psoma

WORKPLACE SUBSTANCE ABUSE
11.8 Role of Supervisors and Managers

11.8.4 INTERVENTION

Intervention is the calculated interruption of the destructive behaviors of a substance abuser
and those around that person. Intervention is not discipline. It is a caring behavior in which
those involved plan, prepare, and act. Through intervention, an organization can bring the
consequences of the abuser’s actions to his or her attention. Intervention is an attempt to
salvage the troubled employee and eventually return the person to work as a productive
contributor.

For intervention to be effective, employee performance must be documented. Supervisors
and managers must escape the state of denial and abandon the assumption that the employee
will improve if left alone. Moreover, they must not rationalize or accept substandard perfor-
mance or inappropriate behavior. In many cases, management intervention is the substance
abuser’s only hope prior to discipline.

Supervisors and managers should take the following steps in an intervention:

x Observe and document performance. Be objective and fair. Ensure that employees
understand what is expected of them. Observe and document inappropriate behavior.
Obtain the opinion of another supervisor or manager if there is any doubt as to the
appropriateness of an employee’s behavior. Take immediate action if it is necessary to
prevent an accident or serious mistake.

x Confront the problem employee. Remove the problem employee from his or her
immediate work area and confront the employee in private. Do not do or say anything
that may embarrass or shame the employee.

x Interview and discuss. Once in private, interview the employee. Have a witness present
if possible. Include a union representative if appropriate or required. If an investigation
has preceded the interview, share with the employee any information that is
appropriate. State only specifics and never generalize. Provide the employee
documentary proof of substandard performance (such as attendance records or
timecards). Describe in detail what is expected of the employee, referring to written
policy whenever possible. If witnesses assisted in the investigation, do not identify
them unless absolutely necessary. Do not accuse the employee or attempt to diagnose
or rationalize the employee’s behavior.

Next, offer the employee the opportunity to provide an explanation. Be open-minded,
but remember that the employee may be steeped in denial and might easily rationalize
away responsibility. Document the employee’s responses and comments.

Ask the employee what the organization might reasonably do to help him or her meet
the desired expectations. Empathize, but do not make a commitment; just listen and
attempt to understand the request. Suggest that the employee seek professional assis-

330 Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International

WORKPLACE SUBSTANCE ABUSE
11.8 Role of Supervisors and Managers

tance, such as that offered through the organization’s employee assistance program or
community resources. Be prepared to provide the employee with the appropriate tele-
phone numbers or literature if available.

Again, specify the employee’s shortcomings and the organization’s expectations.
Define boundaries and the specific consequences that will occur if those boundaries
are violated (for example, stating, “Your next absence will result in a final written
warning.”). Indicate that the employee’s performance will continue to be monitored,
and identify when his or her efforts will formally be reviewed and discussed (for
example, stating, “In 30 days, we’ll meet again here in my office to review your
progress.”).

Conclude the discussion on a positive note. Indicate that it is anticipated the employee
will improve his or her performance and meet expectations. Ensure that the employee
knows he or she has the support of the organization. Make clear that his or her success
will be a win-win. Then send the employee back to work.

x Document results. Next, document what took place: what was said by all parties, the
employee’s demeanor, and the employee’s response to the demand for better perfor-
mance. Put the follow-up meeting on the calendar, and ensure, in writing if necessary,
that the employee knows the date.

x Communicate with upper management. Thoroughly brief upper management and the
human resources department. Provide that department with copies of notes and
supporting documents from the meeting. If appropriate, suggest that a human
resources representative participate in the next meeting.

x Follow up. As scheduled, meet again with the employee. The meeting should be short
and direct. Those who attended the first meeting ought to be in attendance. Review the
employee’s progress. If the employee has met prescribed expectations, state
appreciation and congratulate him or her. If the employee has not, invoke the
progressive action or discipline described in the prior meeting. Set goals and establish
a follow-up date.

Intervention is an important management tool design to correct, not punish. Used properly,
it can enable supervisors and managers to salvage a problem employee. In the long run,
intervention can prevent unnecessary discipline, reduce employee turnover, and maybe
even save a life.

Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International 331

WORKPLACE SUBSTANCE ABUSE
11.8 Role of Supervisors and Managers

11.8.5 WHEN INTERVENTION FAILS

Sometimes intervention is not enough. Substance abusers do not always respond as hoped.
Sometimes addiction and chemical dependency are too much for the abuser to overcome
alone, no matter how accommodating the organization may be. At this stage the abuser may
be resentful, seemingly uncaring, and even angry. If the person has surrendered to the
disease, progressive discipline may be the only answer.

Documented progressive discipline is the incremental escalation of discipline in response to
continued performance shortcomings. It often begins with oral warnings, followed by
written warnings, suspensions, and ultimately termination. The escalation of discipline
clearly sends the message to the abuser that his or her relationship with drugs has a cost.
Progressively the abuser may begin trading things of value for that relationship. As the abuser
slides down this slippery slope, the last thing he or she will surrender is the job. The abuser
may already have given up his or her family, friends (except those also involved in drugs),
home, car, savings, and even health. The only remaining constant may be the job.

In such circumstances, the job represents more than a source of income. It represents the
last bastion of normalcy and order in the life of the abuser. As a result, abusers often cling to
it desperately. They may rationalizes that they are not sick, addicted, or chemically depen-
dent as long as they can keep a job. The abuser at this stage is capable of almost anything—
except giving up drugs. He or she may lie, cheat, and steal to keep the job and may even
resort to violence if the job is threatened.

11.8.6 EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS

Another management option is to refer the abuser to an employee assistance program (EAP).
EAPs first came into being in the 1940s. Known then as occupational alcoholism programs,
they were designed to address the problem of alcohol in the workplace. Today, EAPs address
a broader range of issues, including alcohol and substance abuse, family problems, marital
problems, and other personal issues. The services of the employer-provided EAP are free and
are usually available to family members as well as the employee. The relationship that the
employee or family member (both are called clients) has with the EAP is held in strict
confidence. Even the employer is not told the names of clients.

EAP professionals develop a community referral network to serve their clients. Clients are
usually provided with several consultations over the telephone (sometimes in person) to
determine their specific needs. Once an assessment is made, the client is provided the names
of several resources. It is then up to the client to follow through and seek the appropriate
help. For the purpose of support, the EAP may monitor the client’s progress, but actual
treatment is provided by independent, outside professionals. Any counseling or treatment
performed is confidential. Treatment costs may be covered by the employee’s medical insur-

332 Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International

WORKPLACE SUBSTANCE ABUSE
11.8 Role of Supervisors and Managers

ance. Leaves of absence are granted to accommodate the client-employee. In the United
States, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires reasonable accommodation of
employees and job applicants who are recovering drug or alcohol abusers. Current users are
not protected.

In effect, the EAP is a clearinghouse for employee-help services. EAPs do not conduct
investigations or drug tests. They simply connect people with high-quality, professional help.

Employees can voluntarily seek help through an EAP, or they can be referred by manage-
ment. Management referrals typically include the following elements:

x mandatory participation
x professional diagnosis
x professional treatment or therapy
x progress reports and feedback to management
x goal setting
x monitoring

Like intervention and progressive discipline, management referral is an incremental
approach that encourages performance and behavior modification. Participation is
mandatory. Treatment or therapy is professionally administered, and management is
provided progress reports and feedback. Upon completion of treatment, and sometimes
during treatment, performance and behavior goals are negotiated. The recovering employee,
as a condition of employment, agrees to be monitored and is fully informed of the
consequences of not meeting the goals. Monitoring usually includes periodic drug testing.
Continued therapy or counseling may also be part of the negotiations. Eventually,
monitoring may be discontinued and the status of conditional employment removed.

11.8.7 BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION THROUGH ROLE MODELING

Role modeling consists of setting an example through one’s own behavior. Parents do it,
teachers do it, and so can employers. By setting a good example and doing what they expect
others to do, supervisors and managers can encourage employees to change their behavior.
If enough people participate, the entire organization’s culture can be altered.

Substance abusers prefer to work in environments where others like them work, and they
resent the social boundaries that a healthy corporate culture imposes on them. Most of all,
they resent the inability to rationalize their substance abuse. Positive peer pressure can force
substance abusers to confront their behavior. What they find is that they can no longer lie
and deceive.

Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International 333

WORKPLACE SUBSTANCE ABUSE
11.8 Role of Supervisors and Managers

11.8.8 REINTEGRATION OF THE RECOVERING EMPLOYEE

Recovery for the abuser is a long, painful process. Following treatment, the recovering abuser
often chooses to return to work—the same environment in which the abuse may have begun.
If it is an environment controlled by abusers, the recovering employee may find it difficult to
remain clean and sober. If other abusers control the culture, they may make it impossible for
the recovering addict to remain drug-free.
On the other hand, if the recovering employee returns to a healthy environment, his or her
chances for recovery and long-term sobriety are good. A healthy and caring culture can
provide various support mechanisms. Non-abusing coworkers can offer encouragement,
positive role models, and an environment free of temptation. Supervisors and managers can
hold the recovering employee accountable, set reasonable expectations, and providing
positive reinforcement when goals are achieved. The net effect is an environment conducive
to recovery and long-term health.

11.8.9 EMPLOYEE EDUCATION AND SUPERVISOR TRAINING

Training for employees at all levels should be provided as part of an overall substance abuse
program. All employees should be given accurate information about the dangers of substance
abuse and about the organization’s policies and expectations.
The human resources staff should be trained to identify applicants who may be substance
abusers in order screen them out. In addition, all human resources representatives should
become familiar with all aspects of the organization’s policies and practices since they will
usually be responsible for implementing corrective action and discipline.
Training for supervisors and managers is also critically important. While only a trained
healthcare professional can definitely diagnose a substance abuse problem, training can
provide supervisors and managers the tools they need to properly enforce work rules and
administer policies.

334 Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International

WORKPLACE SUBSTANCE ABUSE
11.9 Drug Testing

11.9 DRUG TESTING

There is little doubt that workplace substance abuse harms performance and productivity.
As a result, employers have long looked to workplace drug testing as a tool for prevention
and detection. Preemployment drug testing aids in the detection of potential workplace
abusers before they are hired. For those who are already on the job, tests can be conducted
based on reasonable suspicion, after an accident or injury, at random intervals, after a return
to duty following a violation, and as a follow-up to treatment. Workplace drug testing also
serves as a deterrent, creating a fear of being caught.

Employers have both a right and a duty to promote a drug-free workplace. Drug testing is
now widely considered an important component in maintaining a safe and healthy
workplace and is used widely. In the United States, the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988
requires all businesses contracting with the federal government and receiving grants over
$25,000 to certify that they have policies for creating and maintaining a drug-free workplace.
Other legislation and regulations require periodic drug testing for some workers in the
transportation and public service industries.

11.9.1 METHODS

Drug testing is a scientific examination of a biological specimen for the presence of a specific
drug or its metabolite (a chemical byproduct left behind after the body metabolizes the
substance). The type of specimen analyzed most often is urine, but blood, hair, and saliva
may also be tested. Urine testing is preferred because collection is not considered intrusive
(that is, the body does not need to be punctured to collect the specimen as it is in the
drawing of blood). Collection techniques follow careful protocols ensuring the privacy of the
provider. Once the specimen is collected, it is sealed, labeled, and sent to a laboratory for
examination.

