Workplace Violence Prevention 


Strategies and Research Needs
 

Report from the Conference 

Partnering in Workplace Violence Prevention: 


Translating Research to Practice
 

November 17–19, 2004, Baltimore, Maryland 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
 
 

This document is in the public domain and may be freely copied or reprinted. 

Disclaimer 

Mention of a company or product does not constitute endorsement by the National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). In addition, citations to Web sites external to NIOSH 

do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of the sponsoring organizations or products. Furthermore, 

NIOSH is not responsible for the content of these Web sites. 

The recommendations and opinions expressed in this document are those of individual participants in the conference and may not represent the opinions and recommendations of all members, 

or of the organizations they represent. 

Ordering Information 

To receive documents or other information about occupational safety and health topics, contact 

NIOSH at 

NIOSH Publications Dissemination
 

4676 Columbia Parkway
 

Cincinnati, OH 45226–1998
 

Telephone: 1–800–35–NIOSH (1–800–356–4674)
 

Fax: 513–533–8573 


E-mail: pubstaft@cdc.gov
 

or visit the NIOSH Web site at www.cdc.gov/niosh
 

DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2006–144
 

September 2006
 

Safer • Healthier • PeopleTM 

ii Workplace Violence 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Foreword
 

Since the 1980s, violence has been recognized as a leading cause of occupational mortality and morbidity. On average, 1.7 million workers are injured each year, and more than 800 die as a result of 

workplace violence (WPV) [Bureau of Justice Statistics 2001; BLS 2005]. These tragic deaths and 

injuries stress the need for a proactive and collaborative WPV prevention effort at the national level. 

As part of its WPV Research and Prevention Initiative during 2003, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) convened a series of stakeholder meetings that focused on 

various types of WPV and the industries and occupations at risk. For example, separate meetings 

addressed domestic violence in the workplace, violence in heath care facilities, violence in retail 

settings, and violence against law enforcement and security professionals. The purpose of these 

meetings was to bring together subject matter experts from business, academia, government, and 

labor organizations to discuss current progress, research gaps, and collaborative efforts in addressing WPV. One of the recurring discussion points that emerged from the meetings was the need for 

a national conference on WPV prevention. 

In November 2004, NIOSH assembled a diverse group with representatives from various disciplines and organizations that have a stake in reducing the toll of WPV. This landmark conference—Partnering in Workplace Violence Prevention: Translating Research to Practice—was held in 

Baltimore, Maryland, on November 15–17, 2004. The sessions were structured to give participants 

an opportunity to discuss the current state of national research and prevention efforts. The intent 

was to draw out their best professional judgments on (1) identification and implementation of effective prevention programs and strategies, (2) identification of barriers to prevention and steps 

for overcoming them, (3) current research and communication needs, and (4) the advancement of 

research and prevention through effective partnerships. 

This report summarizes discussions that took place during the conference. The report does not 

include a documented review of either the literature on WPV in general or intervention effectiveness research in particular. In addition, the authors have consciously avoided adding the NIOSH 

perspective to this report or otherwise augmenting its content. We have preferred to represent as 

accurately as possible the information, ideas, and professional judgments that emerged from the 

discussions that took place at the Baltimore workshop. 

In my view, the November conference was very successful. This report provides the following: 

1. A useful direction for overcoming current barriers and gaps that impede collaborative 

research, prevention, and communication work 

2. An emerging collective vision (based on input from participants) of effective WPV prevention programs that employers and practitioners can consider now 

3. A discussion of the research and partnerships needed to advance WPV prevention 

Workplace Violence iii 
 

 

 

I believe that this report will further raise awareness of this national problem and point the way to 

increased knowledge about the risks, causes, and prevention of WPV. In addition, this report will help 

companies initiate, improve, and evaluate their WPV prevention efforts. Ultimately, the document 

will help to accelerate the current downward trends in injuries and deaths from on-the-job assaults. 

John Howard, M.D. 

Director, National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

iv Workplace Violence 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Contents
 

Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
 

Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
 

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii
 

Conference Planning Committee Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
 

1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
 

1.1 Scope of Workplace Violence (WPV) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
 

1.2 Background: surveillance, research, and prevention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
 

1.3 Methods and objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
 

2 Barriers and Gaps that Impede WPV Prevention and 


Strategies to Overcome Them . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
 

2.1 Barriers to WPV prevention practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
 

2.2 Gaps in WPV prevention research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
 

3 WPV Prevention Programs and Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
 

3.1 Strategies or approaches that may apply to more than one type of WPV . . . . . 14
 

3.2 Strategies specific to Type I (criminal intent) prevention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
 

3.3 Strategies specific to Type II (customer/client violence) prevention . . . . . . . . . 17
 

3.4 Strategies specific to Type III (worker-on-worker) prevention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
 

3.5	 Strategies specific to Type IV (personal relationship violence) 


 prevention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
 

4 Research Needs for WPV Prevention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
 

5 Linking Research to Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
 

6 Partners and their Roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
 

6.1 NIOSH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
 

6.2 Other Federal partners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
 

6.3 State agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
 

6.4 Private-sector companies, corporations, and alliances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
 

6.5 Business and community organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
 

6.6 Insurers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
 

6.7 Law enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
 

6.8 The legal profession . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
 

6.9 Academic research institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
 

6.10 The media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
 

6.11 The medical community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
 

Workplace Violence v 
 

 

