplace violence team
consulted with the following organizations:
◆ The local law enforcement agency in the jurisdiction where the
field office was located;
◆ Several Federal law enforcement agencies, including the
Federal Protective Service;
◆ Other Federal Government agencies that had small field
offices and/or employees who spent most of their workday
outside the office;
◆ The National Victims’ Center;
◆ Prevention units of State Police in several states where the
agency had field offices.
Resolution The agency implemented the following plan not only for the
office that made the initial request, but for many of their other
field offices as well.
◆ Install a panic button in the office that is connected to a
security service.
◆ Install a video camera (with an audio component) in the public
service area to record any incident that occurs in the office.
A Guide forAgency Planners 61
CASE STUDY
Case Study 11 –
Threats from
Non-Employees
Case Study 11 – ◆ Reconfigure office furniture, especially in public service areas,
Threats from to maximize security (e.g., rearrange the office furniture and
Non-Employees dividers to give the appearance that the employee is not alone).
◆ Train all employees in personal safety techniques.
◆ Provide back-up for employees in the field when a threatening
situation is suspected.
◆ Provide employees with copies of the laws regarding
harassment, threats, and stalking in their states.
◆ Provide employees with lists of state and local organizations
that can assist them in preventing violence and in dealing with
potentially violent situations.
◆ Arrange for regional and field offices to develop and maintain
liaison with state and local law enforcement agencies.
◆ Establish a system for employees in the field to check in
periodically throughout the day, e.g., an employee would call
and say, I’m entering the Jones residence, and I will call you
back in 30 minutes.
◆ Provide cellular phones, personal alarms, and other safety
devices, as appropriate, to employees in the field.
Questions for the 1. Do you agree with the agency’s approach in this case?
Agency Planning Gro u p
2. What more could be done?
Dealing with Workplace Violence62
CASE STUDY
(continued)
The Incident A supervisor reported to a Human Resources (HR) specialist that
he recently heard from one of his employees (alleged victim) that
another one of his employees (alleged perpetrator) has been
intimidating him with his “in your face” behavior. The alleged
perpetrator has stood over the alleged victim’s desk in what he
perceived as a menacing way, physically crowded him out in an
elevator, and made menacing gestures. The supervisor stated that
the alleged perpetrator was an average performer, somewhat of a
loner, but there were no behavior problems that he was aware of
until the employee came to him expressing his fear. He said that
the employee who reported the situation said he did not want the
supervisor to say anything to anyone, so the supervisor tried to
observe the situation for a couple of days. When he didn’t
observe any of the behavior described, he spoke with the alleged
victim again and told him he would consult with the Crisis
Management Team.
Response In cases involving reports of intimidation, this agency’s crisis
response plan called for involvement of Human Resources (HR)
and the Employee Assistance Program (EAP) (with the clear
understanding that they would contact other resources as needed).
The first thing the HR specialist did was to set up a meeting for
the next day with the supervisor, an EAP counselor, and another
HR specialist who was skilled in conflict resolution.
At that meeting, several options were discussed. One was to
initiate an immediate investigation into the allegations, which
would involve interviewing the alleged victim, any witnesses
identified by the alleged victim, and the alleged perpetrator.
Another suggestion offered by the EAP counselor was that, in
view of the alleged victim’s reluctance to speak up about it, they
could arrange a training session for the entire office on conflict
resolution (at which time the EAP counselor could observe the
dynamics of the entire work group). The EAP counselor noted
that conflict resolution classes were regularly scheduled at the
agency. The supervisor also admitted that he was aware of a lot
of tensions in the office and would like the EAP’s assistance in
resolving whatever was causing them.
A Guide forAgency Planners 63
CASE STUDY
Case Study 12 –
Intimidation
Case Study 12 – After discussing the options, the supervisor and the team decided
Intimidation to try the conflict resolution training session before initiating
(continued) an investigation.
At the training session, during some of the exercises, it became
clear that the alleged victim contributed significantly to the
tension between the two employees. The alleged victim, in fact,
seemed to contribute significantly to conflicts not only with the
alleged perpetrator, but with his coworkers as well. The alleged
perpetrator seemed to react assertively, but not inappropriately, to
the alleged victim’s attempts to annoy him.
Resolution Office tensions were reduced to minimum as a result of the
training session and follow-up work by the Employee Assistance
Program. The employee who initially reported the intimidation to
his supervisor not only realized what he was doing to contribute
to office tensions, but he also actively sought help to change his
approach and began to conduct himself more effectively with his
coworkers. He appreciated getting the situation resolved in a
low-key way that did not cause him embarrassment and began
to work cooperatively with the alleged perpetrator. The alleged
perpetrator never learned about the original complaint, but he did
learn from the training session more effective ways to conduct
himself with his coworkers. This incident took place over a year
ago, and the agency reports that both are productive team players.
Questions for the 1. Do you agree with the agency’s approach in this situation?
A g e n c y Planning Gro u p
2. Can you think of other situations that could be addressed
effectively through an intervention with the work group?
3. In what kinds of situations would this approach be
c o u n t e r- p r o d u c t i v e ?
4. Can you envision a scenario where using the group conflict
resolution session to get at any individualized problem might
have a negative, rather than a positive, effect?
5. Has your agency conducted employee training on such topics
as conflict resolution, stress management, and dealing with
hostile persons?
Dealing with Workplace Violence64
CASE STUDY
The Incident An employee called a member of the agency crisis team for
advice, saying that a coworker was picking on her, and expressing
fear that something serious might happen. For several weeks, she
said, a coworker has been making statements such as, Yo u
actually took credit for my work and you’re spreading rumors
that I’m no good. If you ever get credit for my work again, that
will be the last time you take credit for anybody’s work. I’ll
make sure of that. She also said that her computer files have
been altered on several occasions and she suspects it’s the same
coworker. When she reported the situation to her supervisor, he
tried to convince her that there was no real danger and that she’s
blowing things out of proportion. However, she continued to
worry. She said she spoke with her union representative who
suggested she contact the agency’s workplace violence team.
Response The agency’s plan called for the initial involvement of employee
relations and the Employee Assistance Program (EAP) in
situations involving intimidation. The Employee Relations
specialist and the EAP counselor met with the Supervisor of the
employee who reported the incident. He told them he was aware
of the situation, but that the woman who reported it tended to
exaggerate. He knew the alleged perpetrator well, had supervised
him for years, and said, He just talks that way; he’s not really
dangerous. He gave examples of how the alleged perpetrator is
all talk and not likely to act out. One example had occurred
several months earlier when he had talked to the alleged
perpetrator about his poor performance. The employee had
become agitated and accused the supervisor of being unfair,
siding with the other employees, and believing the rumors the
coworkers were spreading about him. He stood up and in an
angry voice said, You better start treating me fairly or you’re going
to be the one with the pro b l e m . The supervisor reasoned that,
since he’s always been this way, he’s not a real threat to anyone.
During the initial meeting, the team asked the supervisor to sign a
written statement about these incidents, and recommended that he
take disciplinary action. However, he was reluctant to sign a
A Guide forAgency Planners 65
CASE STUDY
Case Study 13 –
Intimidation
Case Study 13 – statement or to initiate disciplinary action, and could not be
Intimidation persuaded by their recommendations to do so.
(continued)
The employee relations specialist conducted an investigation.
Interviews with other coworkers confirmed the intimidating
behavior on the part of the alleged perpetrator and several
coworkers said they felt threatened by him. None were willing to
sign affidavits. The investigator also found a witness to the
incident where the supervisor had been threatened. As the alleged
perpetrator had left the supervisor’s office and passed by the
secretary’s desk, he had said, He’s an (expletive) and he better
watch himself. However, the secretary was also unwilling to sign
an affidavit.
After confirming the validity of the allegations, but with the
supervisor refusing to take action, and the only affidavit being
from the employee who originally reported the situation, the team
considered three courses of action:
(1) Arrange for the reassignment of the victim to a work situation
that eliminated the current threatening situation;
(2) Report the situation to the second line supervisor and
recommend that she propose disciplinary action against the
alleged perpetrator; and
(3) Locate an investigator with experience in workplace violence
cases to conduct interviews with the reluctant witnesses. The
investigator would be given a letter of authorization from the
director of the office stating the requirement that employees
must cooperate in the investigation or face disciplinary action.
The team located an Investigator, who was experienced in
workplace violence cases, from a nearby Federal agency and
worked out an interagency agreement to obtain his services.
During the investigation, he showed the letter of authorization to
only one employee and to the supervisor, since he was able to
persuade the others to sign written affidavits without resorting to
showing them the letter. The results of the investigation showed
evidence of intimidating behavior by the alleged perpetrator.
The agency Security specialist met with the alleged perpetrator to
inform him that he was to have no further contact with the victim.
Dealing with Workplace Violence66
CASE STUDY
Case Study 13 – He also met with the victim to give her advice on how to handle
Intimidation a situation like this if it were to happen again. In addition, he
(continued) recommended a procedure to the team that would monitor
computer use in the division.
This action resulted in evidence showing that the employee was,
in fact, altering computer files.
Resolution The first-line supervisor was given a written reprimand by the
second-line supervisor for failing to take proper action in a timely
manner and for failing to ensure a safe work environment. He
was counseled about the poor performance of his supervisory
duties. The alleged perpetrator was charged with both disruptive
behavior and gaining malicious access to a non-authorized
computer. Based on this information, he was removed from
Federal Service.
Questions for the 1. Would supervisory training likely have resulted in quicker
Agency Planning Gro u p action against the alleged perpetrator?
2. Do you have other approaches for convincing a recalcitrant
supervisor to take action?
3. Do you have other approaches for convincing reluctant
witnesses to give written statements?
4. Are you up-to-date on the case law associated with requiring
the subject of an investigation to give statements?
5. If you had not been able to convince the reluctant witnesses
to give written statements, and you only had the one affidavit
to support the one incident, do you think this would have
provided your agency with enough evidence to take
disciplinary action? If so, what type of penalty would
likely be given in this case?
A Guide forAgency Planners 67
CASE STUDY
The Incident A supervisor contacts the Employee Relations Office because
one of his employees is making the other employees in the office
uncomfortable. He said the employee does not seem to have
engaged in any actionable misconduct but, because of the
agency’s new workplace violence policy, and the workplace
violence training he had just received, he thought he should at
least mention what was going on. The employee was recently
divorced and had been going through a difficult time for over
two years and had made it clear that he was having financial
problems which were causing him to be stressed out. He was
irritable and aggressive in his speech much of the time. He would
routinely talk about the number of guns he owned, not in the same
sentence, but in the same general conversation in which he would
mention that someone else was causing all of his problems.
Response At the first meeting with the supervisor, the Employee Relations
specialist and Employee Assistance Program (EAP) counselor
suggested that, since this was a long-running situation rather than
an immediate crisis, the supervisor would have time to do some
fact-finding. They gave him several suggestions on how to do
this while safeguarding the privacy of the employee (for example,
request a confidential conversation with previous supervisors,
go back to coworkers who registered complaints for more
information, and, if he was not already familiar with his personnel
records, pull his file to see if there are any previous adverse
actions in it). Two days later they had another meeting to discuss
the case and strategize a plan of action.
The Supervisor’s initial fact-finding showed that the employee’s
coworkers attributed his aggressive behavior to the difficult
divorce situation he had been going through, but they were
nevertheless afraid of him. The supervisor did not learn any more
specifics about why they were afraid, except that he was short-
tempered, ill-mannered, and spoke a lot about his guns (although,
according to the coworkers, in a matter-of-fact rather than in an
intimidating manner).
Dealing with Workplace Violence68
CASE STUDY
Case Study 14 –
Frightening Behavior
Case Study 14 – After getting ideas from the employee relations specialist and the
Frightening Behavior EAP counselor, the supervisor sat down with the employee and
(continued) discussed his behavior. He told the employee it was making
everyone uncomfortable and that it must stop. He referred the
employee to the EAP, setting a time and date to meet with
the counselor.
Resolution As a result of counseling by the supervisor and by the Employee
Assistance Program counselor, the employee changed his
behavior. He was unaware that his behavior was scaring people.
He learned new ways from the EAP to deal with people. He
accepted the EAP referral to a therapist in the community to
address underlying personal problems. Continued monitoring by
the supervisor showed the employee’s conduct improving to an
acceptable level and remaining that way.
Questions for the 1. Do you agree with the agency’s approach in this case?
Agency Planning Gro u p
2. Can you think of other situations that would lend themselves
to this kind of low-key approach?
3. Does your agency have effective EAP training so that
supervisors are comfortable in turning to the EAP for advice?
A Guide forAgency Planners 69
CASE STUDY
The Incident Several employees in an office went to their supervisor to report
an unusual situation which had occurred the previous day. An
agency employee from a different building had been in and out of
their office over a seven-hour period, remarking to several people
that “the Government” had kept her prisoner, inserted
microphones in her head to hear what she was thinking, and
tampered with her computer to feed her evil thoughts. She also
said that her doctors diagnosed her as paranoid schizophrenic,
but that they are wrong about her. She made inflammatory
remarks about coworkers, and made threatening statements such
as, Anybody in my old job who got in my way came down with
mysterious illnesses.
Response The Employee Relations specialist, who took the report,
immediately informed the employee’s supervisor about the
incident. She learned from the employee’s supervisor that until a
few months ago, the employee performed adequately, but had
always seemed withdrawn and eccentric. However, her behavior
had changed (it was later learned that she had stopped taking her
medication) and she often roamed around the office, spending an
hour or more with any employee she could corner. Several
employees had reported to the supervisor that they were afraid she
might hurt them because of her inflammatory statements. She
also learned that a former supervisor had previously given the
employee a reprimand and two counseling memoranda for
inappropriate language and absence from the worksite along with
offering her leave for treatment as a reasonable accommodation.
Upon the recommendation of the employee relations specialist,
the employee was placed on excused absence pending further
agency inquiry and response, with a requirement to call in daily.
The employee relations specialist, who was a trained investigator,
conducted interviews with the employees who filed the reports
and with the employee’s coworkers. She found that most of the
employees were afraid of the woman because of her
inflammatory statements.
Dealing with Workplace Violence70
CASE STUDY
Case Study 15 –
Frightening Behavior
Case Study 15 – The employee relations specialist then set up a meeting with
Frightening Behavior the woman’s first- and second-line supervisor, the director of
(continued) personnel, the legal office, the director of security, the agency’s
medical officer, and the Employee Assistance Program (EAP)
counselor. The following options were raised:
◆ Propose an indefinite suspension pending an investigation
(option rejected because the agency already had all the
information it needed about the incident).
◆ Reassign or demote the employee to another office (option
rejected because the reported conduct was too serious).
◆ Propose a suspension based on her day-long frightening and
disruptive comments and conduct (option rejected because the
reported conduct was too serious).
◆ Order a medical examination to determine whether the
employee was fit for duty (option rejected because the
employee was not in a position with medical standards or
physical requirements).
◆ Offer a medical examination (option rejected because
supervisor already tried it several times).
◆ Offer her leave for treatment (option rejected because
supervisor already tried it).
