Department of Health and Human Services 
OFFICE OF 
INSPECTOR GENERAL 
WORKPLACE VIOLENCE 
Perceptions and Experiences of Local 
Public Assistance and Child Support Enforcement 
Staff and Managers 
JUNE GIBBS BROWN 
Inspector General 
MARCH 2000 
OEI-06-98-00044  OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 
The mission of the Office of Inspector General (OIG), as mandated by Public Law 95-452, is to 
protect the integrity of the Department of Health and Human Services programs as well as the 
health and welfare of beneficiaries served by them.  This statutory mission is carried out through a 
nationwide program of audits, investigations, inspections, sanctions, and fraud alerts.  The 
Inspector General informs the Secretary of program and management problems and recommends 
legislative, regulatory, and operational approaches to correct them. 
Office of Evaluation and Inspections 
The Office of Evaluation and Inspections (OEI) is one of several components of the Office of 
Inspector General.  It conducts short-term management and program evaluations (called 
inspections) that focus on issues of concern to the Department, the Congress, and the public.  The 
inspection reports provide findings and recommendations on the efficiency, vulnerability, and 
effectiveness of departmental programs. 
OEI's Region VI prepared this report under the direction of Chester B. Slaughter, Regional 
Inspector General and Judith V. Tyler, Deputy Regional Inspector General. 
Principal OEI staff included: 
DALLAS  HEADQUARTERS 
Blaine Collins
 Alan Levine, Program Specialist 
Ruth Ann Dorrill
 Joan Richardson, Program Specialist 
Marnette Robertson
 Linda Hall 
Clark Thomas, Ph.D.