Usually the sample is split; part is used for testing and the rest is preserved (usually frozen)
for future examination if necessary. The testing sample is then subjected to one or more
preliminary tests, such as immunoassays, radioimmunoassay, and thin-layer chromato-
graphy. Of these, thin-layer chromatography (TLC) is the most common and least expensive.
Radioimmunoassay (RIA) is the most accurate and can detect drug concentrations on the
order of 1 to 5 nanograms per milliliter (1 to 5 parts per billion).

If the preliminary test discovers a drug or its metabolite, a confirmatory test is used.
Confirmatory tests typically use advanced technologies that are more accurate. They identify
both the type of drug or metabolite present and its concentration. The more common types
of confirmatory tests include high-performance liquid chromatography, gas chromato-
graphy, and gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. Of these, gas chromatography/mass

Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International 335

WORKPLACE SUBSTANCE ABUSE
11.9 Drug Testing

spectrometry (GC/MS) is considered the most accurate. However, all methods can yield
accurate results and have withstood rigorous legal challenges.

Once the specimen has been confirmed positive, the results are confidentially commu-
nicated to the employer or its representative (as in the case of an employer’s use of a medical
review officer). Because specimens are labeled by number, not name, even the lab does not
know to whom the specimen belongs. Employer responses to a positive result vary depending
on circumstances and policy.

11.9.2 ACCURACY

Drug testing is extremely accurate. A very small percentage of tests may result in a false
positive, but confirmatory tests are performed in those cases. Laboratories that perform drug
tests are regulated and subject to rigorous performance requirements and quality assurance
procedures. Certification by the National Institute on Substance Abuse (NIDA) is difficult and
expensive. Under NIDA requirements, every specimen, procedure, and test is documented.
Control specimens are frequently tested to ensure accuracy and system integrity. NIDA claims
that of the roughly 16 million drug tests its labs perform annually, fewer than 16 produce
positive results when a drug is not present.

11.9.3 STRATEGY

Many states regulate drug and alcohol testing, and organizations must be mindful of
jurisdictional differences as they establish their drug-testing strategies. The following is an
examination of some of the issues that should be contemplated when developing an
organization’s strategy (Ferraro & Judge, 2003).

For which substances should the organization test?

Federal or state law, collective bargaining agreements, and contractual obligations may limit
this decision Under federal regulations, for example, an employer may test for alcohol and
five controlled substances: marijuana, cocaine, amphetamines, opiates, and PCP. These five
drugs are typically referred to as the DHHS-5 (Department of Health and Human Services 5).
Some states require employers (federally regulated or not) to follow federal rules when
adopting and administering workplace drug and alcohol programs. Employers with
operations in those states would, therefore, be limited to testing for the DHHS-5. Other
states, such as Iowa, permit testing for additional substances. Still other states, such as Ohio,
provide financial incentives if testing includes additional drugs.

Employers who are thinking of testing for substances beyond the DHHS-5 should also
consider the impact of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which limits medical
inquiries by employers. Strangely, under the ADA, a drug test is not considered a medical

336 Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International

WORKPLACE SUBSTANCE ABUSE
11.9 Drug Testing

examination but an alcohol test is. Thus, it is advisable to test only after an employment offer
is made. Potentially, an ADA claim could be raised by a non-safety employee disciplined
because of a test that detected a substance other than one of the DHHS-5.9

When should testing be performed?

This is the most difficult and controversial decision in developing a drug testing policy. Tests
may be performed before an employment offer is made, upon reasonable suspicion, after an
accident or injury, on a random basis, after return to duty following a violation, and as a
follow-up to treatment. Federal Highway Administration rules (49 CFR 382) require that
commercial truck drivers submit to a test under each of those circumstances.

Organizations that are exempt from federal rules should check state laws. Eleven states and
two cities have laws related to when employers can or cannot conduct drug testing. For
example, Vermont prohibits random testing, while Oklahoma permits post-accident testing
only if there is a reasonable suspicion of illicit drug use at the time of the accident. After
examining federal and state laws, organizations should determine which type of testing best
fits their circumstances. The two most common types of testing are preemployment and
random.

Employers may also want to consider reasonable-suspicion testing, which researchers
Ferraro and Judge (2003) have found in some cases to be a more effective deterrent to drug
use. For example, one of the researchers interviewed approximately 2,500 workers nation-
wide who tested positive for drugs or alcohol and subsequently lost their jobs. In the
interviews, the workers indicated that they knew their employers tested for drugs on a
random basis, but they did not consequently change their drug use. Statistical analysis
suggests this to be a good bet. Even in organizations that randomly test 8 percent of their
workforce monthly (unusually frequent but necessary to provide the probability that each
employee will be selected at least once a year), a substance abuser who uses twice a week
stands only a 2.45 percent chance of testing positive in any given month. A cocaine or
methamphetamine abuser who uses once a week would have just a .61 percent chance of
testing positive in any given month. The likelihood of being caught is further diminished by
absenteeism, holidays, vacations, and collection site availability.

By contrast, the workers interviewed said they were concerned about reasonable-suspicion
testing. In workplaces where employers actively tested on a reasonable-suspicion or for-
cause basis, the workers reported that they had attempted to stop using drugs on the job. It
appears that for-cause testing programs convinced the workers that the employers were
serious and would enforce their drug-testing policies. Case laws suggests that employers may
not conduct such tests without some evidence of possible drug use, and reasonable suspicion
requires more than a simple hunch.

9 See Jane Roe v. Cheyenne Mountain Conference Resort, Inc., No. 96-1086 (10th Cir. 1997).

Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International 337

WORKPLACE SUBSTANCE ABUSE
11.9 Drug Testing

What type of testing should be conducted?

Employers must determine what types of samples to test—urine, saliva, blood, hair, or
breath. In federally regulated workplaces and in states that require employers to follow
federal rules, urine must be used for drug tests and saliva or breath for alcohol tests.
Employers should look to statutes in each state in which they operate and follow that
definition. State laws vary widely. For example, Iowa law prohibits blood tests in workplace
testing programs, while Mississippi prohibits alcohol tests using urine.

How drug and alcohol tests are carried out is also an important consideration. Thirteen
states require split-specimen samples for all substance abuse tests. For example, an Iowa law
requires that every sample must be split into two sub-samples. The first is used for testing
purposes. If the test result is positive, the remaining sample is offered to the providing
employee, who can have it tested at an independent laboratory. The impact of such a rule is
significant. If a sample is not split in a state that requires it, the person being tested must be
reinstated even if the test is positive.

Who should be tested?

This decision may not be entirely at the employer’s discretion. If workers are protected by a
collective bargaining agreement, the decision on whom to test will be determined bilaterally.
Likewise, the Federal Highway Administration requires commercial carriers to institute and
maintain a drug and alcohol testing program for all commercial drivers. Similarly, if an
employer does business with the federal government or is regulated by the Department of
Transportation, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or Department of Defense, it will have to
follow any applicable federal regulations concerning drug testing.

Employers should check state law first, but the following is a general testing guide:

Whom to Test When to Test
all workers preemployment
all workers reasonable suspicion
all workers post-accident/injury
all workers return to duty
all workers follow up
only safety-sensitive workers randomly

Who should collect the specimens?

Some states, such as Minnesota, require that sample collection be performed only by
licensed medical professionals. Federal regulations that took effect January 31, 2003, require
that the person collecting the specimen be “qualified.” Some states have passed laws that
require even nonregulated employers to use only trained collectors. Under federal regu-
lations only properly trained “breath alcohol technicians” may conduct alcohol tests and
only “screen test technicians” may conduct alcohol screening.

338 Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International

WORKPLACE SUBSTANCE ABUSE
11.9 Drug Testing

Where should the specimens be collected?

The choice is whether to have properly trained technicians collect the specimens at the job
site or to have employees go to a medical facility and provide specimens there. Instant, on-
site test kits are not currently permitted under federal rules, but in New York, for example,
employers can conduct instant, on-site testing if they obtain approval from the state’s health
department. Moreover, only certain labs can analyze a urine sample for drug use under some
applicable laws. For federal employers, only a laboratory certified by the Department of Health
and Human Services or the College of American Pathology (CAP) can analyze workplace
samples for controlled substances. Many states have passed laws imposing that same require-
ment or more restrictive rules. Many collective bargaining agreements and other contractual
relationships also require the use of a DHHS-certified or CAP-approved facility.

Who should receive the test results?

Essentially, federal and state laws require that laboratory test results go through the
confidential process of medical review before being reported to the employer. In a
confidential telephone or in-person interview with the specimen donor, a licensed medical
doctor called a medical review officer (MRO) will attempt to determine whether the
laboratory result is medically justified—that is, whether something other than an illegally
used controlled substance caused the positive result. If not, the MRO reports the positive test
result to the employer. It is prudent for all organizations to treat test results as confidential
medical information in order to protect the employee’s privacy and shield the organization
from potential liability.

11.9.4 EMPLOYER INCENTIVES

Organizations that implement drug-testing policies should take full advantage of available
state incentives. These incentives are typically found under the workers’ compensation laws
in the form of reduced annual premiums or presumed denial of benefits when a worker is
found to have used prohibited substances at the time of an injury.

Twelve states provide premium reductions, ranging from 5 percent to 20 percent. Those
states include Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Mississippi, Ohio,
South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia.

Another monetary benefit is found when paying workers’ compensation claims. With few
exceptions, employers and their insurers need not pay workers’ compensation claims in two
conditions: if the worker violated a known safety rule and if the worker’s intoxication is the
cause of the injury. When such cases go to court, often the employer must prove alcohol or
drug use was the cause of the injury, not just a contributing factor.

Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International 339

WORKPLACE SUBSTANCE ABUSE
11.9 Drug Testing

An illustrative case is Garcia v. Naylor Concrete Co. (2002). Juan Mario Garcia was employed
as a welder for Naylor Concrete Company at a shopping mall project. As part of his job,
Garcia was required to weld decking to a metal roof. To access the work site, Garcia had to
climb a 20-foot ladder and then walk about 90 feet across four-inch joists to reach the
decking. On September 30, 1997, Garcia had been welding for about an hour when he slid off
the edge of the roof and was seriously injured. At the hospital, a blood test showed his blood-
alcohol level as .094 percent.

Garcia applied for workers’ compensation benefits. Naylor refused to grant the benefits,
arguing that Garcia’s intoxication was the cause of his injuries. Garcia argued that he had
been drinking the night before the accident but had not consumed alcohol on the day of the
incident. The state Workers’ Compensation Commission denied the benefits on the basis of
Garcia’s elevated blood alcohol level on the day of the accident. The commission reaffirmed
the decision on appeal, and the state district court agreed during a judicial review. Finally,
the state’s Supreme Court upheld the decision, ruling that no matter when Garcia consumed
the alcohol, he was still legally drunk at work.

However, it may sometimes be difficult for companies to prove that drug or alcohol use
caused an employee’s injury. For example, in Kennedy v. Camellia Garden Manor (2003), the
court found in favor of the employee because the employer could not prove that the
employee’s prior use of marijuana had caused his injuries.

