How do we identify and address threats and threatening behavior?

Many times, a violent act is preceded by a threat. The threat may have been explicit or veiled, spoken or unspoken, specific or vague, but it occurred. In other instances, behavior may be observed by others, which might suggest the potential for some type of violent act to occur. Yet in other cases, it may be the off-handed remark or comments made to people close to the individual, which may suggest problematic behavior. Dealing with threats and/or threatening behavior-detecting them, evaluating them, and finding a way to address them-may be the single most important key to preventing violence.

Any workplace violence strategy must include measures to detect, assess, and manage threats and behavior. Saying that is easier than doing it. Symposium participants agreed that it is much easier to deal with a physical assault or homicide than with a threat. Normally there is no doubt that a homicide or assault has been committed; often it is harder to establish that a threat has been made. In addition, the effects of a threat are subjective and subtle, usually there is no physical evidence. Some threats are not criminal and, therefore, not subject to law enforcement intervention and prosecution.

Despite these difficulties, threat response is an essential component of any workplace violence plan. The first need, obviously, is to define the term.

Webster's Dictionary defines a threat as “a statement or expression of intention to hurt, destroy, punish, etc., as in retaliation or intimidation.” That's clear enough, as far as it goes, but it leaves open a question that legal authorities or employers have to answer in framing and carrying out a policy on threats: who determines when an intention to hurt has been expressed?

A purely subjective determination-whatever makes someone feel threatened is a threat-is an uncertain guide for behavior, since different people can respond differently to the same words or acts. Employees who are required to observe “no” threat rules have a right to a reasonably clear statement of what will be considered threatening behavior. That does not mean that subjective factors can or should be completely excluded from the definition, however. Employees can and should be held responsible for a reasonable regard for the feelings and concerns of coworkers and others in the workplace, and employers properly have an obligation to make sure employees do not feel frightened or intimidated.

For these reasons, a workplace violence prevention program addressing threats needs to include both a subjective and objective component. It must set reasonably explicit standards of behavior so employees know how they are expected to act or not act; it must also make clear to employees that no one has a right to make anyone else feel threatened.

The definition of a threat for workplace conduct standards need not be the same as the definition of a threat as a criminal offense.

A sample definition could be “an inappropriate behavior, verbal or nonverbal communication, or expression that would lead to the reasonable belief that an act has occurred or may occur which may lead to physical and/or psychological harm to the threatener, to others, or to property.” Alternative: “Any verbal or physical conduct that threatens property or personal safety or that reasonably could be interpreted as an intent to cause harm.”

Identifying and Reporting Threats and Threatening Behavior:

The best plans for threat assessment and response will be useless if employers or those assigned to respond to workplace violence don't know that a threat has been made. Detecting threats depends in large measure on the workplace culture. If employees are too afraid or too alienated from management to report violent or threatening behavior by coworkers, no violence prevention program will be effective. To encourage reporting, employers can create a climate in which safety is accepted as a common goal for workers and management and all employees-including management, feel free to report disturbing incidents or possible danger signs.

Along with encouraging employees to report violence or threats, employers also have to inform them where to report and what to report. A designated office or person to whom complaints are directed, and perhaps a hotline number or suggestion box for employees who prefer to remain anonymous, can provide a concrete and clear venue for reporting.

To the extent that employees feel comfortable in reporting incidents to their immediate supervisors, the information may come through the normal management channels. However, having additional reporting channels can facilitate reporting where an employee finds it difficult to report through a supervisor. Whatever reporting system is adopted, publicizing it on bulletin boards, employee newsletters, and notices distributed with paychecks, or other means, will help ensure that all workers know how to report any behavior they consider troubling.

Just as important as knowing how to report incidents is knowing that reports will be heard and responded to. A feedback procedure through which employees will be notified -subject to confidentiality rules-of how their reports were investigated and what actions were taken will provide assurance and helpful “closure” to employees who make a report.

To further facilitate the identification of threats, employees, supervisors, and managers can receive training to help them detect out-of-bounds behavior or other warning signs. Training can also help educate workers and supervisors on how to respond to someone who seems troubled or potentially dangerous and how to report that behavior to managers. Training can also include a very clear statement to all employees on what to do if they see or become aware of a weapon (in almost all circumstances, leave the location and call for help). Any training program should be sensitive to cultural assumptions and stereotypes and emphasize focusing on an individual's manner, conduct, and behavior rather than ethnic or other group identity or a “profile” of a dangerous person.