The team recommended that the supervisor issue a proposal to
remove based on the events in the other office, i.e., her day-long
frightening and disruptive comments and conduct. They suggested
that the notice also reference the earlier counseling memos and the
reprimand which placed the employee on notice concerning her
absence from her office and inappropriate behavior.
The supervisor proposed her removal. Three weeks later, the
employee and her brother-in-law came in for her oral reply to the
proposed notice. She denied making any of the statements
attributed to her. Her brother-in-law asked the deciding official to
order her to go for a psychiatric examination, but he was told that
regulations prohibited the agency from doing so. The employee
did not provide any additional medical documentation.
A Guide forAgency Planners 71
CASE STUDY
Case Study 15 –
Frightening Behavior
(continued)
Resolution The agency proceeded with a removal action based on her
disruptive behavior. Once her brother-in-law realized that her
salary and health benefits would soon cease, he was able to
convince her to go to the hospital for the help she needed and to
file for disability retirement. The agency assisted her in filing
forms with the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). The
disability retirement was approved by OPM and this provided
her with income and a continuation of medical coverage.
Questions for the 1. Do you agree with the agency’s approach in handling this case?
Agency Planning Gro u p
2. Does your employee training direct employees to call security
or 911 in emergency situations?
3. Is your team knowledgeable about accessing appropriate
community resources for emergency situations?
4. What if the employee had not been willing and able to apply
for disability retirement herself? Do you know the rules
(discussed on page 111) concerning the agency’s filing for
disability retirement on behalf of the employee?
5. Does your agency’s supervisory training encourage early
intervention in cases of this type?
Dealing with Workplace Violence72
CASE STUDY
The Incident After workplace violence training was conducted at the agency,
during which early intervention was emphasized, an employee
called the Employee Assistance Program (EAP) member of the
workplace violence team for advice on dealing with his senior
coworker. He said the coworker, who had been hired at the
GS-14 level six months earlier, was in the habit of shouting and
making demeaning remarks to the other employees in the office.
The senior coworker was skilled in twisting words around and
manipulating situations to his advantage. For example, when
employees would ask him for advice on a topic in his area of
expertise, he would tell them to use their own common sense.
Then when they finished the assignment, he would make
demeaning remarks about them and speak loudly about how they
had done their work the wrong way. At other times, he would
demand rudely in a loud voice that they drop whatever they were
working on and help him with his project. The employee said he
had attempted to speak with his supervisor about the situation,
but was told not to make a mountain out of a mole hill.
Response The EAP Counselor met with the employee who had reported the
situation. The employee described feelings of being overwhelmed
and helpless. The demeaning remarks were becoming intolerable.
The employee believed that attempts to resolve the issue with the
coworker were futile. The fact that the supervisor minimized the
situation further discouraged the employee. By the end of the
meeting with the counselor, however, the employee was able to
recognize that not saying anything was not helping and was
actually allowing a bad situation to get worse.
At a subsequent meeting, the EAP counselor and the employee
explored skills to address the situation in a respectful, reasonable,
and responsible manner with both his supervisor and the abusive
coworker. The counselor suggested using language such as:
I don’t like shouting. Please lower your voice.
I don’t like it when you put me down in front of my peers.
It’s demeaning when I am told that I am...
A Guide forAgency Planners 73
CASE STUDY
Case Study 16 –
Disruptive Behavior
Case Study 16 – I don’t like it when you point your finger at me.
Disruptive Behavior I want to have a good working relationship with you.
(continued)
The employee learned to focus on his personal professionalism
and responsibility to establish and maintain reasonable boundaries
and limits by using these types of firm and friendly “I statements,”
acknowledging that he heard and understood what the supervisor
and coworker were saying, and repeating what he needed to
communicate to them.
After practicing with the Employee Assistance Program (EAP)
counselor, the employee was able to discuss the situation again
with his supervisor. He described the situation in non-blaming
terms, and he expressed his intentions to work at improving the
situation. The supervisor acknowledged that the shouting was
annoying, but again asked the employee not to make a mountain
out of a mole hill. The employee took a deep breath and said, It
may be a mole hill, but nevertheless it is affecting my ability to
get my work done efficiently. Finally, the supervisor stated that he
did not realize how disruptive the situation had become and
agreed to monitor the situation.
The next time the coworker raised his voice, the employee used
his newly acquired assertiveness skills and stated in a calm and
quiet voice, I don’t like to be shouted at. Please lower your
voice. When the coworker started shouting again, the employee
restated in a calm voice, I don’t like being shouted at. Please
lower your voice. The coworker stormed away.
Meanwhile, the Supervisor began monitoring the situation.
He noted that the abusive coworker’s conduct had improved
with the newly assertive employee, but continued to be rude and
demeaning toward the other employees. The supervisor consulted
with the EAP counselor and Employee Relations specialist. The
counselor told him, Generally, people don’t change unless they
have a reason to change. The counselor added that the reasons
people change can range from simple “I statements,” such as
those suggested above, to disciplinary actions. The employee
relations specialist discussed possible disciplinary options with
the supervisor.
The supervisor then met with the abusive coworker who blamed the
altercations on the others in the office. The supervisor responded,
Dealing with Workplace Violence74
CASE STUDY
Case Study 16 – I understand the others were stressed. I’m glad you understand
Disruptive Behavior that shouting, speaking in a demeaning manner, and rudely
(continued) ordering people around is unprofessional and disrespectful.
It is unacceptable behavior and will not be tolerated. During
the meeting, he also referred the employee to the Employee
Assistance Program (EAP).
The coworker continued his rude and demeaning behavior to the
other employees in spite of the supervisor’s efforts. The others,
after observing the newly acquired confidence and calm of the
employee who first raised the issue, requested similar training
from the EAP. The supervisor met again with the EAP counselor
and employee relations specialist to strategize next steps.
Resolution When all of the employees in the office started using assertive
statements, the abusive coworker became more cooperative.
However, it took a written reprimand, a short suspension, and
several counseling sessions with the EAP counselor before he
ceased his shouting and rude behavior altogether.
Questions for the 1. Does your workplace violence training include communication
Agency Planning Gro u p skills to put a stop to disruptive behavior early on (including
skills for convincing reluctant supervisors to act)?
2. How would your agency have proceeded with the case if the
coworker had threatened the employee who spoke to him in an
assertive way?
3. What recourse would the employee have had if the supervisor
had refused to intervene?
A Guide forAgency Planners 75
CASE STUDY
Dealing with Workplace Violence76
PART III
Background Information
A Guide forAgency Planners 77
Dealing with Workplace Violence78
Fact Finding/
Investigating
Introduction I can’t work here anymore. I’m afraid he may actually kill one of us.
The supervisor hears the details of the incident that is causing
the employee to feel threatened. Now the supervisor has to do
something. The incident can’t be ignored. It must be reported.
Once reported, the members of the incident response team (along
with the supervisor) have to look into it.
What you need to know As in all other serious administrative matters that come to the
agency’s attention, you probably want to learn more about what
is going on in this situation. You want to know:
◆ What happened?
◆ Who was involved?
◆ Where it happened?
◆ When it happened?
◆ Why it happened?
◆ How it happened?
What to do next Sometimes taking a few minutes for a cursory overview will
give you enough information to know what to do next. Of
course, if there is imminent danger, law enforcement must be
notified immediately.
A Guide forAgency Planners 79
PA RT III: SECTION 1
The information in this section provides guidance for the
agency planning group. It is not technical information for
professional investigators; nor is it a summary of fact-
finding or investigating procedures. Rather, it is intended
to provide the agency planning group with a general
overview of fact-finding/investigating considerations.
It is also important to note that this section discusses
investigations that are administrative inquiries as distinct
from criminal investigations.
Fact Finding/Investigating
Introduction However, if there is no imminent danger, deciding what to do next
(continued) will depend on agency procedures and the strategy/relationship
you have worked out ahead of time with your agency’s Office of
the General Counsel, Office of Inspector General, and the law
enforcement organization that has jurisdiction over your worksite.
(For information on law enforcement, see Part III, Section 5.) In
most Federal agencies, these offices are notified immediately
when certain types of reports are made, and they advise team
members (or agency officials) on how to proceed with the
investigation of the case.
Types of Often, one of the first decisions to be made is whether to conduct
Investigations an administrative or a criminal investigation. The answer will
depend on whether the facts as presented indicate possible
criminal behavior. Since arriving at a decision generally involves
discussion with law enforcement personnel, the Office of the
General Counsel, the Office of Inspector General, and employee
relations specialists, it is imperative to coordinate efforts fully
with these offices ahead of time. Also, as discussed below, an
important point of these discussions is to ensure that actions taken
by an agency during an administrative investigation do not
impede potential criminal prosecutions.
Administrative
Investigations
Use a qualified If a decision is made to conduct an administrative investigation, it
i n v e s t i g a t o r is important to use a qualified and experienced professional
workplace violence investigator. The agency planning group
should locate one or more such investigators before the need for
an investigator arises. Your agency probably already has qualified
administrative investigators, for example, in the Office of
Inspector General. Some other good places to look in your own
agency are Employee Relations and Security. In some agencies,
these offices have their own investigators. In others, they contract
with private investigators, or utilize the services of investigators
from other Federal agencies. In any case, they should be able to
help you locate trained, qualified administrative investigators
ahead of time.
Dealing with Workplace Violence80
Fact Finding/Investigating
Administrative It is important to use an investigator who conducts the
Investigations investigation in a fair and objective manner. The investigation
(continued) should be conducive to developing truthful responses to issues that
may surface. It must be conducted with full appreciation for the
legal considerations that protect individual privacy. It is
imperative that an atmosphere of candor and propriety be
m a i n t a i n e d .
Ensure that criminal Criminal prosecutions must not be compromised by actions taken
prosecutions are during administrative investigations. It is necessary to ensure that
not compromised the administrative investigator, management, and all members of an
incident response team understand that actions taken during an
administrative investigation may compromise p o t e n t i a l criminal
prosecutions. If the agency obtains statements from the subject of
the investigation in the wrong way, the statements can impede or
even destroy the ability to criminally prosecute the case. On the
other hand, if handled correctly, statements made in administrative
investigations could prove vital in subsequent criminal proceedings.
Therefore, in a case where a decision is made to conduct an
administrative investigation, and there is potential criminal
liability, it is good practice to give the subject of the investigation
what are usually called “non-custodial warnings and assurances.”
That is, the person is given the option of participating in the
interview after being warned that any statements he or she makes
may be used against him or her in criminal proceedings. The
option not to participate in the interview is exercised by the
person’s invocation of his or her Fifth Amendment right against
self-incrimination. Note: Since the person is not legally in
custody, he or she is not entitled to an attorney.
If a decision is made to compel the subject of an investigation to
participate in an interview (instead of being given an option to
participate), the investigator should give Kalkines
1
warnings. This
means that the person is told that (1) he or she is subject to
discharge for not answering and (2) statements he or she makes
(and the information gained as a result of these statements)
cannot be used against him or her in criminal proceedings.
1
Derived from Kalkines v United States, 473 F.2d 1391 (1973).
A Guide forAgency Planners 81
Fact Finding/Investigating
Administrative Even if an investigator does not actually give Kalkines warnings,
Investigations if the investigator compels the subject to give a statement, the
(continued) information in the statement (and the information gained as a
result of the statement) cannot be used in criminal proceedings.
Since this may make criminal prosecution impossible, an
investigator should never give Kalkines warnings or compel
statements from the subject of an investigation without the
permission of the appropriate U.S. Attorney’s or prosecutor’s
office. Such permission is usually obtained by the agency’s
Office of the General Counsel or Office of Inspector General.
Since this is an extremely complicated consideration, be sure to
work closely with your Office of the General Counsel, Office of
Inspector General, and law enforcement organization. In
potentially violent situations, it is often difficult to determine
whether the misconduct is a criminal offense. When there is any
doubt, check it out.
Preparation and A thorough and professional investigative product is the result of
Procedures in thorough, professional preparation and procedures. Personally
Administrative obtaining information from individuals will constitute a
Investigations significant part of any investigation. An awareness of the skills
and techniques necessary for effective interviewing is required.
In preparing for and conducting investigations, experienced
professional administrative investigators have found the following
approaches to be effective.
Reviewing available The investigator, after thoroughly reviewing the information that
information gave rise to the investigation, is probably ready to begin the
investigation process. Discrepancies or deficiencies in the
information should be noted so they can be addressed during
the interviews.
Dealing with Workplace Violence82
Additional considerations for the agency planning group,
such as having well-defined agency policies on handling
investigations, are discussed on page 89.
Fact Finding/Investigating
Preparation and
Procedures in
Administrative
Investigations
(continued)
Selecting an Since the investigator is conducting an official investigation, he or
interview s i t e she should conduct as many interviews as possible in an official
environment, i.e., in government work space (instead of restaurants,
cars, or private homes). Privacy is the most important
consideration in selection of an interview site. The investigator
should guarantee that the room will be available for the entire
i n t e r v i e w, so that there is no disruption of the interview once it
begins. The interview room should be comfortably furnished with
as few distractions
as possible.
Scheduling the Depending on the circumstances of the situation, the investigator
interview may or may not want to contact the individual in advance. In
either event, the investigator should advise the individual of the
general nature and purpose of the interview. If the individual
declines the interview, the investigator should attempt to dissuade
the individual and, if unsuccessful, ascertain and record the
reasons for the declination. If the individual fails to appear more
than once for the interview, the investigator should follow whatever
policy has been decided upon by the agency ahead of time.
Allowing the presence There may be instances when the investigator or the individual
of additional persons being interviewed wishes to have an additional person present. In
cases involving bargaining unit employees, see the discussion in
the next section. Investigators sometimes prefer to have an agency
representative present when interviewing the subject of the
investigation. In any event, the investigator should follow whatever
policy has been decided upon by the agency ahead of time.
Adhering to the law The provisions of law set forth in 5 USC 7114 (a)(2)(B),
regarding bargaining commonly known as “Weingarten” rights, cover any examination
unit employees of a bargaining unit employee by a representative of the agency
in connection with an investigation. If a bargaining unit
employee reasonably believes that an investigation may result in
disciplinary action, and requests union representation, the
agency has three options:
A Guide forAgency Planners 83
Fact Finding/Investigating
Preparation and (1) Immediately terminate the interview,
Procedures in
Administrative (2) Continue the interview with the employee’s representative
Investigations present, or
(continued)
(3) Give the employee the option of proceeding with the interview
without a representative or terminating the interview.
Since interpretation of this law is very complex, consult with your
labor relations specialists or Office of General Counsel when
faced with such situations. Note: The law is currently unsettled as
to whether Inspector General investigations are subject to 5 USC
7114 (a)(2)(B).
Taking notes Since watching an investigator take notes can be intimidating to
some people, it is important to establish rapport before beginning
to take notes. The investigator should concentrate on observing
the individual during the interview. Note-taking should not
unduly interfere with observation. Note-taking materials should
be positioned inconspicuously and not become a focus of
attention. The investigator should learn and exercise the skill of
taking adequate notes while still observing the individual and
without distracting the person being interviewed. In some cases,
it may even be useful to have a second investigator or other
official present to take notes.
Should note-taking have a materially adverse effect on the
interview process, the investigator may explain the purpose of
note-taking. The notes are intended for the investigator’s use in
preparing a report and are not a verbatim transcript of the
interview. The investigator can modify or cease note-taking so
long as the information can be recorded in adequate detail after
the interview.