Herman Kennedy was employed as an orderly for Camellia Garden Manor, a nursing home.
On June 1, 2001, Kennedy injured his lower back while trying to lift a struggling quadriplegic
resident out of a whirlpool bath. Kennedy was ordered to provide a urine specimen for drug
testing purposes. The test was positive for marijuana. The employer fired Kennedy and
refused to pay his workers’ compensation claim because of the positive drug test.

Kennedy appealed to the state workers’ compensation board, claiming that the injury was
caused by lifting the struggling resident and not by any prior use of marijuana. The board
found in favor of Kennedy, ruling that the company could not prove that intoxication was the
cause of his injuries. On appeal, the district court upheld the board’s decision. The employer
was ordered to pay the claim.

Another financial incentive comes in the form of immunity from prosecution in certain
employment-related lawsuits. For example, in Idaho, employers who fire an employee as a
result of a positive drug test or refusal to provide a specimen for testing are given immunity
from lawsuits. Such immunity is waived in cases where the test results were false and the
employer knew or clearly should have known they were false.

340 Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International

WORKPLACE SUBSTANCE ABUSE
11.9 Drug Testing

Four states—Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, and North Dakota—provide immunity for disclosure
of records when requested by a prospective employer. For example, an Arkansas law provides
for disclosure of the results of drug or alcohol tests administered within one year prior to the
request. Iowa law, however, stipulates the conditions under which such information may be
released. The law says that immunity is waived if the employer knowingly provides
information to a person who has no legitimate or common interest in receiving the work-
related information. Similarly, immunity is waived if the work-related information is not
relevant to the inquiry being made, is provided with malice, or is provided in bad faith.

11.9.5 LIABILITY

Though drug testing programs can provide monetary rewards, poorly managed programs
can lead to costly outcomes in court. A rule governing all federal employers requires that all
personnel who collect specimens from employees be qualified. The rule also applies to
private employers if state laws require that they follow federal rules. For example, 18 states
require certain employers to follow federal laws. Even if collection personnel work for a third
party, they are considered agents of the employer, leaving the employer liable if that party
breaks the law.

Private employers not covered by the law must still be cautious about the way a drug testing
program is conducted. If an employer has its own employees (not outside professionals)
collect urine samples, the employer must collect the samples in a reasonable manner, in
accordance with appropriate procedures.

An additional complication is the issue of chain of custody. The chain of custody establishes
who handled the specimen from the time it was provided to the time testing results were
rendered. Should the chain of custody be broken, the result is deemed invalid. Poor record
keeping can bring challenges to the chain of custody and easily jeopardize the validity of a
test result. Employers that collect their own specimens are most at risk. Unless the employer
establishes strict handling procedures and tightly manages its record keeping, broken chain
of custody claims cannot be defended. The employer may not only see the test result invali-
dated but also end up in court.

Drug testing offers many potential benefits, including improved safety and reduced injuries.
However, organizations that test for drugs must devise sound written policies and be
prepared to navigate the ever-changing rules and regulations.

Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International 341

WORKPLACE SUBSTANCE ABUSE
Appendix A: Drug Glossary

APPENDIX A

DRUG GLOSSARY

STREET NAME MEANING STREET NAME MEANING
acid LSD heat the police
angel dust phencyclidine high under the influence
bag packet of drugs hip non-threatening
base base cocaine joint marijuana cigarette
bindle packet of drugs killer weed PCP-treated marijuana
blotter acid LSD meth methamphetamine
bread money microdot LSD
bunk low quality substance nickel bag $5 quantity
busted arrested pop inject drugs
chipping occasional use pot marijuana
coke cocaine reefer marijuana cigarette
connection drug dealer roach marijuana butt
cop to obtain drugs rock smokable cocaine
cop out to inform or sell out rush euphoria
crack smokable cocaine sinsemilla seedless marijuana
crash to sober up skin popping injecting under skin
crystal methamphetamine smack heroin
cut additive or impurity smoke marijuana
dealer drug dealer snort inhale through nose
dime bag $10 quantity speed methamphetamine
flake cocaine speedball cocaine with heroin
freebase smoke cocaine stick marijuana cigarette
grass marijuana weed marijuana
h heroin whites amphetamines
hash hashish, marijuana white stuff cocaine or heroin
hash oil hashish oil works paraphernalia

342 Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International

WORKPLACE SUBSTANCE ABUSE
Appendix B: Common Questions About Drug Testing

APPENDIX B

COMMON QUESTIONS ABOUT DRUG TESTING

What do drug tests typically test for? x cocaine
x alcohol x opiates
x phencyclidine
x amphetamines and
methamphetamines

x marijuana (and marijuana derivatives)

Could a person be affected or test positive as a result of secondhand marijuana smoke?

No. Although passive inhalation can occur, typically the amounts ingested in that manner are so
low that impairment is nearly impossible, as is the possibility for testing positive.

Aren’t drug tests discriminatory? Don’t they violate employees’ rights?

No. Drug testing under most circumstances is not considered discriminatory or illegal. Employers
have the right to create and maintain a drug-free workplace. Drug testing is one of the many legal
tools available to the employer to ensure a safe and healthy workplace.

What happens if an employee refuses to be tested?

An employer cannot force an employee to take a drug test. However, refusal to take a drug test may
be a violation of the employer’s drug policy or may be considered insubordinate. Before refusing,
an employee should read the policy or talk to a human resources representative.

Can vitamins or other substances cause false positives?

Not typically. Before providing a specimen, the employee is asked to identify any medication or
other substances that may influence test results. The answers are kept confidential and can aid in
ensuring accurate test results.

How long do most drugs stay in a person’s system?

The length of time a drug remains in one’s system is based on a number of factors, including the
type of drug, amount ingested, body weight, and metabolism. The length of time drugs remain
detectable in the body is called the window of detection.

Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International 343

WORKPLACE SUBSTANCE ABUSE
Appendix B: Common Questions About Drug Testing

Does a positive drug test indicate that the employee was impaired or under the influence?
Not necessarily. Only alcohol has legal blood limits. However, in most instances the mere presence
of a controlled substance in one’s system constitutes a policy violation.
Where can employees get more information?
They should contact the employee assistance program or a human resources representative.

344 Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International

WORKPLACE SUBSTANCE ABUSE
Appendix C: Supervisor’s Checklist

APPENDIX C

SUPERVISOR’S CHECKLIST

This checklist includes behaviors and symptoms that may be indicators of substance abuse.
However, the presence of some of the indicators does not necessarily mean a person has a
substance abuse problem. Users of this checklist are encouraged to look for clusters of behaviors
and symptoms merely as an aid to identifying potential employee substance abuse.

Tardiness and Absenteeism x absence before and after holidays
x absence Mondays and Fridays
x taking frequent breaks x immediate use of vacation earned
x taking long lunches x absence during period of heavy
x repeated tardiness
x arriving late and leaving early workloads
x absence from area or office x calling in sick after denial for vacation
x abnormal number of visits to restroom x requests for vacation extensions
x unexplained absences x requests for sick leave extensions
x absences due to accidents on and off x extending sick leave repeatedly

the job x general lack of interest in work or
x absence before and after paydays product

Performance x difficulty in handling difficult
assignments
x repeated procrastination
x repeated lateness in completing x difficulty in recalling previous
mistakes
assignments
x irresponsibility in completing x alternate periods of high and low
productivity
assignments
x faulty decision-making x missed deadlines
x increased accident rates x mistakes due to poor judgment
x increased errors in judgment x customer or client complaints
x unnecessary wasted materials and x inappropriate behavior around others
x general carelessness
scrap x sloppy work habits
x unnecessary damage to equipment
x excessive time taken to perform

assigned tasks
x difficulty in recalling instructions

Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International 345

WORKPLACE SUBSTANCE ABUSE x isolation from coworkers and friends
Appendix C: Supervisor’s Checklist x physical volatility
x exaggerated self-importance
Interpersonal Relationships x unbending and unreasonable manner
x excessive time on the telephone
x inappropriate emotional outbursts x failure to keep commitments
x mood swings, early or late in day x failure to keep appointments
x overreacting to criticism
x constantly blaming others x withdrawn demeanor
x making inappropriate statements or x unusually deep sadness
x inappropriate laughter
comments x suspiciousness
x rambling, incoherent speech x paranoia
x extreme sensitivity
Appearance and Mood x unusual irritability
x preoccupation with death and illness
x inappropriate clothing
x personal hygiene ignored
x body odor, unkempt hair
x little interest in general appearance
x glazed or red eyes
x slurred speech
x staggered gait
x outbreaks of heavy perspiration
x use of sunglasses at inappropriate times

346 Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International

WORKPLACE SUBSTANCE ABUSE
Appendix D: Intervention Checklist

APPENDIX D

INTERVENTION CHECKLIST

The purpose of intervention is to correct, not punish. For best results, supervisors and managers
should follow these steps:

x Observe and document.
x Confront the problem employee in private.
x Discuss performance and behavior.
x Affirm expectations.
x Offer reasonable accommodations.
x Set goals.
x Document results.
x Communicate with upper management.
x Follow up.

They should never:

x Diagnose a personal problem.
x Take responsibility for other people’s personal problems or issues.
x Generalize.
x Moralize.
x Cover up.
x Self-treat.
x Engage in a confidential or protective relationship.

They should always:

x Monitor performance and behavior.
x Document specifics.
x Follow organizational policy and procedures.
x Consult with employee in private.
x Interview with a witness.
x Offer professional assistance.
x Let the employee know they care.
x Let the employee make a choice.

Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International 347

WORKPLACE SUBSTANCE ABUSE
Appendix E: U.S. Federal Legislation

APPENDIX E

U.S. FEDERAL LEGISLATION

Vocational Rehabilitation Act (29 USC 701, et seq.)

Under the Vocational Rehabilitation Act, an individual with a disability does not include “an
individual who is currently engaging in the illegal use of drugs, when a covered entity [employer]
acts on the basis of such use,” or “an individual who is an alcoholic whose current use of alcohol
prevents such individual from performing the duties of the job in question or whose employment,
by reason of such current alcohol abuse, would constitute a direct threat to property or the safety
of others.” The act also states that one will not be excluded as “an individual with a disability” who
has successfully completed a drug rehabilitation program and is no longer engaging in the illegal
use of drugs, or has otherwise been rehabilitated successfully and is no longer engaging in such
use, or is currently participating in a rehabilitation program and no longer using drugs illegally.

The act states that it is not a violation for a covered entity (employer) to adopt reasonable policies
or procedures, including drug testing, to ensure that rehabilitated individuals are no longer using
drugs illegally.

Americans with Disabilities Act (42 USC 12101, et seq.)

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) states in Section 12114(d)(1) that a test to determine
illegal use of drugs shall not be regarded as a medical examination. (A medical examination may
not be required unless an employment offer has been made and may only be required following an
employment offer if all candidates are examined, not merely those with disabilities.) In
12114(d)(2), the ADA states that it “does not encourage, prohibit or authorize” tests for illegal drug
use by applicants or employees. In other words, it is neutral. As long as job discrimination is not
based on former use or abuse that does not currently affect job performance or safety, firms
subject to the ADA will not be prevented from screening.

Drug Free Workplace Act (41 USC 701, et seq.)