 

6.12 Worker assistance programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
 

6.13 Social advocacy organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
 

6.14 Other national organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
 

7 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
 

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
 

Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
 

vi Workplace Violence 
Abbreviations
 

ASIS American Society for Industrial Security 

BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics 

CAL/OSHA California/Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

CFOI Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries 

IPV intimate partner violence 

MADD Mothers Against Drunk Driving 

NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

NTOF National Traumatic Occupational Fatalities 

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

PSA public service announcement 

WPV workplace violence 

Workplace Violence vii 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Acknowledgments
 

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) recognizes the cosponsoring 

organizations that provided financial support for various aspects of the conference: Corporate Alliance to End Partner Violence, Verizon Wireless, State Farm Insurance Company, American Society 

for Industrial Security (ASIS) International, American Association of Occupational Health Nurses, 

Liz Claiborne, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and Injury Prevention 

Research Center—University of Iowa. 

The conference and this summary report would not have been possible without the enthusiastic 

efforts of the conference planning committee (see the list that follows). Members worked diligently 

to structure the conference, and NIOSH thanks them for their time, energy, and insight. Corinne 

Peek-Asa, Jonathan Rosen, Kim Wells, and Carol Wilkinson presented plenary session overviews 

and facilitated breakout sessions on each type of workplace violence (WPV). Meg Boendier, Stephen Doherty, Kathleen McPhaul, and Corinne Peek-Asa provided the working group session summaries that formed the basis for this report. NIOSH appreciates the technical contributions of all 

these persons and their dedication to the understanding and prevention of WPV. 

Nancy Stout, Director, NIOSH Division of Safety Research, and Tim Pizatella, Deputy Director, 

Division of Safety Research, provided guidance and support. Lynn Jenkins, NIOSH, prepared and 

presented a summary of the conference themes and issues for use in preparing this report. The 

following NIOSH staff members prepared, organized, and reviewed conference material: Lynn 

Jenkins, Matt Bowyer, Dan Hartley, Kristi Anderson, Barbara Phillips, and Brooke Doman. Matt 

Bowyer and Herb Linn summarized conference notes and summary reports, drafted the text, and 

revised the report. 

Jane Weber and Gino Fazio provided editorial and production services. 

viii Workplace Violence 
 

 

 

 

 

Conference Planning Committee Members
 

Matt E. Bowyer, Chair 

Division of Safety Research 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and 

Health 

Gregory T. Barber, Sr. 

Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

Directorate of Enforcement Programs 

Patricia D. Biles 

Workplace Violence Program Consultant 

Bill Borwegen 

Director 

Occupational Health and Safety 

Service Employees International Union 

Ann Brockhaus 

ORC Worldwide 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Pamela Cox 

Division of Violence Prevention 

National Center for Injury Prevention and Control 

Butch de Castro 

American Nurses Association 

Center for Occupational Health and Safety 

Stephen Doherty 

Doherty Partners LLC 

Mary Doyle 

John Hopkins School of Public Health 

Paula Grubb 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and 

Health 

Michael Hodgson 

Veterans Affairs/ Veterans Health Administration 

E. Lynn Jenkins 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and 

Health 

Kathleen McPhaul 

American Association of Health Nurses 

University of Maryland School of Nursing 

Susan Melnicove 

Director of Education 

ASIS International 

Corinne Peek-Asa 

Associate Director 

College of Public Health 

University of Iowa 

Robyn Robbins 

Assistant Director 

Occupational Safety and Health Office 

United Food and Commercial Workers 

International Union 

Rashuan Roberts 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and 

Health 

Gene Rugala 

Supervisory Special Agent 

National Center for Analysis of Violent Crime 

Federal Bureau of Investigations 

Robin Runge 

Director 

American Bar Association 

Commission on Domestic Violence 

Linda M. Tapp 

Administrator of Consultants Practice Specialty 

American Society of Safety Engineers 

Mary Tyler 

U.S. Office of Personnel Management 

Kim Wells 

Executive Director 

Corporate Alliance to End Partner Violence 

Workplace Violence ix 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Introduction 1 

In North Carolina, two masked men 

walked into a food mart, killed the 

44-year-old male co-owner by shooting him 

several times with a handgun, ripped away 

the cash drawer, and fled from the scene. 

In Massachusetts, a 27-year-old mechanic 

in an autobody shop was fatally shot in 

the chest by a customer after they argued 

about repairs. 

In Virginia, an ongoing argument between 

two delivery truck loaders at a furniture 

company distribution warehouse ended 

abruptly as one pulled a gun and shot the 

other to death. 

In South Carolina, a 24-year-old woman 

who worked in a grocery store was taken hostage at gunpoint and then shot to 

death with multiple shotgun blasts by her 

20-year-old ex-boyfriend. 