Maintaining control Questions developed ahead of time can be memorized, but
of the interview they should never be read verbatim from a list or recited in a
perfunctory manner. The investigator should know in advance
the topics of concern to be covered. The investigator should
maintain a singleness of purpose during the interview. The
investigator should resist any efforts to shorten the interview or
drift from topics of concern.
Dealing with Workplace Violence84
Fact Finding/Investigating
Preparation and
Procedures in
Administrative
Investigations
(continued)
Developing rapport The investigator should have a comfortable style that projects
professionalism and competence. The investigator’s style should
generate rapport with the person being interviewed. An open
approach that conveys a willingness to communicate generally
fosters rapport. Rapport is evident when the individual appears
comfortable with the investigator and is willing to confide
personally sensitive information. Continuing rapport can
oftentimes be maintained if the investigator does not become
judgmental when disagreeable conduct or information is
disclosed. The investigator who can project empathy when
appropriate to do so often gains special insight but, at the same
time, no investigator should get personally involved with the case.
Handling hostility If the investigator feels threatened by the individual being
interviewed, the investigator should stop the interview and
report the situation to the appropriate authorities.
Investigators may encounter argumentative individuals. When
this type of hostility is encountered, the investigator can seek to
defuse it by explaining the purpose of the interview and that the
interview is a required part of the investigation. Reminding the
interviewee that the investigator has full authority to conduct the
interview and that the interviewee is required to cooperate may
lessen the reluctance. [See, however, the discussion on page 81
regarding warnings that must be given when requiring the
subject of an investigation to cooperate.]
Recognizing and acknowledging the person’s hostility and the
reason for it will sometimes let both parties reach the mutual
understanding that the interview will proceed (whether or not the
topics under discussion are related to the hostility).
If, after repeated attempts in various ways, an individual refuses
to answer a specific question, the investigator should attempt to
learn the reason. The investigator should record the refusal to
A Guide forAgency Planners 85
Fact Finding/Investigating
Preparation and answer any question and the reason. If the individual wants to
Procedures in terminate the interview, the investigator should attempt to learn
Administrative the reason and to dissuade the individual by addressing the
Investigations concerns. If the individual persists, the investigator should
(continued) conclude the interview.
Interview Te c h n i q u e s This section contains questioning, listening and observing
techniques and suggestions.
Questioning techniques Questioning usually proceeds from general areas to specific
issues. For example, comments on the dates and location
of the incident are usually obtained before comments on the
circumstances surrounding the event.
The investigator should usually frame questions that require a
narrative answer. Soliciting “Yes” or “No” responses restricts the
individual from providing information. Such responses are
helpful when summarizing or verifying information, but they
should be avoided when seeking to elicit new information.
The investigator should use questioning techniques that result in
the most productive responses from the person being investigated.
This requires the investigator to exercise judgment based on
observation of attitude, demeanor, and actions during the
interview. These may change at times during the interview. The
investigator should be continuously alert to such changes and
should modify questioning techniques accordingly.
Non-confrontational approach. The non-confrontational
approach is best. Here are some examples of the non-
confrontational approach.
◆ If a person refuses to answer follow-up questions about an
issue, the investigator notes the refusal to answer and moves
on to the next area of questioning. However, the investigator
then comes back to the issue later.
◆ If the person raises his or her voice in the interview, the
investigator maintains a calm, level voice, or lowers his
or her voice.
Dealing with Workplace Violence86
Fact Finding/Investigating
Interview Te c h n i q u e s Direct and non-direct questions. A direct question calls for a
( c o n t i n u e d ) factual or precise answer. Direct questions are ordinarily used
when covering background data.
Here are some examples of direct questions.
◆ Who told you that he made a threat?
◆ When did you notice that he had a gun?
◆ What were the circumstances surrounding the argument?
Non-direct questions are usually more appropriate in discussing
opinions and feelings because they allow more latitude in responding.
Here are some examples of non-direct questions.
◆ What led you to say that?
◆ What made that unusual?
◆ Has this happened before to anyone?
◆ What was your reaction when he yelled at you?
Assumptive questions. Assumptive questions assume
involvement in the activity under discussion. The investigator can
use assumptive questions when involvement has already been
admitted, either at some other time or earlier in the interview.
Assumptive questions allow the investigator to assist the
individual in describing the degree of involvement, particularly
when it is difficult to respond narratively. The investigator puts
the individual at ease when using assumptive questions by
demonstrating that the investigator is not shocked by the conduct
being discussed.
Here are some examples of assumptive questions.
◆ Have you made similar statements to others?
◆ Is it fairly routine for you to carry a knife to work?
Summarizing questions. Summarizing questions are used to
verify what has been said in summary form. The investigator
uses summarizing questions to give the individual an opportunity
to hear what the investigator understood. In concluding each
segment of the interview, the investigator should pause after
asking a summarizing question to allow the individual to respond
and verify, correct, disagree with, or amplify a previous response.
A Guide forAgency Planners 87
Fact Finding/Investigating
Interview Te c h n i q u e s Here are some examples of summarizing questions.
(c o n t i n u e d )
◆ In other words, it was not what he said, but the tone of his
voice, that scared you?
◆ You’re telling me that you were only joking when you said
you’d blow up the place?
◆ Have I got this straight? You did not think he would actually
carry out his threat?
Listening techniques Investigators should not be intent on listening for the end of an
answer only so that they can get to the next question. The
meaning and sense of the answers will be ignored and lost.
Careful attention to each response is what provides the basis for
the next appropriate question, not a checklist of questions.
The person being interviewed may be signaling a problem with the
area under discussion by not immediately responding to a question.
The investigator should be patient and let the person respond. T h e
u rge to complete a statement for the person with an assumption of
what the person was going to say should be suppressed.
Listen to the whole response for its substance, inferences,
suggestions, or implications that there is more to be said, or some
qualification to the answer. Answers that are really non-answers,
such as that’s about right, or you know how it is, are not helpful
because they are not definitive. Do not accept this type of
response. Press for more specificity. Some people may attempt
to avoid responding by blaming a faulty memory. Follow-up
questions that can stimulate responses are, Do you mean you’re
just not sure? and, But you remember SOMETHING about it,
don’t you?
Investigators should both listen and think intensely throughout the
interview, measuring what is being said with what is known from
a review of what is already known. Compare new information to
other statements made in the interview, and any other information
in the investigator’s possession.
Observing techniques Questioning and listening are not the only communicative aspects
of the interview. Actions may strengthen the credibility of the
spoken word or contradict it. Body movement, gestures, and
other observable manifestations provide clues to truth and
Dealing with Workplace Violence88
Fact Finding/Investigating
Interview Te c h n i q u e s deception. The investigator should be alert to behavior changes
(c o n t i n u e d ) throughout the interview and assess the significance of those
changes. While no single behavior indicates truth or deception,
clusters of behavior patterns may be valuable clues to the truth of
what is being said. These patterns should prompt the investigator
to pursue a certain or broader line of questioning.
Other Considerations Here are other fact finding/investigating issues that the agency
for the Agency planning group should address:
Planning Group
1. Agency policy should be formulated ahead of time regarding
such matters as no-shows, whether to allow tape recording of
the interviews, and whether to allow the presence of additional
persons during the interviews. Policy should be based on
sound legal analysis.
2. Keep in mind that the routine, administrative details can’t
be ignored. Prior to beginning the actual investigation, the
investigator should be given all administrative details, e.g.,
who gets the report and whom to contact regarding other
administrative matters such as the investigator’s pay, parking,
and overtime.
3. Consider giving the investigator the list of factors the Merit
Systems Protection Board will consider in making credibility
determinations if the investigation leads to a case before the
Board
2
. They are:
(1) The witness’ opportunity and capacity to observe the
event or act in question;
(2) The witness’ character;
(3) Any prior inconsistent statement by the witness;
(4) A witness’ bias, or lack of bias;
2
See Hillen v. Army, 35 MSPR 453 (1987).
A Guide forAgency Planners 89
Fact Finding/Investigating
Other Considerations (5) The contradiction of the witness’ version of events by
for the Agency other evidence or its consistency with other evidence;
Planning Group (6) The inherent improbability of the witness’ version of
(continued) events; and
(7) The witness’ demeanor.
4. Every step of the investigation should be objective, impartial,
and unbiased.
5. The investigative report will contain:
◆ Statements of witnesses
◆ Documentary evidence
The investigative report generally does not include an analysis
of the report.
6. Both the investigator and the person who prepares the analysis
of the report should be objective, impartial, and unbiased.
7. Consider developing a letter signed by the agency head or
high-level designated official authorizing the investigation
and requiring employees to cooperate. (See, however, the
information on page 81 regarding warnings to the subjects
of administrative investigations when it is necessary to
require cooperation.)
8. Ensure that all appropriate agency personnel are aware of
the requirements discussed on page 81 regarding warnings
when compelling statements from the subject of an
administrative investigation.
Case Study 13 provides practical
examples of some of the issues
discussed in this section.
Dealing with Workplace Violence90
Threat Assessment
Introduction Threatened employees want to know what the agency is doing
to protect them and what measures they should take to protect
themselves. Since it is impossible to know with any certainty
whether a threat is going to be carried out, the agency should
always treat threats in a serious manner and act as though the
person may carry out the threat.
This section will provide a basic understanding of the threat
assessment process. It gives background information for the non-
specialist, not instructions on threat assessment techniques.
T h reat assessment As the case studies in Part II illustrate, many cases involving
a s s i s t a n c e threatening behavior can be handled expeditiously and effectively
by a supervisor with the assistance of one or more members of the
agency’s incident response team. The security or law
enforcement representative on the agency’s team will ordinarily
assess risks, often in consultation with the Employee Assistance
Program and employee relations staff, and make
recommendations for appropriate strategies and security measures
to protect employees. However, it may be helpful for the
agency’s planning group to identify experts in threat assessment
ahead of time, in case a situation requires more expertise than
team members can provide.
Gathering information It is also a good idea to work out ahead of time who will gather
which types of information on an individual who makes a threat.
Multiple sources of information need to be consulted to better
understand the person’s behavior.
In some cases, the agency’s incident response team can collect
current and reliable information (which would include an
investigative report) and then consult with a threat assessment
professional to develop options for managing the situation. In
other cases, the agency’s incident response team uses a threat
assessment professional to conduct the initial investigation, assess
the risks, and make recommendations for managing the situation.
Threat assessment investigations differ from criminal or
administrative investigations in that the purpose of the threat
assessment investigation is to provide guidance on managing the
situation in a way that protects the employees.
A Guide forAgency Planners 91
PA RT III: SECTION 2
Threat Assessment
Threat Assessment Threat assessment is an evolving technical field. It is important
Resources to find a qualified professional to assist you if the need arises.
Several Federal agencies have experienced threat assessment
professionals within their organizations; some have threat
management units within their criminal investigative services.
If your agency does not have access to such professionals, law
enforcement agencies (such as the Federal Protective Service,
Federal Bureau of Investigation, and state and local police) may
be able to assist you in identifying experts in threat assessment.
If your agency uses a threat assessment professional who is
outside the organization, you should ensure that the individual is
aware of all relevant Federal laws and regulations. For example,
as explained on page 109, Federal regulations in 5 CFR Part 339
prohibit ordering a psychological examination under most
circumstances and the threat assessment professional thus must
understand the limits of the inquiry. Another example is the
Privacy Act provisions of 5 USC 552a which include obligations
for guarding personal data.
Dealing with Workplace Violence92
The remainder of this section consists of excerpts from a
research brief on the topic of threat assessment issued by the
U.S. Department of Justice’s National Institute of Justice.
Entitled Threat Assessment: An Approach To Prevent
Targeted Violence, written by Robert A. Fein, Ph.D., Bryan
Vossekuil, and Gwen A. Holden, it explains the functions of a
threat assessment program, including the investigation, risk
assessment, and case management components.
This research brief can be especially helpful for an agency’s
planning group to gain an understanding of the process of
conducting threat assessments so that group members can
better identify experts in threat assessment before they are
actually needed and learn how they can coordinate efforts
with them when the need arises.
Threat Assessment
Excerpts From:
Threat Assessment: An Approach To Prevent
Targeted Violence
3
by Robert A. Fein, Ph.D., Bryan Vossekuil,
and Gwen A. Holden
4
Traditional law enforcement activities aim at apprehending and
prosecuting perpetrators of violence after the commission of their
crimes. In most circumstances, the primary responsibility of law
enforcement professionals is to determine whether a crime has
been committed, conduct an investigation to identify and
apprehend the perpetrator, and gather evidence to assist prosecutors
in a criminal trial. However, when police officers are presented
with information about a possible future violent crime, their
responsibilities, authority, and investigative tools and approaches
are less clear. “Threat assessment” is the term used to describe the
set of investigative and operational techniques that can be used by
law enforcement professionals to identify, assess, and manage the
risks of targeted violence and its potential perpetrators.
Individuals utter threats for many reasons, only some of which
involve intention or capacity to commit a violent act. However,
a person can present a grave threat without articulating it. The
distinction between making and posing a threat is important.
◆ Some persons who make threats ultimately pose threats.
◆ Many persons who make threats do not pose threats.
◆ Some persons who pose threats never make threats.
Postponing action until a threat has been made can detract attention
from investigation of factors more relevant to the risk of violence.
3
Series: NIJ Research in Action, Published: September 1995, NCJ 155000.
Disclaimer: Points of view in this document are those of the authors and do
not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Justice.
4
About the authors: Robert A. Fein, Ph.D., a Visiting Fellow at the National
Institute of Justice, is a Consultant Psychologist for the U.S. Secret Service;
Bryan Vossekuil is Assistant Special Agent in Charge, Intelligence Division,
U.S. Secret Service; and Gwen A. Holden serves as Executive Vice President
of the National Criminal Justice Association.
A Guide forAgency Planners 93
Threat Assessment
Data from two recent studies suggest that at least some
approachers — and attackers — of public officials/figures show
an interest in more than one target.
5
U.S. Secret Service
experience indicates that a number of would-be Presidential
assassins, such as Arthur Bremer and John Hinckley, considered
several targets, and changed targets, before finally making an
attack. Data on relationship stalking murders and workplace
violence murders point to suicide, as well as homicide, as a
possible outcome.
6
These examples suggest that, in some cases,
the perpetrator may ultimately become his or her own final target.
The threat of sanctions, such as a long prison sentence, may not
deter a person who desperately desires revenge or is prepared to
die to achieve his objective. Passage of enforceable laws that
define and prohibit behaviors that could presage violent attacks is
one important step in preventing such attacks. Forty-nine States
have passed anti-stalking laws in the past four years, and the
National Institute of Justice, together with the National Criminal
Justice Association, published a model anti-stalking law.
7
Additionally, authorities in some jurisdictions are reviewing
various threat and harassment laws to determine whether they
might apply to threat-of-violence situations. However, laws by
themselves are unlikely to prevent stalking, workplace, or public
figure-centered violence, unless law enforcement and security
professionals know how to identify, evaluate, and manage
persons at risk of committing these violent acts.
