LESSONS LEARNED & THE FUTURE OF WORKPLACE VIOLENCE PREVENTION PROGRAMS

Transcription

1 LESSONS LEARNED & THE FUTURE OF WORKPLACE VIOLENCE PREVENTION PROGRAMS PATRICK PRINCE, M.A. PRINCE & PHELPS CONSULTANTS (310)

2 The Challenges of Workplace Violence Prevention And Lessons Learned

3 Key Lessons Learned: No one just snaps. Workplace violence is the end result of a long pattern of behavior. Some one knows what is coming! There are very few true surprises. There are (sometimes many) opportunities to intervene in ways which could prevent a violent act from occurring. Not all warnings or red flags are equal! But all warnings should be looked at carefully. If the only tool you have is a hammer, you will look at everything as if it were a nail!. A multidisciplinary team with an array of intervention options is needed to prevent workplace violence.

4 FRAMEWORK FOR UNDERSTANDING & PREDICTING WORKPLACE VIOLENCE 4

5 Effective Risk Management Strategy: Create Predict React Ignore a Safe & Healthy Toxic to a Threat Actual or Potential Work Environment Situations of Violence Threats to Safety PREVENTION EARLY LATE STAGE POST INCIDENT INTERVENTION INTERVENTION TRAUMA RESPONSE

6 Behavioral Risk Assessment Continuum KNOWN or SEEN LOW MOD HIGH IDEA ACTION Troubled, Difficult or Seriously Annoying Hostile Threat Assault UNKNOWN NOT SEEN 66

7 Violence Risk Assessment What is the distinction between...? Mental Health Evaluation Fitness for Duty Evaluation Violence Risk Assessment 7

8 What Do We Mean by a Threat? Threat: A person makes a threat. Threat: A person is acting in a manner that would reasonably be perceived as threatening. Threat: A person poses a threat and is dangerous. 8

9 BEHAVIORAL & ORGANIZATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT 9

10 PPC Framework for Understanding Violence Risk Assessment and Intervention Potentially Dangerous Person + Perceived Hostile Environment + Triggering = Event VIOLENT ACTING OUT 10

11 Risk of Violence Levels Intent and Means to Do Harm HIGH RISK Communication of a Threat to Do Harm or Other Threatening Behavior MODERATE RISK Inappropriately Aggressive, Hostile or Intimidating Behavior LOW RISK 11

12 Risk Assessment & Intervention Outcome ASSESSMENT RESPONSE OUTCOME Underestimate Risk Under-respond or Ignore Situation Escalates Overestimate Risk Over-respond or Knee-jerk Situation Escalates Accurately Assess Risk Apply Appropriate Strategy Situation De-escalates to Match Level of Risk 12

13 13

14 Criteria for Citation A serious workplace hazard exists and the employer failed to keep it s workplace free of hazards which employees were exposed. Industry and Employer Recognition The hazard caused or was likely to cause death or serious physical harm. There are feasible abatement methods available to address the hazard. 14

15 But as Labor Code 6302(h) excludes any injury or illness or death caused by the commission of a Penal Code violation from the definition of serious injury or illness, Cal/OSHA has no mandatory duty to respond to such incidents. However, Cal/OSHA does have the authority to investigate any workplace accident on a discretionary basis provided by Labor Code 6313(b). 15

16 16

17 National Professional Standards for Workplace Violence Prevention 17

18 Threat Assessment Team: Distinct Yet Overlapping Roles Threat Assessment Consultant Corporate Human Resources Manager Workplace Violence Prevention Coordinator Threat Assessment Team Corporate Security Manager Safety Manager Legal Counsel Senior Manager 18

19 Summary: The Safety professional is in a unique position to assess the work setting for potential risk factors and to recognize organizational risk factors that may contribute to violence. Organizations must provide on-going training at all levels of the organization which places recognition and response to potential violence as an essential element of the Company s safety program. Deal with conflict or hostile situations early before they escalate. Workplace violence can t be prevented without addressing aggressive or otherwise inappropriate behavior. Keep accurate records of incidents of threats and/or threatening behavior with clear description of how the situation was addressed (including monitoring and follow up). Effective organizations involve Human Resources, Safety and Security as internal violence prevention consultants.

20 About the Presenter: Mr. Prince has over 25 years experience with private corporations and public agencies specializing in threat management, conflict resolution, and impaired employee identification. He is a partner with Dr. Ann Phelps in the firm Prince/Phelps Consultants. They have consulted on more than 1,000 cases of threatening situations or acts of violence in the workplace. Their consultations have been in response to a wide array of situations ranging from intimidation, harassment and verbal threats to physical assaults, acts of sabotage, felony stalking, discharging firearms in the workplace and on-the-job homicide. Mr. Prince and Dr. Phelps have been primary responders to several incidents involving multiple homicides including the United States Post Office, Dana Point, CA (May, 1993), the City of Los Angeles Piper Technical Center (July, 1995), the United States Department of Agriculture, Port of Los Angeles (April, 1998), and the City of Los Angeles Bureau of Street Services (February, 2005). Consultation includes risk of violence assessment, development and participation on corporate threat assessment teams, supervisory coaching and ongoing assistance in case management. Mr. Prince has served on the Board of Directors for the Association of Traumatic Stress Specialists and chaired a task force on occupational trauma for the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies. He also has served as the president of the Association of Threat Assessment Professionals, Los Angeles Chapter since He most recently served on a joint ASIS-SHRM task force to develop national standards and guidelines for workplace violence prevention programs. Further, Mr. Prince is a Drug Recognition Expert Instructor with the Los Angeles Police Department. He is an expert in the articulation of reasonable cause for workplace drug testing and has trained over 10,000 supervisors in a variety of industries to identify and confront the suspected substance-abusing employee. Mr. Prince has provided DOT compliance training for personnel from over 100 different agencies throughout California. Mr. Prince received his master s degree in Counseling Psychology from UCLA and his B.A. in Sociology from USC. Mr. Prince can be reached at (310) or