Department of Health and Human Services 

OFFICE OF 

INSPECTOR GENERAL 

JUNE GIBBS BROWN 

Inspector General 

MARCH 2000 

OEI-06-98-00044 

WORKPLACE VIOLENCE 

Perceptions and Experiences of Local 

Public Assistance and Child Support Enforcement 

Staff and Managers 
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 

Blaine Collins

Ruth Ann Dorrill

Marnette Robertson

Clark Thomas, Ph.D.

Nancy Watts

Lisa White

FIELD OFFICES 

Lucille Cop 

Vincent Greiber 

Ianna Kachoris 

Thomas Purvis 

Graham Rawsthorn 

HEADQUARTERS 

Alan Levine, Program Specialist 

Joan Richardson, Program Specialist 

Linda Hall 

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 Secretary’s 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. 
C

C

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?” 

C 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.” 

C 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
C

Child support staff report that enforcement actions such as wage withholding, lien filing, IRS 

tax refund intercepts, bank asset seizures, and driver’s 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 children’s 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.” 

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

C
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 manager’s 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
APPENDIX A

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