5
Dietz, P.E. and D.A. Martell, Mentally Disordered Offenders in Pursuit of
Celebrities and Politicians, National Institute of Justice, Washington, D.C.,
1989, 83-NI-AX-0005; Dietz, P.E., D.B. Matthews, D.A. Martell, T.M.
Stewart, D.R. Hrouda and J. Warren, Threatening and Otherwise Inappropriate
Letters to Members of the United States Congress, Journal of Forensic
Sciences, 36 (September 5, 1991):1445-1468; Dietz, P.E., D.B. Matthews, C.
Van Duyne, D.A. Martell, C.D.H. Parry, T.M. Stewart, J. Warren and J.D.
Crowder, Threatening and Otherwise Inappropriate Letters to Hollywood
Celebrities, Journal of Forensic Sciences, 36 (January 1, 1991):185-209; and
Fein, R.A. and B. Vossekuil, The Secret Service Exceptional Case Study
Project: An Examination of Violence Against Public Officials and Public
Figures, National Institute of Justice, study in progress, 92-CX-0013.
6
For example, both Thomas McIlvane, in the Royal Oak, Michigan post
office attack, and Alan Winterbourne, in the Oxnard, California unemployment
office attack, killed themselves.
7
National Criminal Justice Association, Project to Develop a Model Anti-
Stalking Code for States, National Institute of Justice, Washington, D.C., 1993.
Dealing with Workplace Violence94
Threat Assessment
Fundamental Notwithstanding the growing importance of threat assessment for
Principles of law enforcement and security professionals, systematic thinking
Threat Assessment and guidance in this area have been lacking in many org a n i z a t i o n s .
Some law enforcement and security communities currently do not
have clearly articulated processes or procedures to steer their
actions when they are made aware of threat-of-violence subjects
and situations. Without guidelines for making threat assessments,
otherwise competent law enforcement professionals may be less
thoughtful and thorough than they might be in handling such
incidents. To fill the void, this report presents four fundamental
principles that underlie threat assessment investigation and
management. They are followed by a model and process for
conducting comprehensive threat assessment investigations.
(1) Violence is a process, as well as an act. Violent behavior
does not occur in a vacuum. Careful analysis of violent
incidents shows that violent acts often are the culmination
of long-developing, identifiable trails of problems, conflicts,
disputes, and failures.
(2) Violence is the product of an interaction among three
factors: The individual who takes violent action; stimulus or
triggering conditions that lead the subject to see violence as
an option, “way out,” or solution to problems or life situation;
and a setting that facilitates or permits the violence, or at least
does not stop it from occurring.
(3) Akey to investigation and resolution of threat assessment cases
is identification of the subject’s “attack-related” behaviors.
Perpetrators of targeted acts of violence engage in discrete
behaviors that precede and are linked to their attacks; they
c o n s i d e r, plan, and prepare before engaging in violent actions.
(4) Threatening situations are more likely to be successfully
investigated and managed if other agencies and systems —
both within and outside law enforcement or security
organizations — are recognized and used to help solve
problems presented by a given case. Examples of such
systems are those employed by prosecutors; courts; probation,
corrections, social service, and mental health agencies;
employee assistance programs; victim’s assistance programs;
and community groups.
A Guide forAgency Planners 95
Threat Assessment
Functions of a T h re a t The three major functions of a threat assessment program are:
Assessment Pro g r a m identification of a potential perpetrator, assessment of the risks of
violence posed by a given perpetrator at a given time, and
management of both the subject and the risks that he or she
presents to a given target.
Identifying the The process of identifying a potential perpetrator involves: (1)
Perpetrator defining criteria that could lead to a person becoming a subject of
a threat assessment investigation; (2) determining the areas within
the law enforcement or security organization that will be
responsible for receiving information about possible subjects and
conducting threat assessment investigations; (3) notifying those
individuals and organizations that might come in contact with —
or know of — potential subjects about the existence of a threat
assessment program; and (4) educating notified individuals and
organizations about the criteria for bringing a concern about
potential violence to the attention of investigators.
Assessing the Risks The second goal of a threat assessment program is to evaluate the
risks persons under suspicion may pose to particular targ e t s .
Risk assessment involves two primary functions: investigation
and evaluation.
Investigation The primary objective of a risk assessment investigation is to gather
information on a subject and on potential targets. Multiple sources
of information should be consulted to learn about a subject’s
b e h a v i o r, interests, and state of mind at various points in time.
◆ Personal interviews with the subject.
◆ Material created or possessed by the subject, including
journals and letters, and materials collected by the
subject, such as books and magazines, that may relate
to the investigation.
◆ Persons who know or have known the subject, including
family members, friends, coworkers, supervisors, neighbors,
landlords, law enforcement officers, social service or mental
health staff, and previous victims of unacceptable behavior
(including violence) committed by the subject.
Dealing with Workplace Violence96
Threat Assessment
Assessing the Risks ◆ Record or archival information, including police, court,
(continued) probation, and correctional records; mental health and social
service records; and notes made by those aware of the
subject’s interest in a particular target, such as security
personnel, managers, victims, or colleagues.
Information about At the beginning of a threat assessment investigation, it is
the subject important to secure detailed descriptions of the subject’s
behaviors and actions that prompted other persons to notice the
subject. The kinds of information useful for threat assessment
include data about overwhelmingly or unbearably stressful
experiences and the subject’s ability to cope at such times.
Behavioral data about the subject’s motives, intentions, and
capacities is critical; of particular importance is information
about attack-related behaviors:
◆ The subject has expressed interest in possible targets,
including particular, identifiable targets.
◆ The subject has communicated with or about potential targets.
◆ The subject has considered and/or attempted to harm self or others.
◆ The subject has secured or practiced with weapons.
◆ The subject has followed or approached potential targets,
either with or without weapons, at events or occasions.
Interviewing Whether to interview the subject of a threat assessment
the subject investigation can be a key question; the decision depends on
several factors:
◆ The investigator’s need for information.
◆ The facts leading to initiation of investigation.
◆ The investigator’s legal standing in relation to the subject.
◆ The resources available to the investigator.
◆ The investigator’s training and experience in interviewing.
◆ The stage of the investigation.
◆ The investigator’s strategy for resolving the case.
A decision to interview a subject should be made on the basis of
case facts. Generally, when there has been face-to-face contact
between subject and target or the subject has communicated a threat
to the target, an interview is a good idea. An interview under such
A Guide forAgency Planners 97
Threat Assessment
Assessing the Risks circumstances may have several goals. It may signal that the
(continued) s u b j e c t ’s behavior has been noticed, permit the subject’s story to be
related to a third party, gather information that is the basis for
corroboration, and provide an opportunity for communicating that
the subject’s behavior is unwelcome, unacceptable, and must cease.
Any interview is a vehicle for gathering information about the
subject that can be used to assess the threat that a subject poses
and to manage that threat. Therefore, threat assessment
interviews are most productive if they are conducted respectfully
and professionally. The task of the investigator is twofold: To
gather information about the subject’s thinking, behavior patterns,
and activities regarding the target(s) and to encourage change in
the subject’s behavior. By showing an interest in the subject’s life
that is neither unduly friendly nor harsh, an investigator can
increase the likelihood of the interview’s success.
In some cases, however, an interview may intensify the subject’s
interest in the target or increase the risk of lethal behavior. For
example, a desperate and suicidal subject, self-perceived as
having been abandoned, who has been stalking a former partner,
may sense that time is running out and be prompted by an
interview to engage in more extreme behavior before “they put
me away.” In such a circumstance, the investigator may need to
expend additional resources, perhaps increasing security for the
target, arranging hospitalization or arrest of the subject, or
monitoring or surveilling the subject. Subject interviews,
therefore, should be considered and conducted within the context
of overall investigative strategy.
Information about A man who, over days and weeks, has been following a secretary
the target whom he met once, but with whom he has no relationship,
appears to have picked out a potential target. An employee, fired
by a manager whom he blames for discriminating against him and
causing the breakup of his family, has told former coworkers that
he will “get even”; once again, a potential target appears to have
been selected. To prevent violence, the threat assessment
investigator requires information on the targeted individual.
Relevant questions about the target might include the following:
◆ Are potential targets identifiable, or does it appear that the
subject, if considering violence, has not yet selected targets for
possible attack?
Dealing with Workplace Violence98
Threat Assessment
Assessing the Risks ◆ Is the potential target well known to the subject? Is the
(continued) subject acquainted with a targeted individual’s work and
personal lifestyle, patterns of living, daily comings and goings?
◆ Is the potential target vulnerable to an attack? Does the
targeted individual have the resources to arrange for physical
security? What might change in the target’s lifestyle or living
arrangements that could make attack by the subject more
difficult or less likely, e.g., is the targeted individual planning
to move, spend more time at home, or take a new job?
◆ Is the target afraid of the subject? Is the targeted individual’s
degree of fear shared by family, friends, and/or colleagues?
◆ How sophisticated or naive is the targeted individual about the
need for caution? How able is the individual to communicate
a clear and consistent I want no contact with you message to
the subject?
Evaluation A two-stage process is suggested to evaluate information gathered
about the subject and the potential target(s). In the first stage,
information is evaluated for evidence of conditions and behaviors
that would be consistent with an attack. The second stage of
evaluation seeks to determine whether the subject appears to be
moving toward or away from an attack. After analyzing the
available data, the threat assessor is left with these questions:
◆ Does it appear more or less likely that violent action will be
directed by the subject against the target(s)? What specific
information and reasoning lead to this conclusion?
◆ How close is the subject to attempting an attack? What
thresholds, if any, have been crossed (e.g., has the subject
violated court orders, made a will, given away personal items,
expressed willingness to die or to be incarcerated)?
◆ What might change in the subject’s life to increase or decrease
the risk of violence? What might change in the target’s
situation to increase or decrease the risk of violence?
A Guide forAgency Planners 99
Threat Assessment
Case Management The first component of threat assessment case management
involves developing a plan that moves the subject away from
regarding violence against the target as a viable option. Such a
plan is likely to draw on resources from systems within the threat
assessment unit’s parent organization, as well as those outside it.
The second component is plan implementation. The best
developed and supported case management plan will be of little
use in preventing violence if the plan is not implemented and
monitored. The plan must remain flexible to accommodate
changes in the subject’s life and circumstances. The final
management component is formal closing of the case.
Case management Once an evaluator determines that a given subject presents a risk
development of violence to a targeted individual, the next task is to develop a
plan to manage the subject and the risk. The evaluator then
proceeds to identify those internal and external systems that may
be helpful in managing the problems presented by the subject.
In certain situations, such as those in which the subject has been
stalking an identifiable target in a jurisdiction that has an
enforceable and effective anti-stalking law, the best way to
prevent violence and minimize harm to the targeted individual
may be to prosecute the case vigorously.
A good relationship between threat assessment investigators and
prosecutors can influence the priority assigned to the case and the
extent to which prosecutorial and judicial processes facilitate its
resolution. Such relationships also may affect the court’s disposition
of the case, including sentencing of a convicted off e n d e r.
Even conviction and imprisonment, however, do not guarantee
that the target will be safe from the subject. If the subject has
been unable or unwilling to let go of the idea of a relationship
with the target, or if the subject attributes the pains and
misfortunes of his or her life to the targeted individual, it may
make sense to consider strategies by which the subject is
encouraged to change the direction, or intensity, of his interest.
A subject engaged in activities that bring success and satisfaction
is less likely to remain preoccupied with a failed relationship.
Family, friends, neighbors, or associates may play a role in
suggesting and supporting changes in the subject’s thinking and
behavior. In addition, mental health and social service staff may
be of great assistance in aiding the subject to formulate more
appropriate goals and develop skills and strengths that are likely
to result in life successes.
Dealing with Workplace Violence100
Threat Assessment
Case Management At least one aspect of a case management plan concerns the
(continued) target. If the subject is to be prohibited from contact with the
target, the target needs to understand what to do (i.e., whom to
call and how to contact the official handling the case) if the
subject initiates direct or indirect contact.
Case management The most carefully crafted plan will have little effect if it remains
implementation in the investigator’s files and is not translated into action.
Although no procedures or techniques can guarantee that a subject
of comprehensive threat assessment will not attempt violent
action toward a target, two activities are known to help reduce the
risk of violence, and, in the instance of a bad outcome, assist the
threat assessment team in any post-incident review.
First, documentation of data and reasoning at every stage of a
threat assessment investigation is essential. Undocumented or
poorly documented information-gathering and analysis are suspect
in and of themselves, and they provide little foundation for review
or for efforts to learn from — and improve on — experience.
Without clear documentation, investigators are left with only their
recollections, which can be both partial and faulty and are subject
to criticism as retrospective reconstruction. A carefully and
comprehensively documented record may be criticized for
imperfect data-gathering or flawed analysis, but such a record
also demonstrates both thoughtfulness and good faith — critical
questions in any post-incident review.
Second, consultation at every major stage of the threat assessment
process can be a significant case management tool. Consultants
may be members of the threat assessment unit or external experts.
To be effective, a consultant should be knowledgeable in areas
relevant to the case and be known and trusted by the investigators.
For example, in a case where a subject has a history of diagnosed
mental disorders and the primary investigator is unfamiliar with
mental health language and concepts used in the records, an expert in
psychology or psychiatry can provide invaluable insight and advice.
In addition to providing special expertise, consultants may notice
and ask about questions in a case that remain to be explored or
answered. Even proficient investigators are occasionally
vulnerable to “missing the forest for the trees.” A consultant,
such as a fellow threat assessment specialist who has not been
involved with the case, may offer a comment that can redirect or
sharpen an ongoing investigation.
A Guide forAgency Planners 101
Threat Assessment
Case Management In the event of a bad outcome, use and documentation of
(continued) consultant expertise may demonstrate that the threat assessment
team sought additional perspectives and ideas and did not get
stuck with “tunnel vision.”
Closing the case The final task of threat assessment case management is closing
the case. When a threat assessor determines that the subject has
moved far enough away from possible violent action toward the
target to no longer cause appreciable concern, the case can be
considered for closing. At this time, it may be important to ask:
◆ What has changed in the subject’s life that appears to lessen
the likelihood that the subject is interested in or will attempt
violent action toward the target?
◆ Which components of the case management plan seemed to
affect the subject’s thinking or capacity to initiate violent
action, and to what extent?
◆ What life circumstances might occur that would again put the
subject at increased risk of contemplating, planning, or attempting
violent action toward the original target or other potential targets?
◆ Are there supports in place (or that can be developed) that will
be known and available to the subject at a future time when
the subject is again at risk of moving toward violent behavior?
While social commentators and analysts may debate the myriad
reasons that lead to growing national concern about targeted
violence, law enforcement and security organizations are
increasingly being called on to examine individual situations and
make judgments and determinations about the risks of violence
that one person might present to an identifiable target. In cases
related to stalking behaviors, workplace violence, attacks on
public officials and figures, and other situations where targeted
violence is a possibility, comprehensive and carefully conducted
threat assessment investigations can safeguard potential targets,
deter potential attackers, and serve the public.
Dealing with Workplace Violence102
Threat Assessment
Case Management For further information about threat assessment, a new publication
(continued) entitled P rotective Intelligence and Threat A s s e s s m e n t
Investigations: A Guide for State and Local Law Enforcement
Officials will soon be available through the Department of Justice.