Nancy Watts

Lisa White

FIELD OFFICES 
Lucille Cop 
Vincent Greiber 
Ianna Kachoris 
Thomas Purvis 
Graham Rawsthorn 
To obtain copies of this report, please call the Dallas Regional Office at 214-767-3310. 
Reports are also available on the World Wide Web at our home page address: 
http://www.dhhs.gov/progorg/oei  June Gibbs Brown  //S 
Inspector General 
OIG Final Report: Workplace Violence:  Perceptions and Experiences of Local Public 
Assistance and Child Support Enforcement Staff and Managers, OEI-06-98-00044 
Olivia A. Golden 
Assistant Secretary for 
Children and Families 
This report summarizes information we gathered about workplace violence from local public 
assistance and child support enforcement staff.  While examining workplace violence was not 
an objective of our original data collection, the topic was raised during our pre-inspection 
process as we gathered information about how local offices deal with clients who might 
experience domestic violence.  Although we did not attempt to comprehensively examine the 
issue of workplace violence, we feel it is important to share the information provided us by 
staff from approximately 99 local child support and 103 local public assistance offices in six 
States - California, Georgia, Illinois, New Jersey, Texas, and Virginia. 
BACKGROUND 
On March 5, 1997, Secretary Shalala issued a memorandum to the heads of all 
department operating divisions and staff divisions regarding the issue of violence in the 
workplace.  According to the Secretary, 
Every year approximately one million people are victims of nonfatal 
workplace violence.  Most of these assaults occur in service settings such as 
hospitals, nursing homes, and social service agencies.  Another 1,000 workers 
each year are victims of workplace homicide. 
While the Secretarys memorandum focuses on improving workplace safety in HHS 
agency offices, States and local jurisdictions also administer social service agencies and 
local offices where employees may encounter workplace violence.  This memorandum 
provides information that may be useful to program officials for better understanding 
the potential for violence in local public assistance and child support offices.  PERCEPTIONS AND EXPERIENCES OF LOCAL STAFF 
C  Many Managers Fear for the Safety of Their Staff 
Seventy-eight percent of local child support enforcement and 61 percent of local public 
assistance managers we surveyed responded positively to our question, Do you ever 
have reason to fear for the safety of workers in your office? 
CC	 While Actual Reported Violence is Rare, Some Incidents of Violence 
Have Occurred in Local Offices 
The majority of respondents indicate that, while they are constantly wary of sensitive 
circumstances that may escalate into violence, the actual incidences of violence in 
their offices have been rare.  However, a few offices report greater frequency of 
threats and actual violent behavior.  Staff of both agencies report threats of violence, 
including verbal abuse, terroristic threats, bomb threats and death threats and 
actual violence, including aggressive behavior, fighting, altercations/injuries, and 
carrying guns and knives. 
While our data do not allow us to measure the frequency of threats or actual violence 
that occurs in local offices, the language managers use to characterize their concerns 
indicates the wide range of local office experiences.  While many managers say threats 
and violence occur very occasionally or on rare occasions, a few suggest the 
potential for violence is constantly or regularly present.  One office manager 
reports that workplace violence has occurred a considerable number of times.  One 
child support manager reports the most traumatic incident we heard about, One of our 
absent parents just recently murdered a mental health employee.  It could have just as 
easily been one of us. 
CC	 A Variety of Stresses and Circumstances May Lead to Concerns About 
Potential Violence 
Staff report that the nature of their work often contributes to the stress levels of 
individuals they serve, potentially leading to threats of violence or actual violence. 
Managers report that when work circumstances are emotionally charged, clients and 
others may become disgruntled, resentful, angry, irate, or hostile.  Additionally, a 
few respondents suggest that recent efforts to more strictly enforce public assistance 
program rules, as well as the addition of new child support enforcement tools, may be 
increasing the stress level of some clients and noncustodial parents.  For example, one 
worker states, With more enforcement tools available, noncustodial parents are 
getting angrier all the time.  With the increased power provided to us to collect 
money, file liens, and seize assets, comes the greater risk that our actions may be all 
that is needed to push someone over the edge. 
2
 Child support staff report that enforcement actions such as wage withholding, lien filing, IRS 
tax refund intercepts, bank asset seizures, and drivers license or other license revocations add 
to stress experienced by noncustodial parents.  In cases in which paternity has not been 
established, putative fathers may experience increased stress due to being required to appear 
for genetic testing, being excluded as the father by paternity testing, or by a default order of 
child support prior to paternity testing.  Staff also report that requiring child support clients 
who receive TANF grants to provide information about noncustodial parents, to appear in 
court or for genetic testing, and to assign their childrens child support to the State may create 
additional stress for these clients.  Finally, when public assistance agency staff enforce program 
rules such as work requirements and time limits or take adverse actions, such as sanctioning or 
case closure, this may increase stress for public assistance clients. 
It is important to note that local staff report that it is generally only a small subset of 
the people they serve who create the most concern.  Specifically, staff indicate that 
most threats or violent actions come from those with violent histories, criminal 
records, substance abuse problems and those who are mentally and emotionally 
challenged. 
CC  A Variety of Security Measures Designed to Reduce or Prevent 
Workplace Violence Are Used in Some Local Offices 
During on-site visits to local child support and public assistance offices, we observed 
several structural arrangements designed to reduce the risk of workplace violence 
including, security personnel inside and outside the building, locked entrances to staff 
work areas, enclosed receptionist work stations, and open-area interview locations. 
However, in many offices, staff conduct interviews in individual offices or cubicles. 
While these spaces allow privacy for workers to discuss sensitive issues, some workers 
voice concern that they are often out of sight of others and occasionally fear being too 
secluded in cases of potential violent reactions by clients and others. 
Some staff report some procedural efforts to reduce the risk of a violent incident.  For 
example, one respondent mentions that in cases in which a client has a known violent 
history, the computer is flagged so the worker is alerted.  However, other staff 
report concerns that security precautions are insufficient because of, lack of proper 
security, lack of building security, no metal detectors, no panic button, and no bullet 
proof glass. 
3
 CONCLUSION 
Workplace violence appears to be a concern for many managers in State and local child 
support and public assistance offices.  While local office safety is primarily the 
responsibility of States, ACF may wish to discuss the extent and severity of workplace 
violence with its State partners with a view to promoting the development and sharing 
of strategies which effectively address this issue. 
AGENCY COMMENTS 
OCSE has already begun a dialogue with the States on the risks of workplace violence 
and provided us with descriptions of its specific initiatives.  These include two staff 
training videos on preventing workplace violence, a managers checklist of workplace 
security needs, plans for presentations at national conferences, and provisions for 
distributing continuing security bulletins to local office staff.  OCSE has also begun 
development of a course for managers aimed at enhancing local office security. 
ACF comments and complete descriptions of these initiatives are provided in their 
entirety in Appendix A. 
4
 A P P E N D I X  A

A-1
 A-2
 A-3
 A-4