Threat Assessment:

Threat assessment has two parts: an evaluation of the threat itself; that is, the assessment of the credibility and overall viability of an expression of an intent to do harm, and an evaluation of the threatener. Together, these evaluations can help lead to an informed judgment on whether someone who has made a threat is likely to carry it out-a determination that has been described as “differentiating when someone is making a threat versus posing a threat.” The assessment can also help the employer decide what will be an appropriate intervention.

IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT IN THE GREAT MAJORITY OF CASES, A THREAT WILL NOT LEAD TO A VIOLENT ACT. THE THREAT ITSELF, HOWEVER, DAMAGES WORKPLACE SAFETY AND MUST BE RESPONDED TO.

A good threat assessment will thoroughly analyze:

• The exact nature and context of the threat and/or threatening behavior.

• The identified target (general or specific).

• The threatener's apparent motivation.

• The threatener's ability to carry out the threat.

• The threatener's background, including work history, criminal record, mental health history, military history, and past behavior on the job.

Clearly, there are characteristic signs to look for in evaluating a threat and a threatener, but an assessment must not turn into a mechanical process of checking off items on a list to see if someone fits a predetermined “profile.” Every case should be examined and evaluated on the basis of its particular nature and circumstances.

Every employer and organization will have to develop their own structure and procedures for threat assessment and response, depending in large part on the resources available. Large companies may find the necessary expertise in their own security, medical, human resources, legal, and employee assistance departments. Smaller organizations may have to seek outside help from law enforcement, mental health and social service agencies, and other professionals. Such contacts should be established beforehand and an up-to-date contact list maintained so company officials know whom to call when assistance is needed.

It should be noted that, typically, threat assessments will be conducted by a psychologist or psychiatrist specifically trained to evaluate a potential risk of violence. Both legal concerns and practical limitations often will render it inadvisable to seek threat assessment evaluation from an employee assistance program, security, or mental health professionals who lack training in this area.

Threat Management:

The goal of threat assessment is to place a threat somewhere on a hierarchy of dangerousness and, on that basis, determine an appropriate intervention. If a threat is immediate, specific, and critical (“I've got a gun in my car and I'm going to wait for that S.O.B. and blow him away the minute he steps on the parking lot”), the obvious response is to call the police right away. A threat that is veiled or less specific and does not appear to presage immediate violence may call for less urgent measures: referral for psychological evaluation and counseling, for example. Many threats will turn out to be harmless blowing off steam and require nothing more than a formal admonition to the employee that his or her language or conduct was not appropriate and violated company policy.

A recurring problem in threat management is what to do when someone is evaluated as dangerous, but has not committed any serious crime. In those cases, managers will need legal and, often law enforcement advice. Workplace violence plans should advise managers where they can get guidance, on an emergency basis, if necessary.

Managers should understand that a threat assessment in some cases should be completed before disciplinary action is taken. Executives or senior supervisors may sometimes want to terminate an employee on-the-spot after a threat or other incident-in effect, kicking the problem out the door. Termination may indeed be appropriate, but doing so in the heat of the moment without any time for evaluation or preparation may be exactly the wrong thing to do, removing the potentially dangerous person from observation and possibly bringing on a violent act instead of preventing one.

(Excerpted from Workplace Violence: Issues in Response, Federal Bureau of Investigation)

[...] QUESTIONS TO ASK IN A THREAT ASSESSMENT

As a behavioral consultant to law enforcement, the FBI's National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime (NCAVC), located at the FBI Academy, Quantico, Virginia, periodically receives requests to assess the risk for violence posed by an individual in a workplace. In some cases, this has been precipitated by a verbal or written threat made in the workplace, at other times it is predicated by unusual or strange behavior and/or comments made to coworkers.

If a communicated threat, verbal, typewritten, e-mailed, or otherwise, is present, an analysis of the verbiage is conducted to determine credibility and viability of the threat. Further, if the offender is unknown, a linguistic profile is developed for investigators, which may identify the offender in the future. In known-offender cases, the analysis of the communicated threats and of the behavior exhibited by the offender is assessed in order to determine the level of threat.

In order to assess this risk, the following suggested questions should be asked to individuals familiar with the offender's behavior, both prior to and after any alleged threat or action. Note: Perpetrators of workplace violence can be both men and women, however, for the purposes of the questions to be asked, he is used to refer to the offender. They include:

• Why has the offender threatened, made comments which have been perceived by others as threatening, or has taken this action at this particular time? What is happening in his/her own life that has prompted this?

• What has been said to others, i.e. friends, colleagues, coworkers, etc., regarding what is troubling him?

• How does the offender view himself in relation to everyone else?

• Does he feel he has been wronged in some way?

• Does he accept responsibility for his own actions?

• How does the offender cope with disappointment, loss or failure?

• Does he blame others for his failures?

• How does the offender interact with coworkers?