Case Study 7 provides practical
examples of some of the
issues discussed in this section.
A Guide forAgency Planners 103
Dealing with Workplace Violence104
Employee Relations
Considerations
Overview Having an understanding of the employee relations issues that
come into play in violent and potentially violent situations is
important for all members of an agency’s planning group. It helps
in coordinating an effective response, in determining whether
outside resources will be needed in certain situations, and in
ensuring that appropriate disciplinary actions are taken.
In many agencies, the Employee Relations staff coordinate the
agency’s workplace violence program. One reason is that most
reported incidents will result in some type of disciplinary action.
Another reason is that, since the goal of the workplace violence
prevention effort is to deal effectively with problem behavior
early on, reporting incidents to the Employee Relations office can
result in swift disciplinary action which stops the unacceptable
behavior before it can escalate. When another office, such as the
Security Office, is responsible for coordinating the response
effort, immediate involvement of the Employee Relations staff is
usually necessary for an effective response.
This section will discuss:
◆ Administrative options available in removing potentially
dangerous employees from the worksite;
◆ Taking appropriate disciplinary action based on violent,
threatening, harassing, and other disruptive behavior;
◆ Responding to an employee who raises a medical
condition/disability as a defense against the misconduct;
◆ Ordering and offering psychiatric examinations;
◆ Assisting employees in applying for disability retirement; and
◆ Information on appeals of disciplinary actions.
A Guide forAgency Planners 105
PA RT III: SECTION 3
Employee Relations Considerations
Administrative In situations where a disruption has occurred on the job, or where
Actions to Keep an there is a belief that the potential for violence exists, a supervisor
Employee Away may need to keep an employee away from the worksite to ensure
from the Worksite the safety of employees while conducting further investigation
and deciding on a course of action.
Immediate, short- ◆ Place employee on excused absence (commonly known as
term actions administrative leave). Placing the employee in a paid, non-
duty status is an immediate, temporary solution to the problem
of an employee who should be kept away from the worksite.
Some employees who are placed on excused absence consider
this measure to be punitive. However, relevant statute and
case law have indicated that as long as the employee continues
receiving pay and benefits just as if he or she were in a duty
status, placing the employee in an excused absence status does
not require the use of adverse action procedures set forth in
5 USC Chapter 75.
Agencies should monitor the situation and move toward
longer-term actions (as discussed below) when it is necessary,
appropriate, or prudent to do so. Depending on the
circumstances, it may also be a good idea to offer the
employee the option to work at home while on excused leave.
◆ Detail employee to another position. This can be an
effective way of getting an employee away from the worksite
where he or she is causing other employees at the worksite to
be disturbed. However, this action will be useful only if there
is another position where the employee can work safely and
without disrupting other workers.
Longer-term actions Supervisors are sometimes faced with a situation where there is
insufficient information available to determine if an employee
poses a safety risk, has actually committed a crime, or has a
medical condition which might make disciplinary action
inappropriate. To take an employee out of a paid duty status, an
agency must use adverse action procedures, which require a
30-day paid status during the advance notice of the adverse
action. Included below are the two types of actions which place
an employee in non-duty status.
Dealing with Workplace Violence106
Employee Relations Considerations
Administrative ◆ Indefinite suspension. An indefinite suspension is an adverse
Actions to Keep an action that takes an employee off-duty until the completion of
Employee Away some ongoing inquiry, such as an agency investigation into
from the Worksite allegations of misconduct. Agencies usually propose indefinite
(continued) suspensions when they will need more than 30 days to await
the results of an investigation, await the completion of a
criminal proceeding, or make a determination on the
employee’s medical condition. Indefinite suspensions are
5 CFR Part 752 adverse actions requiring a 30-day notice
period with pay. This means that 30 days after an indefinite
suspension is proposed, the employee will no longer be in a
pay status until the completion of the investigation, completion
of the criminal proceeding, or determination of the employee’s
medical condition.
◆ Indefinite enforced leave. The procedure for indefinite
enforced leave is the same as for an indefinite suspension —
Part 752 adverse action procedures. It involves making the
employee use his or her own sick or annual leave (after the 30-
day notice period with pay) pending the outcome of an inquiry.
Disciplinary Actions Where the supervisor possesses the relevant information regarding
violent, harassing, threatening, and other disruptive behavior, the
supervisor must determine the appropriate disciplinary action. T h e
selection of an appropriate charge and related penalty should be
discussed with the Employee Relations staff and the Office of
General Counsel where appropriate. Some disciplinary actions are:
◆ Reprimand, warning, short suspension, and alternative
discipline. These lesser disciplinary actions can be used in
cases where the misconduct is not serious and progressive
discipline may correct the problem behavior. They are an
excellent means of dealing with problem behavior early on.
These lesser disciplinary actions involve considerably fewer
procedures than the adverse actions listed below.
◆ Removal, reduction-in grade, and suspension for m o re than
14 days. Law and regulations
8
provide that an agency may
take an adverse action against an employee only for such cause as
will promote the efficiency of the service. A Federal employee
8
5 USC 7513(a) and 7701(c)(1)(B) and 5 CFR Part 752.
A Guide forAgency Planners 107
Employee Relations Considerations
Disciplinary Actions against whom an adverse action is proposed is entitled to a 30-day
(continued) advance written notice. A seven-day notice period instead of the
usual 30 days is permitted “when the agency has reasonable cause
to believe that the employee has committed a crime for which a
sentence of imprisonment may be imposed.”
9
In either case, the agency must give the reasons for the proposed
action in the written notice and provide the employee an
opportunity to respond. The agency must consider the employee’s
response and notify the employee when a decision has been made.
If the agency’s final decision is to take the proposed action, the
employee must be advised of the appeal rights to which he or she
is entitled and the time limits that apply to those appeal rights.
Disabilities as a The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has
Defense Against issued important guidance that specifically addresses potentially
Alleged Misconduct violent misconduct by employees with disabilities. Although this
guidance deals specifically with psychiatric disabilities, it applies
generally to other disabling medical conditions. It advises that an
agency may discipline an employee with a disability who has
violated a rule (written or unwritten) that is job-related and
consistent with business necessity, even if the misconduct is the
result of the disability, as long as the agency would impose the
same discipline on an employee without a disability. T h e
guidance specifically states that nothing in the Rehabilitation Act
prevents an employer from maintaining a workplace free of
violence or threats of violence.
The guidance specifically states that reasonable accommodation is
always prospective. Thus, an agency is never required to excuse
past misconduct as a reasonable accommodation. A r e a s o n a b l e
accommodation is a change to the workplace that helps an employee
9
5 USC 7513(b).
Dealing with Workplace Violence108
“... reasonable accommodation is always
prospective. Thus, an agency is never
required to excuse past misconduct as a
reasonable accommodation.”
Employee Relations Considerations
Disabilities as a perform his or her job and may be required, along with discipline,
Defense Against when the discipline is less than removal.
Alleged Misconduct
(continued) For a detailed discussion of all these points, see EEOC Enforc e m e n t
Guidance on the Americans with Disabilities Act and Psychiatric
Disabilities, EEOC number 915.002, 3-25-97. The guidance is
available on the Internet at http\\www. e e o c . g o v, or a copy can be
obtained by calling the EEOC Publications Office at (800) 669-
3362. Interpretation of the Rehabilitation Act is complex and
changing, and any specific questions should be discussed with
your Office of General Counsel.
Ordering and Supervisors should gain a better understanding of their rights (and
Offering Psychiatric limitations) regarding psychiatric examinations for employees.
Examinations There are some absolute prohibitions in Federal personnel
regulations regarding what medical information a supervisor can
demand from an employee and every supervisor should learn
what can be ordered and what can be offered. Discuss specific
questions with your Office of General Counsel. However, below
is some basic information on psychiatric examinations.
Ordering a psychiatric examination. Under 5 CFR Part 339, an
agency may order a psychiatric examination, or psychological
assessment, under very rare circumstances.
10
The only time an
employee can be ordered to undergo a psychiatric examination is:
◆ If he or she occupies a position requiring specific medical
standards and the results of a current general medical exam
which the agency has the authority to order show no physical
basis to explain actions or behavior which may affect the safe
and efficient performance of the individual or others, or
◆ If a psychiatric examination is specifically required by medical
standards or a medical evaluation program.
10
5 CFR 339.301 and 302.
A Guide forAgency Planners 109
“…an agency may order a psychiatric
examination, or psychological assessment,
under very rare circumstances.”
Employee Relations Considerations
Ordering and Offering a psychiatric examination. Under 5 CFR Part 339, an
Offering Psychiatric agency may offer a psychiatric evaluation or psychological
Examinations assessment (or it may ask the employee to submit medical
(continued) documentation) in any situation where it is in the interest of the
Government to obtain information relevant to an individual’s
ability to perform safely and efficiently, or when the employee
has requested, for medical reasons relating to a psychiatric
condition, a change in duty status, working conditions, or any
other benefit or reasonable accommodation. If the employee
decides not to be examined or to submit medical documentation,
the agency should act on the basis of the information available.
Disability Retire m e n t Supervisors should also gain a better understanding of their rights,
and limitations, regarding assisting employees with disability
retirement applications. The restrictions on filing a disability
retirement on behalf of an employee are rigorous, so supervisors
should understand their role in encouraging and assisting
employees who wish to seek disability retirement. Below is some
basic information on disability retirement.
Employees with medical disabilities may be eligible for disability
retirement if their medical condition warrants it and if they have
the requisite years of Federal service to qualify. In considering
applications for disability retirement from employees, the Office
of Personnel Management (OPM) focuses on the extent of the
employee’s incapacitation and ability to perform his or her
assigned duties. OPM makes every effort to expedite any
applications where the employee’s illness is in an advanced stage.
It is important to note that OPM’s regulations
11
specifically
provide that an individual’s application for disability retirement
does not stop or stay an agency’s taking and effecting an adverse
action. An agency should continue to process an adverse action,
even while informing the employee of his or her ability to file an
application for disability retirement, or informing family members
that they can apply on behalf of the employee.
Assisting employees The agency can and should counsel the employee any time it
in applying for believes that a medical condition is causing a service deficiency
disability re t i rement and the employee is otherwise eligible for disability retirement.
11
5 CFR 831.501(d).
Dealing with Workplace Violence110
Employee Relations Considerations
Disability Retire m e n t This does not mean that the agency has a specific number of
(continued) documents in hand to show that the employee is medically
incapacitated. It only means that the option of disability
retirement be given to the employee to consider.
The agency cannot force the employee to file an application for
disability retirement, despite its belief that it is in his or her best
interests. If the agency believes that the employee does not
understand the consequences of his or her choice not to do so, the next
paragraph explains agency-filed applications for disability retirement.
Agency-filed The conditions for filing an application for disability retirement
applications for on behalf of an employee are strictly limited. The Office of
disability retirement Personnel Management has set out five conditions that must be met
before an agency can file on an employee’s behalf.
1 2
If the following
five conditions are met, the agency must file on the employee’s behalf.
◆ The agency has issued a decision to remove the employee;
◆ The agency concludes, after review of medical documentation,
that the cause of the unacceptable performance, conduct, or
leave problems is due to the disease or injury;
◆ The employee is institutionalized, or based on the agency’s
review of medical and other information, it concludes that the
employee is incapable of making a decision to file on his or
her own behalf;
◆ The employee has no representative or guardian with the
authority to file on his or her behalf; and
◆ The employee has no immediate family member (spouse, parent,
or adult child) who is willing to file on the employee’s behalf.
Appeals of a Once a disciplinary action is taken by an agency, the employee
Disciplinary Action involved has options regarding his or her appeal (or challenge) to
the agency’s final decision. The various avenues of redress that
may be available to an employee include the agency’s
administrative or negotiated grievance system, the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission or the Merit Systems
Protection Board. Employees covered by a bargaining unit often
turn to the union for guidance on their appeal rights.
12
5 CFR part 831.1201-1206 (covering CSRS employees). For FERS
employees, see 5 CFR 844.202.
A Guide forAgency Planners 111
Employee Relations Considerations
Appeals of a Numerous holdings by third parties uphold agencies’ rights to
Disciplinary Action discipline employees who have threatened, intimidated, or
(continued) physically injured their supervisors or coworkers, or otherwise
caused a disruption in the workplace. However, since case law
relating to disciplinary actions is constantly evolving, agency
officials should always consult their employee/labor relations
specialists and Office of the General Counsel when considering
disciplinary actions.
Case Studies 6, 8, 13, and 15 provide
practical examples of some of
the issues discussed in this section.
Dealing with Workplace Violence112
Employee Assistance
Program
Considerations
Introduction Employee Assistance Program (EAP) participation can be
important to the success of an agency’s workplace violence
program. The EAP’s role generally begins with participation on
the agency planning group where decisions are made about the
role the EAP will play in the workplace violence program. EAPs
usually play an active role in early prevention efforts, sometimes
participate on the incident response team, and generally assist with
o rganizational recovery after an incident of workplace violence has
occurred. This section will provide an overview of the EAP a n d
then discuss considerations specific to workplace violence.
Overview of the Every Federal agency has an EAP which provides short-term
Employee Assistance counseling and referral services to its employees at no cost.
P ro g r a m These programs are staffed by professional counselors who are
available to discuss problems that can adversely affect job
performance, conduct, and reliability. EAPs are required to help
employees deal with alcoholism or drug abuse problems and most
programs also help employees with other problems such as marital
or financial problems. EAP counselors often refer employees to
other professional services and resources within the community for
further information, assistance, or long-term counseling.
EAPs differ from agency to agency in their structure and scope of
services. Some are in-house programs, staffed by employees of
the agency. Others are contracted out or are operated through an
interagency agreement with the Department of Health and Human
Services’ (DHHS) Division of Federal Occupational Health.
Among contracted programs, services differ, depending on the
terms of the contract and the relationship between the agency and
the contractor.
Confidentiality is an important issue for EAPs. Employees who
seek EAP services are afforded considerable privacy by laws,
A Guide forAgency Planners 113
PA RT III: SECTION 4
Employee Assistance Program Considerations
Overview of the policies, and the professional ethics of Employee Assistance
Employee Assistance Program (EAP) professionals. It is common practice for EAPs to
Program (continued) inform employees in writing about the limits of confidentiality on
their first visit.
Agency planning group members should familiarize themselves
with the structure, scope, and special considerations of their
agency’s own EAP. As the planning group explores the range of
services provided, it may identify needs for expanding the
program’s existing array of services. EAP professionals should
advise the agency planning group on the relevant laws, policies,
and professional ethical constraints under which they operate,
including the Privacy Act provisions of 5 USC 552a and the
DHHS Alcohol and Drug Patient Confidentiality Regulation
provisions of 42 CFR Part 2. This will allow cooperative
arrangements to be worked out for an appropriate EAP role.
The Employee E A P s t a f f members generally assist in policy and strategy
Assistance Pro g r a m ’s development and help determine the EAP’s role on the agency’s
Role in Dealing with workplace violence incident response team. EAPs bring a special
Workplace Vi o l e n c e expertise to the planning process. They are in an optimal position to
assist with many of the activities conducted by the planning group.