The Drug Free Workplace Act imposes duties on individuals and other entities that contract with
or receive grants from the federal government, and on their employees. The act requires that
employers pledge to maintain a drug-free work-place by

x publishing a statement that unlawful manufacture, distribution, possession, or use of a
controlled substance is prohibited in the workplace;

x providing all employees with a copy of the statement;
x making all employees aware that they must abide by the terms of the statement and notify

the employer within five days of any drug statute conviction for a violation occurring in the
workplace;

348 Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International

WORKPLACE SUBSTANCE ABUSE
Appendix E: U.S. Federal Legislation

x imposing a sanction on or requiring satisfactory participation in a drug abuse assistance or
rehabilitation program by any employee so convicted;

x notifying the government within 10 days of receiving notice of an employee drug convic-
tion; and

x maintaining a credible drug-free awareness program.

The Drug Free Workplace Act also requires the employer, within 30 days after receiving notice
from an employee of a drug conviction, to take appropriate action against that employee (up
to and including termination), or to require the employee to participate satisfactorily in a drug
abuse assistance or rehabilitation program that has been approved by a federal, state, or local
health, law enforcement or other appropriate agency. A specific provision in section
12114(c)(3) of the ADA permits employers to require employees to comply with the provisions
of the Drug Free Workplace Act.

Family and Medical Leave Act (29 USC 2601, et seq.)

The Family and Medical Leave Act obliges employers of 50 or more employees within 75 miles of
the facility to grant leave of up to 12 work weeks to employees who have been employed at least 12
months and worked at least 1,250 hours during the previous 12-month period. The leave must be
granted, among other reasons, to an employee who has a serious health condition that makes the
individual unable to perform the functions of the position.

The act defines a serious health condition as an “injury, illness, impairment or physical or mental
condition” that involves inpatient medical care or continuing treatment by a health care provider.
The leave may be unpaid, but an employer who grants less than 12 weeks of personal, sick, or
vacation leave annually may require the employee to exhaust that leave as part of the leave
provided under the act. Any remaining leave needed to make up the full 12 weeks, should they be
required, is unpaid. Upon timely return from leave, the employee is reinstated to the same or
equivalent position and suffers no loss of benefits or seniority. (This last provision does not apply
to salaried employees who are among the highest-paid 10 percent of the workforce.)

Because both the Vocational Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act protect
employees in rehabilitation programs, and because detoxification or other medical need arising
from such participation could be described and certified as a serious health condition, there will
be situations in which such leave is sought. An employer who seeks to deny or interfere with rights
under the act, or to discriminate against employees who file charges or give testimony in a
proceeding held under provisions of the act, is liable to an aggrieved employee for civil damages of

x any lost wages or actual costs up to 12 weeks’ pay;
x interest on that amount;
x liquidated damages in an amount equal to the actual costs;
x the costs of the action; a reasonable attorney’s fee; and
x equitable relief, including reinstatement, employment, and promotion, as appropriate.

Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International 349

WORKPLACE SUBSTANCE ABUSE
Appendix F: Sample Substance Abuse Policy

APPENDIX F

SAMPLE SUBSTANCE ABUSE POLICY

Scope

XYZ Company is a drug-free workplace and does not permit its employees to be impaired by drugs
or alcohol while on Company time or property. Violation of any of the rules and regulations,
procedures, requirements, or the spirit of this guideline will result in corrective action. Depending
on the circumstances, appropriate corrective action may include termination from employment,
suspension, warning, probation, or any lesser sanction; or other action in the Company’s
discretion deemed to be commensurate with the problem.

Use or Possession at Work

The use or possession of alcoholic beverages or illegal drugs, and the unlawful manufacture,
distribution, dispensation, possession, or offer of, or use of a controlled substance, while on
Company property, on the job, or performing Company business, is prohibited. This includes
possession of drug paraphernalia or empty alcohol containers on company time or company
property.

The only exception to this rule is that, on occasion, alcohol may be served at Company-sponsored
events, such as a holiday party. In those instances, responsible, moderate consumption of alcoholic
beverages is not a violation of this policy.

Impairment

Appearing for work or performing any job duties or Company business while impaired by alcohol
or drugs is prohibited. Employees who are believed to be impaired on the job may, in addition to
any other appropriate action, be suspended, sent home, or reassigned for safety reasons while the
situation is evaluated.

Off-Duty Use

The use of alcohol off-duty and off-premises in any manner that results in impairment on the job,
that adversely affects attendance or job performance, or that otherwise adversely reflects on the
Company is prohibited. The use of illegal drugs by employees, whether on-or off-duty and whether
on-or off-premises, is prohibited under all circumstances.

350 Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International

WORKPLACE SUBSTANCE ABUSE
Appendix F: Sample Substance Abuse Policy

Legal Drugs

The use of legal drugs (over-the-counter or prescription medications) in accordance with a doctor’s
orders or manufacturer’s recommendations is not prohibited. Abuse of legal drugs shall be
considered to be the same as use of illegal drugs under this policy. If use of legal drugs in accordance
with a doctor’s orders or manufacturer’s recommendations may impair the employee’s ability to
safely and effectively perform his or her job, the employee must so notify his or her supervisor in
advance, so that any necessary arrangements can be made to protect safety and productivity.

Drug Convictions

Any employee who is convicted of any criminal drug violation occurring in the workplace must so
notify his or her supervisor within five days after the conviction. XYZ Company may be required to
report such information to governmental agencies with which it contracts.

Job Applicants

XYZ Company will not knowingly hire a job applicant who is currently abusing alcohol or legal
drugs or currently using illegal drugs.

Right of Inspection

XYZ Company reserves the right to inspect with or without notice at any time all vehicles, lunch
containers, purses, boxes, packages, desks, lockers, and other personal property of employees on
XYZ Company premises for the purpose of enforcing this policy or other safety and security
reasons. XYZ Company premises include all employee parking areas and company-designated
parking lots.

Drug and Alcohol Testing Policy

XYZ Company may require any employee or job applicant to submit to a breath and/or urine test
for drugs or alcohol, in the following circumstances:

Preemployment. Preemployment testing shall be required for all job applicants within specified
facilities or job categories as determined by management from time to time. Applicants who fail
to pass a preemployment drug or alcohol test will be ineligible for employment for a minimum
of one year.

Reasonable suspicion. XYZ Company may require any employee to be tested for the presence
of drugs or alcohol based on reasonable suspicion. Reasonable suspicion shall be defined as a
reasonable suspicion, by a supervisor or above, concurred with by the senior manager available
within the affected facility or department, that an employee’s faculties are impaired on the job
or that an employee has used or possessed illegal drugs. This determination of a reasonable
suspicion may be based on a variety of factors, including but not limited to the following:

Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International 351

WORKPLACE SUBSTANCE ABUSE
Appendix F: Sample Substance Abuse Policy

x direct observation or reports reasonably believed to be reliable from coworkers or others
x possession of drugs or alcohol on the premises, or use of drugs or alcohol at work, prior to

work or on breaks (such that the employee is impaired while on company premises)
x behavior, speech, or other physical signs consistent with impairment
x a pattern of abnormal conduct or erratic behavior, which is not otherwise satisfactorily

explained
x unexplained accidents, on-the-job injuries, or property damage
x a combination of some of the above factors and/or other factors in the judgment of

management

Management’s determination of reasonable cause shall be discretionary and shall be final.

Universal. Universal drug testing may be required of all employees within specified facilitates
or departments designated by XYZ Company management from time to time. Selection of
covered employees to be tested (randomization) shall be conducted by XYZ Company’s testing
service provider according to systems established by the provider, which shall notify XYZ
Company of the employees to be tested. Universal testing may be conducted at unannounced
times spread throughout the year.

Refusal to submit to or cooperate in the administration of requested testing, or testing positive
for illegal drugs or alcohol, will result in termination of employment, except as provided in the
Rehabilitation section of the Substance Abuse guideline.

Testing Process

Scope. Drug and alcohol testing of applicants or employees may include a urinalysis and/or
breath analysis sample testing as determined by XYZ Company and the testing service provider.

Testing may include, but may not be limited to, detecting the presence of marijuana, cocaine,
opiates, amphetamines, and phencyclidine (PCP). XYZ Company may increase or decrease the list
of substances for which testing is conducted at any time, with or without notice. In addition, XYZ
Company may require separate samples if multiple tests are conducted. Test levels and standards
will be established by XYZ Company and the testing service provider.

Confirmation. Initial positive tests shall be confirmed using a second test in accordance with
applicable law.

Specimen for testing. Testing shall be conducted at a facility designated by XYZ Company. Job
applicants and employees selected for universal or reasonable cause testing shall appear at the
facility and provide the necessary sample at the precise time and place specified by XYZ
Company. Employees tested based on a suspicion that the employee may be impaired shall be

352 Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International

WORKPLACE SUBSTANCE ABUSE
Appendix F: Sample Substance Abuse Policy

transported to the testing site by a supervisor or another person designated by XYZ Company.
The applicant or employee must sign any consent requested and provide any other requested
information; failure or refusal to do so may result in discharge or denial of employment.

Testing an injured employee. An employee who is seriously injured and cannot provide a
specimen at the time of the accident shall provide the necessary authorization to obtain
hospital reports and other documents that may indicate whether there were any controlled
substances or alcohol in his or her system.

Notification of results. Employees and applicants will receive notification of positive test results
and will be given an opportunity to explain such results. Failure to timely respond may result in
an uncontested positive verification

Rehabilitation

Purpose and responsibility. XYZ Company recognizes that drug dependency and alcoholism
are health problems and, in management’s sole discretion, on a case-by-case basis, will attempt
to work with and assist an employee who becomes dependent on drugs or alcohol. The
employee will be assisted in identifying rehabilitation services, referral agencies, or other
resources to help the employee in dealing with his or her problem. It is the employee’s
responsibility, however, to see that such problems do not interfere with proper job performance
or expose others to the risk of harm. All employees are urged to obtain any necessary help
before a personal problem becomes an employment problem.

Evaluation and treatment. An employee may be allowed, as an alternative to discipline or
discharge for violation of this policy, to undergo an evaluation for chemical dependency. This
alternative may be offered on a case-by-case basis, in the sole discretion of XYZ Company
management. If recommended by an evaluation, enrollment in and successful completion of an
approved program of chemical dependency or alcoholism treatment may, in the sole discretion
of XYZ Company management, be offered once as an alternative to disciplinary action of an
employee (not applicable to job applicants) and as a condition of continuing employment.
Eligibility to return to work, and any special conditions on the employee’s work, shall be
determined on a case-by-case basis considering all relevant circumstances, including XYZ
Company’s interest in safety and operational efficiency.

Costs

Mandatory drug/alcohol testing costs shall be paid by XYZ Company; treatment costs shall be the
responsibility of the employee to the extent not covered by the employee’s health insurance.

Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International 353

WORKPLACE SUBSTANCE ABUSE
Appendix F: Sample Substance Abuse Policy

Definitions

Impairment. This is a condition induced by any drug or alcohol or the combination of any drug
and alcohol that affects the employee in any physically or mentally detectable manner. The
symptoms of impairment are not confined to those consistent with misbehavior or of obvious
impairment of physical or mental ability, such as slurred speech, difficulty in maintaining
balance, or the odor of alcohol. A determination of impairment may be established by any
supervisor or manager, a medical professional, a scientifically conducted test such as urinalysis,
or in some instances by a layperson. Furthermore, in some cases lacking any objective or
subjective indicator, the mere consumption of a drug and/or alcohol may constitute
impairment.
Illegal drugs. An illegal drug is any drug that is (a) not legally obtainable or (b) legally obtainable
but has not been legally obtained or used. The term includes prescribed drugs not legally
obtained and prescribed drugs not being used for prescribed purposes. Included are
prescription drugs shared with a coworker under any circumstances.
Legal drug. A legal drug is any prescribed drug or over-the-counter drug that has been legally
obtained and is being used for the purpose for which it was prescribed or manufactured.
Drug paraphernalia. These are items, tools, and devices commonly used in the preparation,
storage, and administration of illegal drugs. Examples include but are not limited to rolling
papers, roach clips, glass pipes, water pipes and bongs, drug vials, straws and spoons, and in
some cases hypodermic syringes.
Serious injury. This is any work-related injury resulting in the stoppage of work and requiring
medical attention of any kind.

354 Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International

WORKPLACE SUBSTANCE ABUSE
References

REFERENCES

Code of Federal Regulations. (2007). Controlled substances and alcohol use and testing. 49 CFR 382.
Drug Enforcement Administration. (2006). Drug information. Available: http://www.usdoj.gov/

dea/concern/concern.htm [2007, September 9].
Ferraro, E. F. (1994). Employer’s guide to a drug-free workplace. Golden, CO: Business Controls, Inc.
Ferraro, E. F., & Judge, W. J. (2003, May). Put your drug policy to the test. Security Management.
Garcia v. Naylor Concrete Co., 650 N.W.2d 87, 90 (Iowa 2002).
Jane Roe v. Cheyenne Mountain Conference Resort, Inc., No. 96-1086 (10th Cir. 1997).
Kennedy v. Camellia Garden Manor, Louisiana Circuit Court, 2003.
Department of Health and Human Services. (2007). Alcohol. Available: https://ncadistore.samhsa.

gov/catalog/facts.aspx?topic=3&h= [2007, September 3].
Department of Health and Human Services. (2007). Results from the 2006 National Survey on Drug

Use and Health: National findings. Available: http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/nsduh/2k6nsduh/
2k6Results.cfm#2.10 [2007, September 14].
United States Code. (2007). Treatment of controlled substance analogues. 21 USC 813.

Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International 355



CHAPTER 12

ADDRESSING WORKPLACE VIOLENCE
THROUGH VIOLENCE RISK ASSESSMENT

AND MANAGEMENT

12.1 INTRODUCTION

People have long been concerned about violence, but the use of behavioral assessment and
intervention to prevent violent behavior is fairly new. During the late 19th and early 20th
centuries in the United States, the legal system began to ask “alienists,” who are now called
psychiatrists, to render opinions concerning the propensity (likelihood) of identified
individuals to commit violence in the future. These opinions were used in both criminal and
civil proceedings to determine whether people should be incarcerated and for how long,
where they should be held, and under what circumstances they should be released.
Unfortunately, psychological studies from the 1960s to the 1990s show that psychiatrists and
psychologists who use only their own judgment in such cases are only 40 to 70 percent
accurate in predicting violent behavior, depending on how violence is defined, the duration
of the prediction follow-up, and the population assessed. Clinical judgments alone rarely
outperform actuarial approaches alone.10 These studies spurred an explosion of psycho-
logical research on how to increase the accuracy of predictions and created a specialty called
violence risk assessment and management.

10 See two meta-analyses covering a wide range of studies: (1) William M. Grove and Paul E. Meehl, “Comparative Efficiency of

Informal (Subjective, Impressionistic) and Formal (Mechanical, Algorithmic) Prediction Procedures: The Clinical-Statistical
Controversy,” Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, Vol. 2, No. 2, 1996, pp. 293-323, and (2) Douglas Mossman, “Assessing
Predictions of Violence: Being Accurate about Accuracy,” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 62, No. 4, 1994, pp.
783-792.

Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International 357

WORKPLACE VIOLENCE
12.1 Introduction

At the same time, the public began to hear about more violence in the workplace, particu-
larly single and mass homicides. In addition, the U.S. government began to gather statistics
and develop expectations of what employers should do to provide a safe workplace. A
study by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health for the period 1980 to
1995 (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 2001) showed that murder was
the leading cause of death in the workplace for women and the second leading cause of
death in the workplace for all workers in the United States during that period. However, the
number of workplace homicides per capita has decreased in the United States since those
peak years in the early 1990s (see Figure 12-1).
Most workplace homicides result from robberies and similar criminal violence. An
examination of workplace violence incidents not involving robbery reveals that perpetrators
progressively move through stages resulting in violence. However, a more disturbing subset
of violence has become more prominent and is an ongoing concern for employers and
employees—mass murder by individuals who are closely connected with the workplace.
They include employees, spouses or significant others, long-time customers or clients,
shareholders, and suppliers to the business. They commit targeted acts of violence against
company personnel who, in their view, have caused them a loss of some type.
Even when these individuals do not commit homicide, they cause problems that must be
assessed and resolved. A study by Northwestern National Life Insurance Company (1993)
stated that 2 million Americans were attacked in the workplace in 1992, 6 million were
threatened, and 16 million were harassed. Incidents of homicide, assault, threats, and
harassment in the workplace will likely continue to contribute to the turbulence of modern
society and reinforce some individuals’ perception that violence is an acceptable way to
accomplish their goals.

358 Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International

WORKPLACE VIOLENCE
12.1 Introduction

Workplace Homicide, United States

1,200
1,100 1,080 1,036

1,000 927

900 860

800 714
700 651 677 643
600 609 632 559 567 540 628 526 542

500

400
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Fatal Occupational Injuries, Average Average Average 2008 2009
by Cause 1994-1997 1998-2002 2003-2007

Assaults and violent acts 1219 910 831 816 837

Homicides 976 659 585 526 542

Shootings 791 519 458 421 434

Stabbings 70 61 54 33 49

Other (including bombings) 115 79 73 72 59

Self-inflicted 214 218 202 263 263

Source: Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries, Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, http://www.bls.gov/
iif/osh_nwrl.htm#cfoi. Note: The homicide figures show a marked decline from the 1994 high of 1,080 workplace homicides.
These figures are for private-sector workplaces only.

Figure 12-1
U.S. Fatal Occupational Injuries by Event or Exposure, 1994–2009

Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International 359

WORKPLACE VIOLENCE
12.2 Conceptual Framework

12.2 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

The security profession has developed ample means to deal with robberies and other
criminal acts that can lead to violence: lighting, locks, bandit barriers, timed safes, closed-
circuit television, and more. But only in the last 20 years has a new approach evolved—an
interdisciplinary workplace violence risk assessment and management process that allows
for the identification and assessment of individuals so they can be diverted from violence
before they act. Like other forms of risk assessment, violence risk assessment provides
information that aids in appropriate allocation of resources to minimize harm. Violence risk
assessment helps differentiate between individuals who pose a threat and those who solely
make threats.

Security programs aim first to divert someone from committing an unsafe or harmful act and
then, if diversion is unsuccessful, to delay the person’s progress in committing the act until
trained individuals are notified and respond to the problem. All effective security programs
assume that an effective response by properly trained personnel will occur if the perpetrator is
not diverted. In the case of threats of workplace violence, this means that one of the planned
responses should be (at a predetermined threshold of assessed potential for immediate,
physical violence) a response by correctly trained, armed personnel who will handle the
situation. In some workplace violence situations, these responders may be law enforcement
personnel. However, because of law enforcement’s average response time to crimes of violence
(more than 11 minutes in 40 percent of cases in the United States11) and a company’s prior
notice of the problem, the only legally defensible option may be to use properly qualified
private security personnel.

Like a typical security program, a violence risk assessment program employs diversion,
delay, and response, but they are the last elements in the program. The most distinctive and
important elements are behavioral recognition, notification, assessment, and intervention by
planned disruption. Those elements are used before physical security elements come into
play. The long-term solution to each situation of potential workplace violence lies in under-
standing the emotional and mental state of the aggressor and diverting him or her from
violence, not solely in strengthening security measures. Early awareness of the problem
allows for a thorough assessment and successful intervention. Consequently, companies
should develop a comprehensive violence risk assessment and management system that
requires reporting of threats to a central position in the company, a thorough assessment of
the threats, and a coordinated response to the assessment, involving legal, human resources,
security, behavioral, and other organizational and community elements.

11 Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Criminal Victimization Survey, 2003 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 2005).
NCJ 207811, available at http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/.

360 Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International

WORKPLACE VIOLENCE
12.3 Focus Areas

12.3 FOCUS AREAS

Every employer in the United States has an obligation to provide a safe workplace. This
obligation could arise from federal laws, state laws, local ordinances, case law precedents, or
all those sources. The obligation extends to employees, contractors, visitors, and guests on
the premises and generally does not distinguish between internal and external sources of
danger. Consequently, if an employer or its representative has reasonable cause to believe
that someone may commit an act of violence on the premises or against one of the
organization’s employees who is acting within the scope of his or her duties at another
location, the employer has an obligation to protect the potential victim. It does not matter
whether the aggressor is an employee, spouse or significant other of an employee,
shareholder, contractor, supplier, vendor, client, guest, or third party. For example, in Tepel
v. Equitable Life Assurance Society (1990) an employee whose husband came to her office and
assaulted her successfully sued her employer. The jury held that the employer had known
about the husband’s prior threats to harm the employee and had not taken adequate steps to
protect her or her coworkers. This level of obligation may be greater than what is understood
by the business community, but it has been enforced consistently in state and federal courts
and regulatory proceedings.

A violence risk assessment program must address a variety of workplace behaviors. Policies
and programs dealing with inappropriate workplace conduct, including harassment,
intimidation, and discrimination, should be seen as related to the violence risk assessment
program because in some cases such behaviors are early warning signs that can lead to
violence. Other behaviors that would fall directly into a violence risk assessment program
include oral or written threats, assaults with or without battery, stalking, sabotage or
vandalism, and homicide.

Business-related concerns that the program should address include liability, productivity,
workplace morale, and associated costs. The primary source of concern may be the cost of
being proven liable for negligence in a tragic incident of workplace violence. There is good
reason for concern, as lawsuits claiming negligent security continue to grow in number and
cost to businesses throughout the United States. Judgments and settlements for wrongful
death cases are averaging more than $2.8 million dollars (Anderson, 2002). However, the
greatest economic cost to organizations for acts of violence may come from the loss of morale
and productivity. Hundreds of thousands of dollars per incident can be lost in work group
productivity due to the absenteeism, sick leave, work slowdowns, management and worker
distraction, and general disruption that may follow workplace violence. The costs for treating
injuries, too, should not be ignored. Treatment for a single crime-related injury can easily cost
tens of thousands of dollars. Further information on productivity and injury costs can be found
in Victim Costs and Consequences: A New Look (National Institute of Justice, 1996).

Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International 361

WORKPLACE VIOLENCE
12.4 Liability and Legal Considerations

A further consideration is the level of outside support that the company can tap into for a
violence risk assessment and management program. The company must be ready to contend
with the following problems: (1) limited law enforcement resources to respond to potential
violence in the workplace; (2) limited but growing legal experience in workplace violence
management; (3) limited number of defensible experts in the psychopathologies and behaviors
associated with violence; and (4) limited number of security firms that understand the limits
of their role and are capable of providing the broad spectrum of responses necessary. Many
unqualified individuals and companies claim expertise in violence risk assessment and
management.12

12.4 LIABILITY AND LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

Various laws and regulations require U.S. employers to provide a safe workplace. An example
of relevant federal law is OSHA 29 U.S.C. § 654(a)(1). Many states, such as California, have
enacted similar or additional guidelines (e.g., California Labor Code-6400 and Injury and
Illness Prevention Program (6401.7)). A company with locations in several jurisdictions
should research the laws in each location. Types of statutes to look for include those that
cover threats or threatening behavior, terroristic threats, stalking, threatening or harassing
phone calls, trespassing after issuing a threat, violation of a restraining or protective order,
possession of illegal or dangerous weapons, brandishing or exhibiting a deadly weapon,
assault, battery, assault with a deadly weapon, rape, robbery, armed robbery, maiming,
attempted homicide, kidnapping, and homicide.

In addition, certain legal duties and tort concepts have become associated with claims and
lawsuits arising from workplace violence. Some workplace violence lawsuits have been filed
under claims of violations of Title VII13 discrimination protections, violations of the Americans
with Disabilities Act, violations of the Rehabilitation Act, defamation, slander, invasion of
privacy, harassment, negligent security, negligent hiring, negligent supervision, negligent
retention, employer’s vicarious liability, and other torts. Examples include the following:

x former employee returning to kill coworkers after employee assistance program claims he can
be fired safely (Allman v. Dormer Tools, Inc.)

x supervisor/coworker battery (Clark v. Pangan, 2000)
x domestic violence in the workplace (Civil Action, 2001)

12 For more information on qualifying security consultants and contractors, see Chapter 8, Consultants as a Protection
Resource.

13 Title VII of the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964.

362 Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International

WORKPLACE VIOLENCE
12.5 Behavioral Dynamic of Workplace Violence

x security director’s threat of violence against an employee (Herrick v. Quality Inn Hotel, 1993)

x employee shooting of a supervisor (Smith v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation, 1988)

These legal issues are addressed in detail in other sections of Protection of Assets.

It is important that the company research, document, and understand the method by which
it or its employees can obtain restraining or protective orders against individuals who
threaten to harm them. In many jurisdictions such orders can only be obtained by individual
(natural person) victims. However, the law is beginning to recognize that business entities
can also be the victims of threats and harassment and may need court orders for protection
(e.g., 527.8 California Code of Civil Procedure). Some individuals question the value of a
piece of paper as protection from violence. Studies (such as Meloy, 1997) have shown that
the majority of protective or restraining orders aid in the cessation of violence. However, it is
important to obtain them early in the cycle of violence. For example, in 1988, after stalking a
coworker for years, even after being fired, Richard Farley went on a shooting spree at his
former workplace, Electromagnetic Systems Labs in California, killing seven and wounding
three. The object of his stalking, Laura Black, did not obtain a restraining order against him
until two years after he was fired for his stalking behavior, and she now believes that
obtaining it earlier might have prevented the tragedy.14

12.5 BEHAVIORAL DYNAMIC OF WORKPLACE VIOLENCE

Before committing violence, a workplace aggressor must first determine that violence is an
acceptable means to establish or reestablish control (Corcoran and Cawood, 2003, p. 6).
Next, the aggressor selects targets (against which attacks will give the person a sense of
control) and locations (that will allow the aggressor to succeed). Then the act of violence can
occur (Corcoran and Cawood, 2003, p. 6). In deciding to commit violence, aggressors do not
“snap” but go through a process of emotional escalation or, in the case of psychopaths, non-
emotional decision making.

For security practitioners. the most effective means of preventing workplace violence is early
detection of this behavioral, emotional, and psychological dynamic. The way to detect
individuals who are destabilized and seeking control is to assess their mental and emotional
levels along a continuum of violent behavior and then develop a plan to divert them from
violence through a case-specific use of communication, company resources, community
resources, and the legal system.

14 Television interview of Laura Black on 2/9/93 by KPIX TV (Channel 5), San Francisco, CA, following a presentation of the
Laura Black Story.

Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International 363

WORKPLACE VIOLENCE
12.5 Behavioral Dynamic of Workplace Violence

It is beyond the scope of this document to explain thoroughly the difference between
psychopathic and affective (emotion-based) violence. Suffice it to say that in the early
investigation and assessment of any aggression, the assessor should be attentive to the
clusters of behavior that would signal that the aggressor may be a psychopath. Appropriate
intervention is much more complex when dealing with psychopaths. For more information
on psychopathy, a good starting point is Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of the
Psychopaths Among Us (Hare, 1993). This book discusses behavioral elements and clusters to
watch for, but only trained, experienced violence risk assessors should attempt to intervene
in cases involving a potential psychopath. Because the vast majority of cases involve
emotion-based aggressors, this document focuses on them, not psychopaths.

In general, the continuum of violent behavior starts with general disgruntlement with a
business or a person (Calhoun & Weston, 2003, p. 60). Then, as the situation escalates, one
may observe nonspecific spoken intimidation, nonspecific spoken threats, specific spoken
threats, written threats, physical violence against property, stalking, physical violence against
people without the use of weapons, and finally physical violence against people with the use
of weapons. In any individual case, the aggressor could exhibit one or more of these
behaviors, escalating or de-escalating them over time. In general, in more serious cases, as
cycling occurs, each movement back up the curve involves more serious behavior. The entire
process leading to physical violence can occur within a short period if enough influential
factors are in place. Figure 12-2 provides a graphic depiction of a potential escalation curve.
The curve was the outcome of research by James S. Cawood, CPP, that attempted to identify
a consensus among violence risk assessment professionals concerning their ranking of
aggressor behaviors by perceived emotional intensity.

Behavioral assessment is very information-intensive and requires as much information
about the individual as possible. Particular attention should be paid to the aggressor’s
history of stressful events (death, divorce, job loss, financial pressure, etc.) and his or her
reaction to it. One dictum on which all psychological researchers in this field agree is that
“the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior” (U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board,
2003). Consequently, the more one knows about the aggressor’s emotional history, violence
history, recent behavior, reactions to stress, and current stressors, the better one can assess
the aggressor’s current level of violence risk to the company or its employees.

364 Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International

WORKPLACE VIOLENCE
12.6 Incident Management Team and Resources

Figure 12-2
A Theoretical Behavioral Escalation Curve for Emotion-Based Violence

12.6 INCIDENT MANAGEMENT TEAM AND RESOURCES

A comprehensive approach to workplace violence includes the creation of an incident
management team (IMT). The IMT should include, at a minimum, a senior management
representative, a senior human resources manager, a senior security manager, and a legal
representative who is familiar with labor and employment law and litigation. The role of the
team may be defined differently in different organizations. The simplest role is to

x take reports of workplace aggression, threats, stalking, or potential violence from
managers, supervisors, employees, and other parties,

x assess those reports,
x gather further information as necessary, and
x intervene as appropriate to maintain the safety of the organization.

Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International 365

WORKPLACE VIOLENCE
12.6 Incident Management Team and Resources

This simple structure can be successfully implemented by one team for a multinational
corporation or a single-location organization. Some larger enterprises have established
regional teams along with an enterprise-wide oversight team to facilitate consistency of
practice, communicate lessons learned, and provide support. Since this role of situation
assessment and intervention is similar to the role of crisis management teams, it may be
possible to assign an existing team to handle violence risk assessment or develop a subset of
the established team to take on that role.

Outside members of the team may be added as necessary to provide a higher level of
experience in the central aspects of the process, including the legal, behavioral assessment,
and security aspects. Operational support members might advise the IMT during the
development of certain portions of the incident plan or carry out instructions from the IMT
but do not normally serve on the IMT itself.

It is essential that the IMT be empowered to commit company assets and personnel to
resolve an incident. If the IMT must brief other manager to obtain a decision on employment
actions, deployment of personnel, or payment of costs, the assessment process will slow
down and the risk of an unsuccessful resolution will increase significantly. The following
organizational functions are typically represented on an IMT and among its resources:

x Incident management team (one member of which needs to be a senior management
representative)
— Human resources
— Company security
— Legal counsel

x Outside consulting resources
— Violence risk assessment professional
— Security and investigations professionals
— Additional legal support

x Operational support resources
— Employee assistance program (EAP)
— Public affairs, media relations, or corporate communications
— Records and benefits
— Personnel liaison
— Health services
— Facility services
— On-site contract security

366 Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International

WORKPLACE VIOLENCE
12.7 Violence Risk Assessment Process

12.7 VIOLENCE RISK ASSESSMENT PROCESS

12.7.1 NOTIFICATION

Notification can come from sources inside or outside the company. In either case, the
company needs policy, procedures, and training that direct reporting of inappropriate
precursor behaviors, incidents, or reports to a particular person or group in the company
that is responsible for initial intake of the report and initial assessment for immediate risk.
This means that after notification from any source, by any means (e.g., observation, e-mail,
postal mail, phone call, text message, fax, etc.), company operators, receptionists, managers,
supervisors, customer service representatives, and other employees will know that they should
pass that notification to the appropriate person or group immediately. Company receivers of
the notification may need to be available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and be trained to
handle these notifications appropriately. Violence may escalate if management does not
respond to early warning signs.

12.7.2 ASSESSMENT

Several levels of assessment may occur after notification, depending on whether the
aggressor is known or unknown and the quantity and quality of the information provided in
the initial notification. If the aggressor’s identity is not known (because, for example, the
threatening communications were anonymous), a valid violence risk assessment cannot be
conducted. Some preliminary behavioral analysis can be done from the material presented,
but the validity of the violence risk assessment will be low. Valid violence risk assessments
require a depth of information available only for known subjects. This is one of the
differences between behavioral investigative analysis (profiling) and violence risk
assessment. Profiling is used to exclude people from an investigative pool of subjects so as to
conserve investigative resources, while violence risk assessment is focused on a particular
individual’s risk of committing a violent act. If the individual is unknown, investigations can
be conducted to determine who the person is, and organizational response to the actions of
the unknown aggressor will be driven by other policies or procedures. If the individual is
known, at least by name, further assessment can be initiated.

Known subject assessment can be broken down into three levels of assessment: initial,
threshold, and comprehensive. Each level of assessment is performed by one or more
members of the IMT and attempts to determine which resources and what level of resources
are appropriate. The first level, initial assessment, attempts to determine whether there is an
immediate risk of harm. If the initial assessment points to a significant possibility of
immediate harm, emergency procedures are activated until the situation is stable enough to
allow further, nonemergency actions.

Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International 367

WORKPLACE VIOLENCE
12.7 Violence Risk Assessment Process

If the initial assessment suggests there is not a significant possibility of immediate harm,
then further assessment is conducted leading to a threshold assessment. This assessment
determines whether assessment should continue (based on the risk assessment thresholds
determined by the company) or whether the situation only requires monitoring.

If a predetermined threshold has been reached, additional information is gathered and a
comprehensive assessment is completed. This assessment uses additional information
sources, both inside and outside the company, and provides the basis for the design and
implementation of a non-immediate emergency resolution plan. Each of these three
assessments is discussed in more detail below.