• Does he feel he is being treated fairly by the company?

• Does he have problems with supervisors or management?

• Is he concerned with job practices and responsibilities?

• Has he received unfavorable performance reviews or been reprimanded by management?

• Is he experiencing personal problems such as divorce, death in the family, health problems, or other personal losses or issues?

• Is he experiencing financial problems, high personal debt, or bankruptcy?

• Is there evidence of substance abuse or mental illness/depression?

• Has the he shown an interest in violence through movies, games, books, or magazines?

• Is he preoccupied with violent themes; interested in publicized violent events; or fascinated with and/or recently acquired weapons?

• Has the offender identified a specific target and communicated with others his thoughts or plans for violence?

• Is he obsessed with others or engaged in any stalking or surveillance activity?

• Has the offender spoken of homicide or suicide?

• Does he have a past criminal history or history of past violent behavior?

• Does the offender have a plan for what he would do?

• Does the plan make sense, is it reasonable, is it specific?

• Does the offender have the means, knowledge and wherewithal to carry out his plan?

When many of these questions are answered, an accurate picture of the risk for violence is developed and from this an intervention plan can be devised.

(Excerpted from Workplace Violence: Issues in Response, Federal Bureau of Investigation)

[...] THREAT ASSESSMENT - A TRUE-LIFE EXAMPLE

The following is an account of a threat assessment conducted jointly by a criminal investigator and a mental health professional as reported at the NCAVC's Violence in the Workplace Symposium.

During a training session, the 46-year-old subject made comments regarding his alcoholism, causing such a disturbance that he was subsequently referred to the Employee Assistance Counseling Program. On two other occasions, he displayed inappropriate behavior by storming around the office, cursing, and throwing objects. In another training workshop, he made verbally abusive comments, disturbing the class.

After a month's leave, he had a verbal outburst during a meeting on his first day back in the office and requested a transfer due to stress. The request was denied. He then requested more leave, which was granted. The subject was noticeably withdrawn and his performance declined. Supervisors documented a pattern of unusual agitation over minor issues, unreasonable complaints, unacceptable work, and allegations that coworkers were conspiring against him. The subject was voluntarily hospitalized twice for homicidal ideations. He was treated for psychosis and suicidal and paranoid delusions associated with his coworkers. His physician recommended a disability retirement.

A month before his disability pension was approved, he began to leave harassing voicemail messages on a coworker's telephone. An example of the messages is: “Hi Darlene, it's Stan. Just wanted to say Happy Thanksgiving. And, you give this message to Yvonne. Tell her if she had been off the property the day she hollered at me, I would have beat her m_____ f_____ ass. Bye Darlene.” He was diagnosed with delusional disorder, paranoid type. This information was also provided to law enforcement during the investigation.

His retirement papers contained disturbing comments. For example, recalling a meeting with a Human Resources staff member, he said: “I started to grab her by the throat and choke her, until the top part of her head popped off. Then I was going to step on her throat and pluck her bozo hairdo bald. Strand by strand….”

Some months later, the subject told a former coworker that he was following a former supervisor and her family. He provided specific information, stating that he knew where some of the targets lived and the types and colors of vehicles they drove. The subject also made comments about the target's family members and stated that he had three guns for each of his former supervisors.

At this point, law enforcement was notified. While the police investigation was under way, the subject made threats against five former female coworkers. A threat assessment was conducted analyzing letters, voice mails, reports from EAP, and interviews with various individuals. The subject's communications were organized and contained specific threats. For example, he wrote “Don't let the passage of time fool you, all is not forgotten or forgiven,” and “I will in my own time strike again, and it will be unmerciful.” The material suggested that he was becoming increasingly fixated on the targets and his communications articulated an action imperative which suggested that the risk was increasing. After obtaining additional information, the investigators informed the subject of specific limits and consequences that would occur if he continued his threatening behavior and communications.

The subject assured law enforcement agents that his intent was to pursue legal reparations. Four months later, however, he mailed letters to his five targets stating that he wanted to “execute” one of them. The letters indicated that he was close to committing an attack. Based on the ongoing assessment and insight into his thinking and behavior over several months, the threat assessment team, consisting of an investigator and a mental health professional, initiated a conference call with the district attorney. In the conference, the mental health professional provided an assessment of the subject's potential for violence, and the investigator presented evidence regarding the laws violated and law enforcement actions taken to date.

The threat assessment report, along with other evidence, was used by the district attorney in obtaining an arrest and search warrant. The final recommendation by the team was that the subject should be arrested and held without bond. Six months after the arrest, he was found not guilty by reason of insanity.

(Excerpted from Workplace Violence: Issues in Response, Federal Bureau of Investigation)