Role in early ◆ Promotion of the EAP. The effectiveness of a workplace
prevention efforts violence program is greatly enhanced in an organization with
an active, well-known EAP presence. Agencies with active
programs promote the EAP by issuing periodic statements
from top management endorsing the program and reminding
employees of the services offered by the EAP, having
counselors attend staff meetings to familiarize agency
employees with the counselors, and having counselors give
special briefings and seminars for managers, employees, and
union stewards.
◆ Information dissemination. EAPs often provide booklets,
pamphlets, and lending libraries of books and videos about
such topics as domestic violence, stress reduction, and dealing
with angry customers.
Dealing with Workplace Violence114
Employee Assistance Program Considerations
The Employee ◆ Early involvement in organizational change. When
Assistance Program’s an agency is facing reorganization, restructuring, or other
Role in Dealing with o rganizational change which may have a negative eff e ct
Workplace Violence on employees, the Employee Assistance Program can
( c o n t i n u e d ) help to, through individual or group sessions, keep information
flowing, keep feelings under control, prevent potential
outbursts, provide constructive outlets for feelings, and help
employees plan for the future.
◆ Employee and supervisory training. Much of the employee
training described in Part I, Section 3 is conducted by EAP
staff. For example, counselors can train employees on such
topics as dealing with angry coworkers and customers,
conflict resolution, and communications skills. Since EAP
staff understand how important it is that supervisors (and
coworkers) not diagnose an employee’s problem, they are in
an excellent position to explain the delicate balance between
identifying problem behavior early on and labeling an
individual as potentially violent. EAP counselors can train
supervisors to deal with problems as soon as they surface
without diagnosing the employee’s problem.
Participation on an Since every reported incident of workplace violence is different,
incident response team and every agency is structured differently, EAP participation on
an incident response team will depend on many factors. Issues
need to be clarified ahead of time to avoid misunderstanding and
conflict. Team members need to understand that if a case is being
discussed and the counselor says, Sorry, I can’t help you with this
one, they should neither expect an explanation nor assume that the
A Guide forAgency Planners 115
“Since EAP staff understand how important
it is that supervisors (and coworkers) not
diagnose an employee’s problem, they are in
an excellent position to explain the delicate
balance between identifying problem
behavior early on and labeling an
individual as potentially violent.”
Employee Assistance Program Considerations
The Employee counselor is being uncooperative. Advance planning can help to
Assistance Program’s identify ways of coping with these types of issues. For example,
Role in Dealing with if the EAP is large enough, different staff members may play
Workplace Violence different roles. Or the staff may be able to identify other
(continued) professionals who can be brought in to ensure that all needs are
addressed. Working with other members of planning group and
the incident response team in advance can clarify the EAP’s role
when an incident arises.
Consultation with supervisor when incident is reported.
Depending on the type of incident reported, it is often important
for a counselor, along with an employee relations specialist and
security officer, to be part of the incident response team that
consults with the manager. In some situations, such as potential
suicides, the EAP can play a major role. In other situations, such
as dealing with an employee who frightens coworkers, but who
has not actually done or said anything warranting discipline, the
EAP can assist other team members in working with the
supervisor to plan an effective response.
Response/Intervention. The counselor can help with conflict
resolution in situations that are reported early enough for such an
intervention. The counselor can work with the victim, giving
advice and guidance, or with the perpetrator, helping to diffuse
the anger/hostility that could lead to violence. The counselor can
help clarify options and procedures for situations in which
substance abuse or mental illness seems to be a factor. For
example, states differ in their laws regarding civil commitment for
psychiatric treatment. The counselor can explain to other team
members the EAP role in such a situation, and can coordinate
with other community resources to develop contingency plans for
various emergency situations. These and other examples are
illustrated in the case studies in Part II.
Follow-up to a Many EAPs are prepared to respond promptly to a variety of
violent incident needs that may exist after a violent incident. Prompt individual
interventions with employees who have had particularly stressful
experiences are sometimes necessary. Debriefing sessions for
groups are often conducted two or three days after the incident.
The EAP can also act as consultants to management in helping the
organization to recover.
Dealing with Workplace Violence116
Employee Assistance Program Considerations
The Employee Individual interventions. Though most employees will need
Assistance Program’s only brief intervention, provision should be made for the few who
Role in Dealing with may need longer-term professional assistance. Strategies for
Workplace Violence identifying these employees and guiding them as smoothly as
(continued) possible from emergency-centered interventions to more extensive
mental health care should be included in the planning.
The EAP may approach these responsibilities in different ways,
depending on the size and experience of its staff. In some cases,
internal EAP resources may be sufficient, but in others, additional
s t a f fing will be necessary. EAP s t a ff who do not have expertise in
traumatic incident counseling may wish to develop in-house expertise
or keep close at hand the phone numbers of resources to contact
should an incident occur. Potential sources of additional help, for
example, private contractors, community mental health resources,
university or medical school programs, might be explored.
Critical Incident Stress Debriefings (CISD). Many EAPs have
been trained to participate on CISD teams. See discussion of the
CISD process on page 136.
Acting as consultants to management. Since management bears
the brunt of responsibility after a violent incident, and can find itself
dealing with unfamiliar challenges under high stress, the EAP can be
very helpful in facilitating an optimal response. It can provide
managers with information on traumatic events and can assist them
in analyzing the situation and developing strategies for the
o rg a n i z a t i o n ’s recovery. An effective EAP needs to be familiar not
only with post-disaster mental health care, but also with
management practices that facilitate recovery and with other
resources which may need to be mobilized.
In thinking about an org a n i z a t i o n ’s recovery, there is a temptation to
focus narrowly on care-giving responses such as debriefings and
counseling discussed above. Essential as these services are, they are
only part of the picture. The way the manager conveys information,
schedules responsibilities, sets priorities, and monitors employee
performance after a violent incident can play a vital role in helping or
hindering recovery. Some EAPs are trained to provide this type of
consultation. Agencies will find A M a n a g e r’s Handbook: Handling
Traumatic Events helpful in this regard. (See Part III, Section 6 for
further information on organizational recovery and page 145 for
information on obtaining a copy of the M a n a g e r’s Handbook.)
A Guide forAgency Planners 117
Employee Assistance Program Considerations
Other EAP
Considerations for
the Agency
Planning Group
Should the EAP take Most agencies do not use the EAP as the office responsible for
the incident report? taking incident reports on workplace violence. Agencies give the
following reasons: Because confidentiality requirements prohibit
EAP counselors from disclosing information, putting a counselor
in the position of informing the other members of the intervention
team about the report could lead to serious misunderstandings
among agency employees and harm the credibility of the EAP. It
sometimes takes years to build the EAP into a viable program
trusted by employees to keep any contacts confidential and the
dual role could diminish this viability.
In addition, the incident reports could get confused with EAP
records covered by the agency’s internal system of records for its
EAP under the Privacy Act. Records that are filed and retrieved
by name or other personal identifier are subject to the Privacy Act
provisions of 5 USC 552a. Since each agency’s system of records
is different, it is a good idea to check with the agency’s Privacy
Act Officer regarding the systems notice for the agency’s
Employee Assistance Program. The systems notice covers who
can gain access to the records and how amendments are made to
the records.
Many times the EAP counselor will be the person who first hears
about an incident involving threatening behavior, even though the
agency’s reporting system provides for another office to take
incident reports. Managers and employees often feel comfortable
telling the counselor about a situation that frightens them. The
agency’s planning group should decide ahead of time which types
of reports the counselors should handle alone and which types
should be reported to the other team members, always making
sure that each member of the team understands the confidentiality
requirements of the EAP.
Should the EAP be Agencies who have had experience with the EAP being the first
first intervenor? intervenor in workplace violence situations report that they do not
recommend this approach for the following reasons:
Dealing with Workplace Violence118
Employee Assistance Program Considerations
Other EAP (1) Issues of confidentiality cause numerous conflicts for the
Considerations for counselors, and
the Agency
Planning Group (2) It could lead to a perception of treating perpetrators of
(continued) workplace violence as victims needing counseling rather than
as perpetrators needing discipline.
Therefore, the agency planning group should ensure that
procedures developed ahead of time allow for flexibility and do
not require counselors to be the first intervenors in situations
where this would be inappropriate.
Should the Organizations with experience in offering psychological or
EAP perform psychiatric examinations usually recommend that these not be
psychological exams? performed by the EAP staff. The process of conducting these
examinations is not only time-consuming and highly specialized,
but it also fits poorly with other EAP responsibilities. Thus, most
agencies find it preferable, if offering such an examination, to
have it done by an “outsider” such as an external contractor.
Some agencies have professional mental health staffs in addition
to the EAP and utilize them for this type of evaluation. The EAP
can then take the role of teacher and facilitator, helping everyone
involved to understand the report of the examination and put its
recommendations into practice.
Case Studies 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, 12, 14, and 16
provide practical examples of some of
the issues discussed in this section.
A Guide forAgency Planners 119
Dealing with Workplace Violence120
Workplace Security
Introduction Law enforcement and security officers should be involved in all
stages of the planning process in an effective workplace violence
prevention program. They can play an active role in prevention,
intervention, and response to threatening situations, in addition
to their traditional role of responding to actual incidents of
physical violence. This section will provide general ideas and
considerations that can help the agency planning group gain an
understanding of some of the law enforcement/security issues
such as jurisdiction. It is also intended to help those Federal
offices that do not have in-house security or law enforcement
identify the appropriate organizations that can assist them.
Security Planning Depending on the agency, location of the office, and the type of
incident or situation, jurisdiction may vary. The agency’s own
law enforcement organization, the Federal Protective Service
(FPS), or Federal, state, or local law enforcement, or a
combination of these, may have jurisdiction. There also may be
gaps in law enforcement coverage when issues of workplace
violence arise. These gaps can be closed if the agency planning
group (which would include any in-house security organization)
works with the various law enforcement organizations in setting
up workplace violence programs. The following are some
suggestions for involving law enforcement in agency efforts to
prevent workplace violence.
Jurisdiction The agency planning group should identify which Federal or local
law enforcement agency or agencies have responsibility for its
worksite. For example, the FPS is the primary law enforcement
service for responding to incidents in Federal facilities under the
charge and control of the General Services Administration (GSA)
as an owned or leased facility. FPS typically locates its offices in
areas where there is a high concentration of Federal employees
and is capable of providing timely responses to GSA owned or
leased facilities in these areas. For immediate responses to GSA
owned or leased facilities in rural areas and/or areas with a
small Federal presence, law enforcement officials from local
jurisdictions should be contacted.
A Guide forAgency Planners 121
PART III: SECTION 5
Workplace Security
Security Planning Some agencies have in-house security and/or law enforcement
(continued) organizations. Others have contracts with private security firms.
It is not always clear who has jurisdiction, and who should be
contacted when the need arises.
Sometimes meeting with the local police chief, county sheriff, or
state police is necessary to establish a plan or procedure regarding
law enforcement response in the event of potential violence or
hostile incidents. Sometimes new building agreements will be
necessary or contracts will have to be modified. In remote
locations, arrangements can be made for local police to handle
certain situations until the appropriate Federal law enforcement
officials arrive.
Liaison with law The agency planning group, and later the incident response team,
enforcement agencies should maintain open and continuous liaison with those law
enforcement agencies responsible for their worksite. This would
entail having periodic meetings to discuss the agency’s concerns.
Without these contacts, lines of communication can break down
and misunderstandings could arise. It is during these contacts that
the agency can obtain the names and telephone numbers of law
enforcement personnel to be called upon should the need arise.
Planning groups in agencies that already have established liaisons
should work through these established liaisons to avoid confusion.
Law Enforcement During the planning phase, law enforcement/security officers can:
and Security
Assistance ◆ Identify types of situations they can address and when and
how they should be notified of an incident;
◆ Indicate whether their officers have arrest authority;
◆ Identify their jurisdictional restrictions and alternative law
enforcement agencies that may be able to provide assistance;
Dealing with Workplace Violence122
Know in advance which Federal or local law
enforcement agency or agencies have
jurisdiction over your worksite. Involve them
early in the planning process.
Workplace Security
Law Enforcement ◆ Identify threat assessment professionals who can assist the
and Security agency in its efforts to protect threatened employees;
Assistance (continued)
◆ Advise on what evidence is necessary and how it can be
collected or recorded, so that law enforcement can assess the
information and decide what action to take, if appropriate;
◆ Explain anti-stalking laws applicable in the agency’s
jurisdiction and how and when to obtain restraining orders;
◆ Suggest security measures to be taken for specific situations,
such as in cases where Employee Assistance Program counselors
or other mental health professionals warn the agency that an
individual has made a threat against an agency employee; and
◆ Arrange for supervisor/employee briefings or training on
specific workplace violence issues such as:
➤ Personal safety and security measures;
➤ Types of incidents to report to law enforcement/security;
➤ Types of measures law enforcement/security may take to
protect employees during a violent incident, e.g.,
explanations of what it means to “secure the area,” “secure
the perimeter,” and “preserve evidence”;
➤ Suggestions on how to react to an armed attacker;
➤ Suggestions for dealing with angry customers or clients;
➤ Suspicious packages;
➤ Bomb threats;
➤ Hostage situations; and
➤ Telephone harassment and threats.
When potentially violent situations arise, law enforcement/
security officers can work with the incident response team to:
◆ Provide an assessment of the information available to determine
whether law enforcement intervention is immediately necessary;
for example, whether a criminal investigation is appropriate and
whether a threat assessment professional should be consulted;
◆ Identify what plan of action they deem appropriate; and
◆ Determine who will gather what types of evidence.
A Guide forAgency Planners 123
Workplace Security
Physical Security Many Federal agencies have numerous security measures in
Measures place that can reduce the risk of workplace violence. These
include closed circuit cameras, silent alarms, metal detectors, two-
way mirrors, electronic access systems, barriers to prevent cars
from driving too close to the building, emergency internal code
words, extra lighting in the parking lots, and escorts to and from
parking lots after dark. Planning groups should review security
measures and procedures and make recommendations for
modifications and improvements as necessary.
The U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Marshals Service, has issued
a publication containing recommendations for increasing security
in Federal facilities. Entitled Vulnerability Assessment of Federal
F a c i l i t i e s, it can be obtained by contacting the U.S. Government
Printing Office, Superintendent of Documents, Mail Stop: SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-9328 (Publication # 027-000-01362-7).
The information in the following section regarding physical
security has been provided by the General Services
Administration’s (GSA) Federal Protective Service.
Physical Security in There are more than 900,000 employees working in
GSA Owned or approximately 6,800 GSA owned or leased Federal buildings.
Leased Buildings GSA is the agency responsible for ensuring the safety and security
of people while on Federal property that is owned or leased by
GSA. This section contains recommendations and requirements
for agencies in GSA controlled or leased space.
Regulations Federal Property Management Regulations 41 CFR Part 101-20
and Executive Order 12656 specifically require GSA to provide
standard protection services by coordinating a comprehensive
Occupant Emergency Program, which is a short-term emergency
response program establishing procedures for safeguarding lives
and property during emergencies.
Dealing with Workplace Violence124
If your agency is not in GSA owned or leased buildings,
you can obtain the same type of assistance from the law
enforcement or security organization that has jurisdiction
over your worksite.