Initial Assessment

When notification is made, the receiver of that information decides, based on company
criteria, whether the situation calls for an immediate emergency response. Certainly,
managers and supervisors should be taught to respond to immediate risks by notifying
community emergency resources. However, they do not always do so. Therefore, the initial
assessment must examine what has happened and what has been done, if anything, in
deciding whether to contact community emergency resources for help.

If the initial assessment leads to a decision to call for immediate community emergency
resources, then the person who received the notification must be able to make that call or
direct someone to do so. A company with multiple locations in various countries, regions,
states, or cities needs advance information on the quantity and quality of community emer-
gency resources, as well as contact information.

The next decision, based on the availability of the community emergency resources, may be
whether to evacuate the facility or in the case of a bomb threat, employees are best suited to
search the premises. A lot can happen in the time it takes for law enforcement officers to
respond. The company must consider whether locking down, sheltering in place,15 or
evacuating the facility would best protect employees and other occupants. For example,
when an aggressor has a firearm on the premises, a preferred strategy is a 360-degree
evacuation in which evacuees move away from the building and find shelter in other
buildings or out of sight of the building, preferably behind other objects (such as buildings or
trees). This approach minimizes pooling of potential victims the aggressor can shoot. If the
shooter is outside the building, then a lockdown might be appropriate. If the perimeter is
breached, then evacuation might be necessary. The use of a single, unchanging process, such

15 In this context, locking down means going into classrooms or other securable spaces and locking the door until help arrives.
Sheltering in place means finding any place that is immediately available to provide concealment and hiding there, hoping
that the person does not discover those who are hiding. Locking down occurs in securable space, while sheltering in place
does not.

368 Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International

WORKPLACE VIOLENCE
12.7 Violence Risk Assessment Process

as locking students in classrooms regardless of the location of the shooter, does not work.
This is illustrated by both the 1999 Columbine High School shooting and the 2005 Red Lake
High School shooting in the United States. In those incidents, students were shot as they
huddled in the library (Columbine) or were locked in a classroom (Red Lake). As was learned
in the 101 California Street office shooting in San Francisco in 1993, “those that run live and
those that hide die” (Cawood, 2005).

Once a situation is stabilized, further assessment will most likely need to be done. If the
aggressor is not dead, further violence risk assessment needs to be conducted to determine
whether the individual or related individuals (e.g., spouse, family members, community
members, ideologically aligned individuals, etc.) pose a continued risk of harm to the
company and its personnel and guests. Some considerations in this regard might be whether
the aggressor is still in the community, could get bail, or has stated a desire to continue
attacking the target. This comprehensive violence risk assessment would be in done in
conjunction with efforts to manage trauma, conduct incident debriefings, and return
operations to normal. If the aggressor is dead, the company might still initiate trauma
management, incident debriefing, and post-incident assessment (what was known, when it
was known, and what was done about it) to help return the company to full operation and
manage such issues as publicity, lawsuits, and community questions.

Threshold Assessment

If the initial assessment suggests there is no significant possibility of immediate harm, then a
threshold assessment is conducted to determine whether, based on the violence risk assess-
ment thresholds determined by the company, the situation warrants further action or only
monitoring. This assessment can be conducted by the same person or persons who
conducted the initial assessment or could involve other trained IMT members. Including at
least two trained individuals at this level of assessment has some distinct advantages: the
workload is shared, multiple points of view are involved, and every case will be guaranteed to
have at least two people who know its details (in case one individual becomes unavailable).

The threshold assessment is driven by

x information obtained by interviewing key witnesses of behavior,

x review of easily obtainable, pertinent company records, and

x matches between the behavioral information learned from these sources and an
objective violence risk assessment tool adopted by the company.

If a predetermined threshold is reached, a comprehensive assessment is triggered. If that
threshold is not reached, appropriate individuals are notified to report any further behavior
of concern, and no further action might be taken at that time.

Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International 369

WORKPLACE VIOLENCE
12.7 Violence Risk Assessment Process

Comprehensive Assessment

The comprehensive assessment uses the most detailed information and resources available
to thoroughly assess the potential violence risk. All legally obtainable information is gathered
and reviewed to determine the aggressor’s behavioral history and current stressors. Such
information usually includes the following:

x contacts with law enforcement
x civil and criminal court records
x other community records
x financial status
x medical information
x personal relationships, including family relationships and support structures
x use of alcohol or other substances that affect behavior
x ownership of, access to, and training in the use of weapons or explosives
x employment history
x foreseeable events that could increase stress

When determining what records to access and what individuals to interview, care must be
taken to determine how the aggressor might react if he or she learned of the assessment. It is
usually prudent to conceal the investigation if possible. If the potential reaction of the
aggressor supersedes the value of the information that might be obtained from a given
record or source (if the contact was prematurely disclosed), it might be better to postpone or
forgo the use of that source.

Placing this detailed information in chronological order makes it possible to analyze patterns
of past behavior from a cause-and-effect perspective. Seeing the behavioral choices the
aggressor made in response to certain events can provide an understanding of the range of
behavior the aggressor might choose in the future. In conjunction with the time line, the use
of a valid assessment tool can provide a more objective way to determine the current
violence potential of this aggressor compared to other aggressors that the tool has been
designed around. Some tools or assessment instruments have been developed for special
populations, and others have been used against a wider range of aggressors. For example, if
the aggressor was potentially attacking a spouse, the appropriate tool might be the Spousal
Assault Risk Assessment Guide (SARA, 1995). If the aggressor was going to attack a coworker
or community member, the appropriate tool might be the HCR-20 version 2, the Risk
Assessment Guideline Elements for Violence (RAGE-V), or the Assessment/Response Grids.

In most cases, after gathering detailed information, developing a behavioral chronology, and
using an assessment tool, a violence risk assessment is completed by assigning a value to the

370 Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International

WORKPLACE VIOLENCE
12.7 Violence Risk Assessment Process

risk, such as low, moderate, or high. Based on the assigned level of violence risk and the
behavioral data gathered, an intervention and situational resolution plan is designed and
implemented.

12.7.3 INTERVENTION AND NONEMERGENCY SITUATIONAL RESOLUTION

The primary goal of intervention and resolution is the short-term and ideally long-term
safety of the identified target or targets. Intervention and situational resolution are meant to
divert or deflect the aggressor from acts of aggression or violence to more socially acceptable
behaviors in order to resolve his or her perceived need for control. In any intervention and
resolution strategy, the overriding consideration is, first, to do no harm to either the target or
the aggressor. That goal is accomplished when the aggressor willingly chooses to end the
behaviors of concern. Anything less than a willing choice is a less valuable solution, because,
with the exception of the death of the aggressor, a unwilling resolution is likely only
temporary. Therefore, interventions that involve restraining or protective orders, arrest, or
criminal or mental health incarcerations are only short-term, stabilizing interventions. If the
aggressor’s attitude toward the target is unchanged, these measures will eventually fail.

Intervention options can generally be classified as follows (Cawood, 2005):

x interviews, including “knock and talks”16
x administrative or disciplinary actions, including fitness for duty evaluations
x cease-and-desist requests (oral or written)
x no-trespass orders
x restraining or protective orders
x voluntary or involuntary mental health evaluations
x criminal case filing and prosecution
x probation and parole with close monitoring

The choice of an intervention type depends on the assessment of the aggressor’s probable
reaction to the intervention and whether the intervention has a probability of correcting the
aggressor’s perception of the target.

Any form of communication or interaction, whether direct or indirect (through other
parties), should be considered an intervention. For example, interviewing the aggressor not
only provides information about his or her perception, emotional and cognitive levels,

16 The term “knock and talk” refers to interviews that are conducted on the aggressor’s property or at places frequented by the
aggressor, rather than on property controlled by the target or persons related to the target.

Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International 371

WORKPLACE VIOLENCE
12.7 Violence Risk Assessment Process

impulsivity, and boundaries but may also allow the interviewer and aggressor to reframe the
aggressor’s goals, pose and discuss alternative methods of behavior, discuss cause and effect,
discuss consequences, and find other means to solve the problem. Restraining and
protective orders create a boundary but only have real value if the target reports violations
and the orders are quickly enforced.

In many cases, the intervention starts with one technique but readies other techniques that
might be needed. For example, before the aggressor interview begins, the language and
affidavits for a restraining order might be drafted, a disciplinary warning or termination
package might be prepared, and law enforcement might be contacted (to determine what
crimes the behavior might constitute, how to make a criminal report, and what responses
law enforcement could provide).

12.7.4 MONITORING

Monitoring for new behavior is a critical and underappreciated part of the violence risk
assessment process. Monitoring creates the behavioral feedback loop that allows the
violence risk assessment to be updated, the value of the interventions to be tested, and final
resolution of the incident or situation to be determined. In any given case, the IMT can
establish passive monitoring or active monitoring. Passive monitoring relies on the target
and others who might witness new behavior to report that behavior to the IMT on a timely
basis. This is effective only in very low risk cases, in which a lapse in immediate reporting
would not lead to a significant risk of harm. An example would be a victim who has received
a single anonymous e-mail or voice mail saying, “I hate you and you’re going to pay.” If
further investigation finds no other cause for concern, a viable strategy would be to take a
“wait and see” approach and passively monitor the situation by asking the victim to report
any further contacts or disturbing events to the IMT.

Active monitoring means the assessor actively pursues new behavioral information rather
than passively waiting for a report. The more elevated the risk, the more often the contacts
are made. Active monitoring is the best option for a moderate-to high-risk situation or one in
which the target or witnesses cannot be relied on to report new behavior. This lack of
reporting reliability could be due to shock, denial, rationalization, minimization, or other
psychological defense mechanisms; fear of retaliation or retribution; or a misperception of
the target’s ability to handle the situation without help. Regardless of the reason, the
information is actively pursued. An example of this might be a domestic violence risk where
the target, at work, receives threatening calls in which the aggressor says he or she will make
the target pay and threatens to come to the workplace to confront the target. In an interview,
the target says the aggressor is not a threat and expects that nothing will happen, but
investigation reveals that the aggressor has a history of perpetrating domestic violence

372 Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International

WORKPLACE VIOLENCE
12.7 Violence Risk Assessment Process

against the target and prior partners, including confrontations in a prior partner’s workplace.
In this case, the target may conceal or play down any contact from the aggressor (because of
embarrassment, concern about keeping his or her job, or a belief that he or she is safe) and
might not be a reliable source of information on new interactions. In this case, the IMT might
locate workers who could witness new contacts from the aggressor and could be relied on to
report the contacts. The IMT might also check with them several times a day to see if new
contacts occurred. If new contacts are reported, the IMT could contact the target and ask for
an update. If the target denies an interaction, the IMT could attempt to lower the target’s
resistance to providing the information. The frequency of the active monitoring could be
increased or decreased depending on the level of current assessed risk of imminent violence.

12.7.5 REVIEW AND DEBRIEFING

Incident review occurs on an ongoing basis as new behavioral information is learned from all
sources. This ongoing cycle of reassessment, review of intervention options, implementation
of intervention options, and monitoring for new behavioral cues continues until the
situation is considered resolved by IMT standards. Review can be used continuously to fine-
tune operational and tactical processes to provide the greatest safety.