Workplace Security
Physical Security in
GSA Owned or
Leased Buildings
(continued)
G S A designated official Each GSA owned or leased facility has a designated official, who
is the highest ranking official of the primary occupant agency of a
Federal facility, or alternatively, a designee selected by mutual
agreement of occupant agency officials. The designated official is
responsible for developing, implementing, and maintaining an
Occupant Emergency Plan, which consists of procedures
developed to protect life and property in a specific Federally
occupied space under stipulated emergency conditions. The
designated official’s responsibilities include establishing, staffing,
and training an Occupant Emergency Organization, comprised of
agency employees who have been designated to perform the
requirements established by the Occupant Emergency Plan.
According to the regulations, the GSA must assist in the
establishment and maintenance of such plans and organizations.
All agencies occupying a facility must fully cooperate with the
designated official in the implementation of the emergency plans
and the staffing of the emergency organization. GSA must
provide emergency program policy guidance, review plans and
organizations annually, assist in training of personnel, and
otherwise ensure proper administration of Occupant Emergency
Programs. In leased space, GSA will solicit the assistance of the
lessor in the establishment and implementation of plans.
According to the regulations, decisions to activate the Occupant
Emergency Organization shall be made by the designated official,
or by the designated alternate official. Decisions to activate shall
be based upon the best available information, including an
understanding of local tensions, the sensitivity of target agencies,
and previous experience with similar situations. Advice shall be
solicited, when possible, from the GSA buildings manager, from
the appropriate Federal Protective Service official, and from
Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies.
A Guide forAgency Planners 125
Workplace Security
Physical Security A major goal of the GSA’s Federal Protective Service is to
Survey provide better protection for Federal employees and visitors by
pinpointing high-risk areas in Federal buildings where potential
problems or emergency situations might occur. This is accomplished
through a “Physical Security Survey” conducted by a certified GSA
physical security specialist. The survey is a comprehensive, detailed,
technical on-site inspection and analysis of the current security and
physical protection conditions.
If your agency does not have up-to-date security procedures in
place, the head of your agency may want to ask a regional GSA
Federal Protective Service office or your agency’s security office
to conduct a physical security survey to ensure that employees are
working in a safe and secure environment. There is a listing of
Federal Protective Service offices at the end of this section on
page 131.
The following are some examples provided by the FPS of ways to
improve security in your office and/or building.
◆ Post a security guard at the main building entrance or at
entrances to specific offices.
◆ Install a metal detector or CCTV (closed-circuit television)
camera or other device to monitor people coming in all
building entrances.
◆ Issue all employees photo identification cards and assign
temporary passes to visitors, who should be required to sign
in and out of the building. Under certain conditions, contract
guards should be required to call Federal offices to confirm an
appointment and/or to request an escort for all visitors —
customers, relatives, or friends.
◆ Brief employees on steps to take if a threatening or violent
incident occurs. Establish code words to alert coworkers and
supervisors that immediate help is needed.
◆ Install silent, concealed alarms at reception desks.
The following are some examples provided by the FPS of ways to
improve security in “front-line” offices that serve the public.
Dealing with Workplace Violence126
Workplace Security
Physical Security ◆ Ensure that officers (or guards) should have a clear view of the
Survey customer service area at all times.
(continued)
◆ Arrange office furniture and partitions so that front-line
employees in daily contact with the public are surrounded by
“natural” barriers (desks, countertops, partitions) to separate
employees from customers and visitors.
◆ Provide an under-the-counter duress alarm system to signal a
supervisor or security officer if a customer becomes
threatening or violent.
◆ Establish an area in the office for employees and/or customers to
escape to if they are confronted with violent or threatening people.
◆ Provide an access-control combination lock on access doors.
◆ Mount closed circuit television cameras for monitoring customer
service activity from a central security office for the building.
More examples of measures agencies can take to improve security
for its employees can be found in the publications by the Federal
Protective Service, National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health, and Occupational Safety and Health Administration that
are listed in Part IV.
Computer Security Agency planning groups should address ways to safeguard
computer systems. There have been cases where employees have
sabotaged computer equipment, computer systems, and computer
records. Therefore, whenever a threat of sabotage is suspected,
procedures should be initiated to prevent the person from having
access to the facility’s computer system.
It is important to act quickly whenever there is reason to believe
that an employee or ex-employee may commit such an act. It is
standard practice to collect IDs, building passes, keys, and
parking passes when employees leave their jobs. Often, however,
no one thinks to block access to computer systems or networks.
A Guide forAgency Planners 127
Workplace Security
Computer Security Some agencies, when terminating employees, bar them from the
(continued) premises and eradicate their passwords to computer systems that
are accessible from outside the premises.
This type of access information is sometimes difficult to
determine; often, it is not readily available in one central place.
For example, information technology administrators may know
who has access to various computer systems, and the facilities
manager may know who has access to the computer systems that
control the building’s heating, air-conditioning, and other support
functions for the facility. The agency planning group, as part of
the response plan, should talk to the information/computer security
o fficer or computer system administrators to determine the
vulnerability of the computer networks and the procedures that
need to be implemented to lock individuals out of these systems.
Examples of The following pages contain examples of handouts developed
Handouts by the Federal Protective Service (FPS) that can be used by or
adapted for your agency. FPS regional offices, listed on page
131, may be contacted for additional brochures and literature on
office safety and security.
Dealing with Workplace Violence128
“The agency planning group, as part
of the response plan, should talk to the
information/computer security officer or
computer system administrators to determine
the vulnerability of the computer networks and
the pro c e d u res that need to be implemented to
lock individuals out of these systems.”
Workplace Security
Examples of Useful Handouts for Employees
The attached desk card summarizes the actions you should (or should not) take in a hostile or
threatening situation. Print out and detach the card, tear or cut along the dotted lines, fold the card
into a “tent,” and tape the ends together underneath so that the card will stand up on your desk with
the text facing you. Review the card often. That way, if you are confronted by an angry, hostile, or
threatening customer or coworker, you will know what you should do. Everyone in your office,
including supervisors and managers, should follow these same procedures. You can make copies of
this card so that everyone has his or her own card.
Coping With Threats and Violence
For an angry or hostile customer or coworker
◆ Stay calm. Listen attentively.
◆ Maintain eye contact.
◆ Be courteous. Be patient.
◆ Keep the situation in your control.
For a person shouting, swearing, and threatening
◆ Signal a coworker, or supervisor, that you need help.
(Use a duress alarm system or prearranged code words.)
◆ Do not make any calls yourself.
◆ Have someone call the FPS, contract guard, or local police.
For someone threatening you with a gun, knife, or other weapon
◆ Stay calm. Quietly signal for help.
(Use a duress alarm or code words.)
◆ Maintain eye contact.
◆ Stall for time.
◆ Keep talking — but follow instructions from the person who has the weapon.
◆ Don’t risk harm to yourself or others.
◆ Never try to grab a weapon.
◆ Watch for a safe chance to escape to a safe area.
Federal Protective Service
U.S. General Services Administration
A Guide forAgency Planners 129
Workplace Security
Handy Reference Card
Everyone in your office, including supervisors and managers, should follow these same procedures.
Make copies of the card if you need to so everyone will have his or her own card.
Telephone Threats
◆ Keep calm. Keep talking.
◆ Don’t hang up.
◆ Signal a coworker to get on an extension.
◆ Ask the caller to repeat the message and write it down.
◆ Repeat questions, if necessary.
◆ For a bomb threat, ask where the bomb is and when it is set to go off.
◆ Listen for background noises and write down a description.
◆ Write down whether it’s a man or a woman; pitch of voice, accent; anything else you hear.
◆ Try to get the person’s name, exact location, telephone number.
◆ Signal a coworker to immediately call the FPS, a contract guard, or the local police.
◆ Notify your immediate supervisor.
Federal Protective Service
U.S. General Services Administration
Emergency Phone Numbers
Carefully tear out the “Emergency Phone Numbers” card at the dotted lines. Write in all the
emergency numbers for your building. Tape this card on your desk by your phone or somewhere
else close to your phone for handy reference. (Copies of this card also can be made.)
Federal Protective Service________________________________
Building Security_______________________________________
Police/Sheriff__________________________________________
Fire Department________________________________________
Ambulance___________________________________________
Health Unit___________________________________________
Federal Protective Service
U.S. General Services Administration
Dealing with Workplace Violence130
Workplace Security
Federal Protective Service Offices
For more information on coping with threats and violence in Federal Offices, other crime prevention,
security surveys, and protection assistance, write or call your nearest Federal Protective Service,
Public Buildings Service, U.S. General Services Administration at one of these regional addresses.
Washington, DC Metropolitan Area: Southeast Federal Center, 3rd & M Streets S.E.,
Washington, DC 20407-0001, (202) 690-9632
Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island: 10 Causeway
Street, Room 108, Boston, MA 02222-1098, (617) 565-5776
New York, New Jersey, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands: 26 Federal Plaza, New York, NY
10278-0013, (212) 264-4255
Delaware, Maryland and Virginia (except Washington DC Metropolitan area), Pennsylvania,
West Virginia: 100 Penn Square East, Philadelphia, PA 19107-3396, (215) 656-6043
Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Tennessee: 401 West Peachtree Street, NW, Atlanta, GA 30365-2550, (404) 331-5132
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin: 230 South Dearborn Street, Chicago,
IL 60604-1503, (312) 353-1496
Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska: 1500 Bannister Road, Kansas City, MO 64131-3088,
(816) 926-7025
Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas: 819 Taylor Street, Fort Worth, TX,
76102-6105, (817) 334-3559
Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming: Building 41, Denver
Federal Center, Denver, CO 80225-0546, (303) 236-5869
Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, Guam, U.S. Trust Territory of the Pacific: 450 Golden
Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102-3400, (415) 522-3440
Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Wa s h i n g t o n : 400 15th Street, SW, Auburn, WA 98001-6599, (206) 931-7529
Crime Prevention Program: 18th & F St. NW, Washington, DC 20405-0002, (202) 501-0907
Case Studies 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 13 provide practical
examples of some of the issues discussed in this section.
A Guide forAgency Planners 131
Dealing with Workplace Violence132
Organizational
Recovery After
An Incident
Introduction Despite the best-laid plans of any Federal agency, violence in the
workplace can and does happen. Just as agencies develop policies
and procedures designed to head off these occurrences, agencies
must be equally prepared to deal with the aftermath of such
incidents. Quite often management’s focus will be on getting the
operational side of the office back in working order. However,
just as important as getting the office back on-line is attending to
the impact such incidents can have on office personnel. This
section will provide information designed to assist management
with helping an organization to recover after an incident of
workplace violence.
Management Steps Listed below are several initial steps management can take when
to Help an an incident of workplace violence occurs.
Organization Recover
Ensure a management Managers need to spend ample time with their employees, in
presence in the worksite or wherever they may be. Employees need to be
the worksite reassured of their concern, and they need to be able to ask
questions. Senior management should ensure that immediate
supervisors are supported in this role, relieved of unnecessary
duties, and not pulled away from their subordinates to write
lengthy reports or prepare elaborate briefings.
Share information Employees will have many questions, and they need the
with employees answers — often more than once — if they are to resolve the
experience for themselves. Information will develop over time,
so information strategies need to be simple and fluid. A notice
board at the elevator, or a recorded message on a “hotline”
number may suffice for the basics, and a user-friendly system for
individual questions needs to be established.
A Guide forAgency Planners 133
PART III: SECTION 6
Organizational Recovery After an Incident
Management Steps to
Help an Organization
Recover (continued)
Include union Union representatives can help in reassuring employees after an
leadership incident and in getting information to employees.
Bring in crisis Before an incident ever occurs, the planning group should identify
response professionals trained mental health professionals in the agency’s Employee
Assistance Program or the community who would be available to
respond in the event of an incident. When an incident occurs,
involve these emergency mental health consultants as soon as
possible. They will generally meet with management first,
working down the chain, and then with line employees. Based on
what the consultants learn, they will offer services such as
debriefings and defusings (see discussion of these processes later
in the section) and informal counseling, perhaps in the work area.
Support The formal debriefing doesn’t end the recovery process. Provide
informal debriefing opportunities for employees to talk informally with one another when
they feel a need to discuss the experience. Acomfortable break area
and flexibility about break times may be all that is needed.
Support care-giving Keep work groups together as much as possible, and try not to
within work groups isolate employees from their normal support groups at work.
Show respect and support for employees’ efforts to care for
one another.
Handle critical sites Initially, the site of a violent incident will be secured as a crime
with care scene. After the authorities are finished with it, management
needs to be sensitive to a number of issues. It is helpful if
employees don’t have to come back to work and face painful
reminders such as blood stains or broken furniture. But on the
other hand, the area should not be so “sanitized” that it gives the
appearance that management is pretending nothing happened. If
someone has died, that person’s work area will be a focus of
grieving, and it needs to be respected as such.
Buffer those affected Effective coordination with the media and timely dissemination of
f rom post-event stre s s e s information can help reduce media pressure on those who are the
most vulnerable. Assistance with benefits and other administrative
issues can reduce the burden on victims and families.
Dealing with Workplace Violence134
Organizational Recovery After an Incident
Management Steps to
Help an Organization
Recover (continued)
Help employees face Returning soon, if only briefly, to a feared site can help prevent
feared places lasting effects such as phobic responses. Having a friend or loved
or activities one along, or being supported by close work associates, may
make the first step much easier.
Remember the healing Getting back to work can be reassuring, and a sense of having a
value of work mission to perform can help the group recover its morale. But the
return to work must be managed in a way that conveys appropriate
respect for the deceased, the injured, and the traumatized.
For further suggestions about organizational recovery, see A
Manager’s Handbook: Handling Traumatic Events (ordering
information is on page 145.)
The Critical Formal crisis intervention processes for victims of critical
Incident Stress incidents, such as workplace violence, have been used and
Management Process recommended by mental health professionals for years. One
such process, Critical Incident Stress Management, has been
pioneered by Dr. Jeffrey Mitchell of the University of Maryland
at Baltimore County.
1 3
13
This information is adapted from the following documents: Everly, G. &
Mitchell, J. (1995) Critical Incident Stress Debriefing: An Operations Manual
for the Prevention of Traumatic Stress Among Emergency Services and
Disaster Workers, Ellicott City, Maryland: Chevron Publishing Corporation.
Mitchell, Jeffrey T. (1995) Essentials of Critical Incident Stress Management.
In G. Everly (Ed.) Innovations in Disaster and Trauma Psychology, Volume
One: Applications in Emergency Services and Disaster Response, Ellicott City,
Maryland: Chevron Publishing Corporation, 79-81.
A Guide forAgency Planners 135
Keep in mind that none of the information provided in this
section should take the place of specialized training in the field.
Organizational Recovery After an Incident
The Critical Incident
Stress Management
Process (continued)
Purpose Critical Incident Stress Management (CISM) represents an
integrated system of services and procedures whose purpose is to
achieve several goals:
◆ Prevention of traumatic stress,
◆ Mitigation of traumatic stress,
◆ Intervention to assist in recovery from traumatic stress,
◆ Acceleration of recovery whenever possible,
◆ Restoration to function, and
◆ Maintenance of worker health and welfare.
The CISM team A CISM team, generally comprised of mental health
professionals and trained peer support personnel, provides a
variety of services including:
◆ Defusings,
◆ Demobilizations after a disaster,
◆ Debriefings,
◆ Informal discussions,
◆ Significant other support services,
◆ Individual consults (one-on-one), and
◆ Follow-up services.
For the purposes of this discussion, the focus will be on two of the
more commonly used CISM services: debriefings and defusings.
Critical Incident The impact of a critical incident on an individual’s life appears
Stress Debriefing to be mitigated, to some degree, by the availability of resources
that may intervene at various stages following the incident.
Dealing with Workplace Violence136
Organizational Recovery After an Incident
The Critical Incident The Critical Incident Stress Debriefing (CISD) is a model
Stress Debriefing designed to yield just such a result. The CISD model assists
(continued) the victims of critical incidents with their recovery process.
The model incorporates seven phases:
(1) Introductory Phase,
(2) Fact Phase,
(3) Thought Phase,
(4) Reaction Phase,
(5) Symptom Phase,
(6) Teaching Phase, and
(7) Re-entry Phase.
Debriefings are group meetings that are designed to give
participants an opportunity to discuss their thoughts and feelings
about a distressing event in a controlled and rational manner, and
to help them understand that they are not alone in their reactions
to the incident. It is recommended that a formal debriefing be
held within 24 to 72 hours after an incident. Depending on the
number of participants and the severity of the incident,
debriefings generally last anywhere from one to three hours.
Debriefing teams represent a partnership between mental health
professionals and peer support personnel. Mental health
professionals serving on a Critical Incident Stress Debriefing team
possess at least a master’s degree in psychology, social work,
A Guide forAgency Planners 137
Given the time recommendations for debriefings and
defusings, Critical Incident Stress Management (CISM)
providers are reminded that CISM interventions should not
interfere with the priorities of criminal investigations. In
those cases where criminal proceedings are likely to result
from the critical incident, it is important to coordinate CISM
interventions with the appropriate prosecutory authority.
Organizational Recovery After an Incident
Critical Incident psychiatric nursing, psychiatry, or mental health counseling. Peer
Stress Debriefing support personnel are trained and prepared to work with mental
(continued) health professionals in preventing and mitigating the negative
impact of acute stress on their fellow workers. All team members
receive training in crisis intervention, stress, post-traumatic stress
disorder, and the debriefing process.
The following is a brief description of each phase of the
debriefing model:
Introductory Phase During this first phase the leader and team members introduce
themselves to the participants. The leader describes how a
debriefing works and lists the ground rules for the debriefing.
The rules are as follows:
◆ No one is compelled to talk but participation is
strongly encouraged,
◆ No notes or recordings of any kind are taken during
the debriefing,
◆ Strict confidentiality is maintained, and
◆ The debriefing is not intended to be therapy.
It is important to convey to participants that their chances for a
successful debriefing increase when participants are made fully
aware of what to expect during the process.
Fact Phase The fact phase begins with the team leader asking participants to
identify themselves and briefly mention their degree of
involvement with the incident. For example, participants may
relate their role in the incident, how they were informed of the
incident, where they were when they received this news, and so
forth. Participants may begin relating their first reactions to the
incident. This type of information lays the groundwork for the
remaining phases of the process.
Thought Phase Participants are asked what their first thoughts were concerning
the incident. The thought phase begins to personalize the
experience for the participants. This is the first phase in which
some participants may exhibit some reluctance to share.
Dealing with Workplace Violence138
Organizational Recovery After an Incident
Critical Incident
Stress Debriefing
(continued)
Reaction Phase Participants are asked to discuss “what was the worst part of the
event for them, personally.” This phase generally causes
participants to begin exploring some of their deeper, personal
responses to the event. Depending on the intensity of the event
and the number of participants, this segment may last thirty
minutes to one hour.
Symptom Phase Participants are asked to describe the signs and symptoms of any
distress they experienced, such as feeling nauseated, sweating
palms, or having difficulty making decisions. Usually three
occurrences of signs and symptoms are discussed:
(1) Those that appeared at the time of the incident,
(2) Those that arose during the next few days, and
(3) Those that they are still experiencing at the time
of the debriefing.
Teaching Phase During the teaching phase the leader and team members share
information regarding the relationship between the critical
incident and the subsequent cognitive, emotional, behavioral, and
physiological reactions that others involved in such events have
experienced. Participants are provided with a handout entitled
“Critical Stress Information Sheet.” During this phase,
participants may ask new questions or bring up information that
was not discussed earlier.
Re-entry Phase This phase signals the end of the debriefing. Participants are
encouraged to ask questions and explore other issues associated
with the incident that may have not surfaced earlier. Team
members are asked to provide some summary remarks, and the
team leader makes a few additional statements in an effort to
bring closure to the debriefing. A crucial message emanating
from the debriefing is that the participants’ reactions are normal
responses to an abnormal event.
Is a Debriefing The decision about whether or not a formal debriefing is
Warranted? warranted generally rests with management personnel following
A Guide forAgency Planners 139
Organizational Recovery After an Incident
Critical Incident consultation with mental health consultants. Though not all-
Stress Debriefing inclusive, some examples of important questions to explore when
(continued) assessing the need for a debriefing are these:
◆ What is the nature of the incident?
◆ Is the event of sufficient magnitude as to cause significant
emotional distress among those involved?
◆ How many individuals are affected by the incident?
◆ What signs and symptoms of distress are being displayed by
the witnesses to the incident?
◆ Are the signs and symptoms growing worse as time passes?
◆ Are any of the following key indicators of a need for a
debriefing present: behavior change; regression; continued
symptoms; intensifying symptoms, new symptoms arising, or
group symptoms present?
In some instances, as these and other questions are explored, it may
be determined that a formal debriefing is not warranted. Or, perhaps
there may be a decision to briefly meet with the group(s) that have
been affected by the incidents to further assess the need for a formal
debriefing. Under these circumstances, a critical incident stress
defusing may be appropriate. This process will be discussed next.
Critical Incident Other than the critical incident stress debriefing, the defusing is
Stress Defusing one of the most frequently used Critical Incident Stress
Management (CISM) techniques. Defusings are, in essence, short
debriefings. Defusings generally last less than one hour and
provide CISM team members with an immediate opportunity to
ask a wide range of questions about the critical incident. As in
the debriefing, participants are not required to talk during the
defusing. It is recommended that defusings be conducted within
the first eight hours of the resolution of a traumatic event.
Three phases The critical incident stress defusing consists of three phases.
Introduction. Here the CISM team members introduce
themselves, describe the defusing process, set forth the guidelines,
and encourage participation.
Exploration. In this segment, team members ask the participants
to describe their experience of the critical incident. During this
time, the group is permitted to talk freely while the team members
Dealing with Workplace Violence140
Organizational Recovery After an Incident
Critical Incident monitor the participants’ comments. As the group discusses their
Stress Defusing experiences, the team members can also ask appropriate questions
(continued) in an effort to learn more about the most important parts of the
critical incident. As the discussion begins to fall off, the
discussion moves to the third and final phase.
Information. During this phase, team members provide
participants with information designed to help them cope during
the next few days until the distress resolves on its own or until the
team can organize a formal debriefing, if one is deemed
necessary. This information consists of suggestions regarding
rest, diet, and exercise as well as other stress control strategies.
Outcomes The critical incident stress defusing will generally result in one
of two outcomes. First, it may eliminate the need for a formal
debriefing. Participants receive valuable coping information during
defusing that, if attended to, can go a long way in mitigating the
impact of the critical incident and in accelerating their recovery.
In addition, participants come away from a defusing with more
information about the incident than they started with and, again,
this has proven to be beneficial to the recovery process.
The second possible outcome of a defusing can be to enhance a
subsequent formal debriefing. Participants who have attended a
defusing will generally have a good idea of what to expect in a
debriefing and, hopefully, will have realized the benefit of
participating in such a group process. In addition, the team that
conducts the defusing will often be part of the larger team that
conducts the debriefing. Thus this Critical Incident Stress
Management (CISM) team will have more information about the
incident and the involved parties prior to the debriefing. The
team will also have a better understanding of the impact of the
event on many of the participants.
Conclusion As mentioned earlier, both critical incident stress debriefing and
defusing are among the two most utilized processes under the
CISM umbrella. Neither model should be employed by anyone
other than trained mental health professionals and other trained
CISM team personnel. It should also be emphasized that the
CISM process is but one crisis intervention model among others
available to Federal agencies.
Case Study 1 provides practical examples of
some of the issues discussed in this section.
A Guide forAgency Planners 141
Dealing with Workplace Violence142
PART IV
Resources
A Guide forAgency Planners 143
Dealing with Workplace Violence144
Resources
Federal Government ◆ Office of Personnel Management (OPM)
Agencies Employee Relations and Health Services Center
1900 E Street, NW
Washington, DC 20415
(202) 606-2920
OPM’s Employee Relations and Health Services Center
provides advice and assistance to Federal agencies on issues
relating to employee relations and Employee Assistance
Program policy, including workplace violence, traumatic
incidents, reasonable accommodation, and discipline. OPM
publications include:
➤ A Manager’s Handbook: Handling Traumatic Events is
available through the OPM rider system.
➤ Significant Cases, a bi-monthly summary of important
decisions of the courts, the U.S. Merit Systems Protection
Board, and the Federal Labor Relations Authority is
available through the OPM rider system.
➤ New Developments in Employee and Labor Relations, a
bi-monthly publication that highlights current case law,
issues, and events in employee and labor relations, is
available through the OPM rider system.
➤ Alternative Dispute Resolution: A Resource Guide is
available by calling the phone number listed above.
◆ D e p a rtment of Health and Human Services (DHHS)
Centers For Disease Control and Pre v e n t i o n
National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health (NIOSH)
Robert A. Taft Laboratories
4676 Columbia Parkway
Cincinnati, OH 45226-1998
(800) 356-4674
NIOSH has issued a publication on workplace violence,
Violence in the Workplace: Risk Factors and Prevention
A Guide forAgency Planners 145
PART IV
Resources
Federal Government S t r a t e g i e s, NIOSH Current Intelligence Bulletin No. 57
Agencies (continued) (Publication Number 96-100), June 1996. To obtain a copy,
call the toll free number or access the Internet at
h t t p : / / w w w. c d c . g o v / n i o s h / h o m i c i d e . h t m l .
Callers may also use the toll free number to find a directory of
topics of publications and databases which may be ordered.
Recorded summaries that provide overviews and relevant
statistics about selected topics are also available. Use the
automated fax information service to receive documents
within 15 minutes. Technical information specialists may also
be reached on this number from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m..
Eastern time, Monday through Friday. Callers may also learn
about NIOSH training resources or request a NIOSH
workplace health hazard evaluation. Access the Internet at
h t t p : / / w w w. c d c . g o v / n i o s h / h o m e p a g e . h t m l.
◆ Department of Justice
National Institute of Justice
National Criminal Justice Reference Service
Bureau of Justice Assistance Clearinghouse (BJAC)
P.O. Box 6000
Rockville, MD 20849-6000
(800) 851-3420
Calling the toll free number offers several information options
including a fax-on-demand service for documents, being able
to speak with a specialist, or learning about how to access an
electronic newsletter through their web and email address.
The caller can also learn about their Research and Information
Center located in Rockville, Maryland. BJAC also has a
catalog of National Institute of Justice documents. Many of
the documents included in the catalog pertain to workplace
violence, for example, Violence and Theft in the Workplace,
The Cycle of Violence, Psychoactive Substances and Violence,
and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design in
Parking Facilities. Access the Internet at
h t t p : / / w w w. n c j r s . o r g .
Dealing with Workplace Violence146
Resources
Federal Government ◆ Department of Labor
Agencies (continued) ➤ Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA)
200 Constitution Avenue, NW, Room N3107
Washington, DC 20210
General information: (202) 219-8031
Publications: (202) 219-4667
OSHA’s most recent publication on workplace violence is
Guidelines for Preventing Workplace Violence for Health
Care and Social Service Workers, U.S. Department of
Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration,
(OSHA 3148), 1996. Copies can be obtained from the
Government Printing Office by calling (202) 512-1800 or
access the Internet at http://www.osha.gov/oshpubs/.
Contact OSHA’s Office of Federal Agency Programs at
(202) 219-9329 to obtain information on OSHA record-
keeping and reporting requirements for Federal agencies
(OSHA Instruction FAP 1.3).
➤ Women’s Bureau
200 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20210
(202) 219-6665
The Women’s Bureau has issued Domestic Violence: A
Workplace Issue, October 1996, Document Number 96-3.
Non-Government The following list is not exhaustive of the organizations available,
Organizations nor does the list constitute an endorsement by the U.S. Office of
Personnel Management.
◆ American Psychiatric Association (APA)
Division of Public Affairs
1400 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005
The A PA publishes a free fact sheet, Violence and Mental Illness,
Document Number 6109. To obtain a copy, call the A PA’s fast
fax automatic document retrieval service at (888) 267-5400 or
access the Internet at h t t p : / / w w w.psych.org/ (listed under
Resources for the General Public, Fact Sheet Series).
A Guide forAgency Planners 147
Resources
Non-Government ◆ American Psychological Association (APA)
Organizations 1200 17th Street, NW
(continued) Washington, DC 20036
(202) 955-7600
Information on violence is available on APA’s website at
http://www.apa.org/.
◆ International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP)
515 North Washington Street
Alexandria, VA 22314-2357
The IACP has published a booklet Combating Workplace
Violence: Guidelines for Employers and Law Enforcement. To
obtain a copy, write to the IACP at the address above or
access the Internet at
h t t p : / / a m d a h l . c o m / e x t / i a c p / p s l c l . t o c l h t m l .
◆ International Critical Incident Stress Foundation
10176 Baltimore National Pike, Unit 201
Ellicott City, MD 21042
(410) 750-9600
The International Critical Incident Stress Foundation provides
information and training on critical incident stress management.
◆ National Crime Prevention Council (NCPC)
1700 K Street, NW, Suite 618
Washington, DC 20006
(202) 466-6272
NCPC provides information on the prevention of crime
and violence.
◆ National Domestic Violence Hotline
(800) 799-SAFE or (800) 787-3224 (TTY)
This nationwide hotline offers crisis intervention, problem-solving
skills, information, and referral to service agency providers.
Dealing with Workplace Violence148
Resources
Non-Government ◆ National Organization for Victim Assistance (NOVA)
Organizations 1757 Park Road, NW
(continued) Washington, DC 20010
(202) TRY-NOVA
NOVA refers callers to local victim assistance organizations.
◆ National Victims’ Center
P.O. Box 588
Arlington, VA 22216
(800) FYI-CALL
The National Victims’ Center provides information and
referrals to local victim assistance organizations.
Computer Systems ◆ PAVNET
Partnership Against Violence Network (PAVNET), accessible
through the Internet at http://www.pavnet.org, is a
clearinghouse with over 500 entries on violence. Information
in PAVNET includes: funding grants, research projects, grass-
roots efforts to address violence, and curriculum development.
Government and non-government organizations addressing the
subject of violence are listed.
A Guide forAgency Planners 149