Debriefing incidents and gleaning lessons learned is a critical part of incident management
and process improvement. It allows for a strategy-level look at how a particular incident
might affect process improvement on a larger scale. Some companies conduct short incident
debriefings after the initial round of assessment and intervention and then conduct monthly,
quarterly, semiannual, or annual debriefings to provide updates on specific cases and
discuss possible process improvements.

Incident reviews, debriefings, or a blend of both can allow for continuous improvement in
the management of a particular case and the overall process.

Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International 373

WORKPLACE VIOLENCE
12.8 Future of Workplace Violence

12.8 FUTURE OF WORKPLACE VIOLENCE

Improvements in assessment, intervention, and monitoring are leading to a greater under-
standing of the behavioral cues that signal impending violent behavior. In addition, the
psychological research literature available on workplace violence has mushroomed in the
last decade. Alliant University in the United States is attempting to develop an accredited
forensic psychology program with a specialization in workplace violence. Such a program
will most likely be followed by others that reflect the same type of specialization seen in
business degree programs with a security focus. New tools, including more accurate
computerized behavioral assessment programs, also seem likely in the future.
Regarding intervention, new methodologies and laws may provide more tools to divert
aggressors in specific cases. Austria and Germany have recently passed new stalking laws and
are looking to use them to protect their citizens from behaviors that have not been managed
legally before.
Regarding monitoring, global positioning system (GPS) technology is being used in the
criminal justice system to manage offenders (via, for example, ankle bracelets). Functional
magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) is currently being explored for use in mapping brain
function to detect deception in individuals.17 In the future, this technology, coupled with
research on aggression and violent behavior, might lead to the ability to monitor aggressors’
neuron changes that would signal their immediate intent to cause physical harm. This and
other technological improvements, along with new methodologies to encourage and support
victim and witness participation in the process of behavioral monitoring, may lead to
significant improvements in the safety of individuals, communities, and nations.

17 See www.cephoscorp.com for information on the work of Cephos Corporation with the Medical University of South Carolina.

374 Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International

WORKPLACE VIOLENCE
Appendix A: Model Policy for Workplace Violence

APPENDIX A

MODEL POLICY FOR WORKPLACE VIOLENCE

Nothing is more important to [YOUR COMPANY NAME] than the safety and security of its
personnel; therefore violence against employees, visitors, guests, or other individuals by anyone
on [YOUR COMPANY NAME] property will not be tolerated.

Any person who makes threats, exhibits threatening behavior, or engages in intimidating,
threatening, or violent acts on [YOUR COMPANY NAME] property should be removed from the
premises as quickly as safety permits, and should remain off [YOUR COMPANY NAME] premises
pending the outcome of an investigation into the incident(s). Should the investigation substantiate
that violations of this policy have occurred, [YOUR COMPANY NAME] will follow through with the
implementation of a decisive and appropriate response. This response may include, but is not
limited to, suspension and/or termination of any business relationship, reassignment of job duties,
suspension or termination of employment, and/or seeking arrest and prosecution of the person or
persons involved.

In carrying out all [YOUR COMPANY NAME] policies, it is essential that all personnel understand
that no existing [YOUR COMPANY NAME] policy, practice, or procedure should prohibit decisions
designed to prevent a threat from being carried out, a violent act from occurring, or a life-
threatening situation from developing.

An essential element in this policy is that all personnel are responsible for notifying the below-
designated management representative (DMR) of any threats or perceived threats which they have
witnessed, received, or have been told that another person has witnessed or received. They should
also alert this representative to any behavior they have witnessed which they regard as
intimidating, threatening, or violent when that behavior is job-related or the employee has a belief
that the behavior of concern might be, or could be, carried out on a company-controlled site or is
connected to company business. Employees are responsible for making this report regardless of
the nature of the relationship between the individual who initiated the threat(s) or behavior(s) of
concern and the person or persons who were threatened or were the focus of the threatening or
violent behavior(s).

This policy also requires all individuals who apply for or obtain a protective or restraining order,
which lists company locations as being protected areas, to provide a copy of the petition and
declarations used to seek the protective or restraining order, a copy of any temporary protective or
restraining order which is granted, and a copy of any protective or restraining order which is made
permanent to the same below-listed designated management representative. [YOUR COMPANY
NAME] has an obligation to provide a safe workplace and protect employees from threats to their

Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International 375

WORKPLACE VIOLENCE
Appendix A: Model Policy for Workplace Violence

safety and that cannot be effectively accomplished unless [YOUR COMPANY NAME] is provided
information concerning individuals who have been told by the courts, or other legally constituted
entities, to maintain a distance from [YOUR COMPANY NAME] company locations.
[YOUR COMPANY NAME] understands the sensitivity of this information and has developed
procedures for it to be received, maintained, and acted on, which recognize the privacy of the
reporting employee(s).
The designated management representative is:
Name:
Position:
Telephone:
E-Mail:
Office Mail:

376 Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International

WORKPLACE VIOLENCE
References/Additional Reading

REFERENCES

Allman v. Dormer Tools, Inc. (1999). N.C. Super. Ct., No. 97CVS1161.

Anderson, T. (2002, October). Laying down the law: A review of trends in liability lawsuits. Security
Management.

Anderson, T. (2002, October). Laying down the law: A review of trends in liability lawsuits. Security
Management [Online]. Available: http://www.securitymanagement.com [2006, April 17].

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (1997–2002). Census of fatal occupational injuries. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Labor.

Calhoun, F.S. & Weston, S.W. (2003). Contemporary threat management: A practical guide for
identifying, assessing and managing individuals of violent intent. San Diego, CA: Specialized
Training Services.

Cawood, J., CPP, PCI, PSP. (2005, May 17). Speech at ASIS International Advanced Protection
Course II on violence risk assessment and management.

Civil Action 01-CV-4277 (2001, August 22). U.S.D.C., E.D. Pa.

Clark v. Pangan. (2000). 2000 UT 37, 998 P.2d 268, case number 981694, decided 4/7/2000, Utah
Supreme Court.

Corcoran, M., & Cawood, J. (2003). Violence assessment and intervention: The assessor’s handbook.
Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Grossman, D. (1996). On killing: The psychological cost of learning to kill in war and society.
Boston: Back Bay Books.

Grove, W. M., & Meehl, P. E. (1996). Comparative efficiency of informal (subjective, impression-
istic) and formal (mechanical, algorithmic) prediction procedures: The clinical-statistical
controversy. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 2, No. 2, 293–323.

Hare, R. D. (1993). Without conscience: The disturbing world of the psychopaths among us. New York:
Pocket Books.

Herrick v. Quality Inn Hotel, 24 Cal. Rptr. 2d 203 (Cal. App. 2 Dist. 1993).

Meloy, J. R., et al. (1997). Domestic protection orders and the prediction of subsequent criminality
and violence toward protectees. Journal of Psychotherapy, 34, No. 447.

Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International 377

WORKPLACE VIOLENCE
References/Additional Reading

Mossman, D. (1994). Assessing predictions of violence: Being accurate about accuracy. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, No. 4, 783–792.

National Institute of Justice. (1996). Victim costs and consequences: A new look. NCJ 155282.
Washington, DC: Author.

Northwestern National Life Insurance Company. (1993). Fear and violence in the workplace.
Minneapolis, Minnesota: Author.

Smith v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak), 856 F. 2d 467, 2nd Cir. 1988.

Tepel v. Equitable Life Assurance Society. (1990). San Francisco, California, Superior Court Case
No. 801363.

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board. (2003). The federal selection interview: Unrealized potential.
Washington, DC: Author.

ADDITIONAL READING

Barish, R. (2001). Legislation and regulations addressing workplace violence in the United States
and British Columbia. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 20, 149–154.

Barling, J. (1996). The predication, experiences, and consequences of workplace violence. In G. R.
VandenBos & E. Q. Bulatao (Eds.), Violence on the job: Identifying risks and developing solutions
(pp. 29–49). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Baron, R. A., & Neuman, J. H. (1996). Workplace violence and workplace aggression: Evidence on
their relative frequency and potential causes. Aggressive Behavior, 22, 161–173.

Bennett, J. B., & Lehman, W. E. K. (1996). Alcohol, antagonism, and witnessing violence in the
workplace: Drinking climates and social alienation-integration. In G. R. VandenBos & E. Q.
Bulatao (Eds.), Violence on the job: Identifying risks and developing solutions (pp. 105–152).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Bies, R. J., Tripp, T. M., & Kramer, R. M. (1997). At the breaking point: Cognitive and social dynamics
of revenge in organizations. In R. A. Giacalone & J. Greenberg (Eds.), Antisocial behavior in
organizations (pp. 18–36). London: Sage Publications.

Björkqvist, K., Österman, K., & Hjelt-Ba¨ck, M. (1994). Aggression among university employees.
Aggressive Behavior, 20, 173–184.

378 Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International

WORKPLACE VIOLENCE
References/Additional Reading

Bolton, R. (1979). Differential aggressiveness and litigiousness: Social support and social status
hypotheses. Aggressive Behavior, 5, 233–255.

Borum, R., Fein, R., Vossekuil, B., and Berglund, J. (1999). Threat assessment: Defining an
approach for evaluating risk of targeted violence. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 17, 323–337.

Boye, M. W., & Jones, J. W. (1997). Organizational culture and employee counterproductivity. In R.
A. Giacalone & J. Greenberg (Eds.), Antisocial behavior in organizations (pp. 172–184). London:
Sage Publications.

Calhoun, F. S. (1996). Hunters and howlers. Washington, DC: United States Marshals Service.

Calhoun, F. S., & Weston, S. W. (2000). Defusing the risk to judicial officials. Alexandria, VA: Nation-
al Sheriff’s Association.

Carll, E. K. (1999). Workplace and community violence. In E. K. Carll (Ed.), Violence in our lives (pp.
3–4). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Cole, L., Grubb, P. L., Sauter, S. L., Swanson, N. G., & Lawless, P. (1997). Psychosocial correlates of
harassment, threats and fear of violence in the workplace. Scandinavian Journal of Work,
Environment & Health, 23, 450–457.

Cornell, D. G., Warren, J., Hawk, G., & Stafford, E. (1996). Psychopathy in instrumental and reactive
violent offenders. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64(4), pp. 783–790.

Davis, R. C., & Smith, B. (1995). Domestic violence reforms: Empty promises or fulfilled expectations?
Crime and Delinquency, 41, 541–552.

Davis, R. C., Smith, B. E., & Nickles, L. B. (1998). The deterrent effect of prosecuting domestic
violence misdemeanors. Crime & Delinquency, 44, 434–442.

Dolan, M., & Doyle, M. (2000). Violence risk prediction: Clinical and actuarial measures and the role
of psychopathy checklist. British Journal of Psychiatry, 177, 303–311.

Douglas, S. C., & Martinko, M. J. (2001). Exploring the role of individual differences in the predict-
ion of workplace aggression. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 547–559.

Ekman, P. (2003). Emotions revealed: Recognizing faces and feelings to improve communication
and, emotional life. New York: Henry Holt.

Farrington, D. P. (1994). The causes and prevention of offending, with special reference to
violence. In J. Shepherd (Ed.), Violence in health care: A practical guide to coping with violence
and caring for victims (pp. 149–180). New York: Oxford University Press.

Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International 379