These tragic examples of violence in U.S. workplaces represent a small sample of the many 

violent assaults that occur in U.S. workplaces 

annually.* 

1.1 Scope of Workplace 

Violence (WPV) 

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 

an estimated 1.7 million workers are injured 

each year during workplace assaults; in addition, violent workplace incidents account for 

18% of all violent crime in the United States 

[Bureau of Justice Statistics 2001].Liberty Mutual, in its annual Workplace Safety Index, cites 

“assaults and violent acts” as the 10th leading 

cause of nonfatal occupational injury in 2002, 

representing about 1% of all workplace injuries and a cost of $400 million [Liberty Mutual 

2004]. During the 13-year period from 1992 

to 2004, an average of 807 workplace homicides occurred annually in the United States, 

*

These fatal, gun-related cases do not represent the huge number of violent incidents that result in nonfatal injuries or no 

injuries, or that involve other types of weapons. Also, these 

cases do not adequately represent the many industry sectors 

and worker populations that face the risk of violent assault 

at work. 

Workplace Violence 1 
 

 

 

 

Number of fatalities 

1,600 

1,400 

1,200 

1,000 

1,044 1,074 1,080 

1,036 

927 

860 

800 

600 

400 

714 

651 

677 643 

609 632 

551 

200 

0 

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 

Year 

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 

Highway incidents Homicides Falls Struck by object 

1 • Introduction 

according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics 

(BLS) Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries 

(CFOI) [BLS 2005]. The number of deaths 

ranged from a high of 1,080 in 1994 to a low of 

551 workplace homicides in 2004, the lowest 

number since CFOI began in 1992. Although 

the number of deaths increased slightly over 

the previous year in both 2000 (677) and 2003 

(631), the overall trend shows a marked decline [BLS 2005]. From 1992 through 1998, 

homicides comprised the second leading cause 

of traumatic occupational injury death, behind motor-vehicle-related deaths. In 1999, 

the number of workplace homicides dropped 

below the number of occupational fall-related 

deaths, and remained the third leading cause 

through 2003. In 2004, homicides dropped below struck-by-object incidents to become the 

fourth leading cause of fatal workplace injury 

(see Figure 1) [BLS 2005]. 

It is not altogether clear what factors may 

have influenced the overall decreasing trend 

in occupational homicides for the period 1992 

through 2004, and whether the decreasing 

numbers will be sustained in subsequent years. 

Since robbery-related violence results in a large 

proportion of occupational homicides, certain 

trends (e.g., economic fluctuations) are likely 

to have contributed to the decreasing toll. The 

reduction may partially stem from the efforts 

of researchers and practitioners to address 

Figure 1. The four most frequent fatal work-related events, 1992–2004. NOTE: Data from 2001 exclude 

fatalities resulting from the September 2001 terrorist attacks. (SOURCE: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor 

Statistics, Census of Fatal Occupational injuries, 2004.) 

2 Workplace Violence 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 • Introduction 

robbery-related WPV especially through intervention evaluation research and dissemination 

and implementation of evidence-based strategies. The reduction may be partially explained 

by the efforts of Federal,State,and local agencies 

and other policy-makers to develop statutes, 

administrative regulations, and/or technical 

information for WPV prevention as a result of 

improved recognition and understanding of 

the risks for WPV. Whatever the reasons behind the trend, future research and prevention 

efforts should focus on identifying, verifying, 

and replicating successes—such as reductions 

in robbery-related (Type I) violence—and 

identifying and addressing those types of WPV 

where little or no change has occurred. The 

fact that violence-related deaths increased over 

previous years’ totals in both 2000 and 2003 

raises questions about the sustainability of the 

overall downward trend and whether the occupational homicide experience in the United 

States may in fact be leveling. 

A few of the violent incidents that occur in 

workplaces and result in deaths or serious injuries to workers are reported widely and prominently on TV and radio broadcasts, newspaper 

pages, and media Web sites. As indicated, WPV 

incidents arise out of a variety of circumstances: 

some involve criminals robbing taxicab drivers, convenience stores, or other retail operations; clients or patients attacking providers in 

health care or social service offices; disgruntled 

workers seeking revenge; or domestic abuse 

that spills over to the workplace (see Table 1). 

More recently, the threat of another form of 

criminal violence—terrorism—hangs over the 

nation’s workplaces.Yet many employers, managers, and workers are not particularly aware 

that the potential for violence is a risk facing 

them in their own workplaces. The public is 

generally not aware of either the scope or the 

prevalent types of violence at work. In fact, it 

has been only within the last two decades that 

the problem of violent workplace behavior has 

come into focus—largely resulting from improvements in occupational safety and health 

surveillance—as a leading cause of workplace 

fatality and injury in many industry sectors in 

the United States. 

1.2 Background: Surveillance, 

Research, and Prevention 

When the National Traumatic Occupational 

Fatalities (NTOF) surveillance system was developed by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) in the 1980s, 

an accurate count of workplace traumatic injury deaths in the United States was available for 

the first time [NIOSH 1989]. In 1988, NIOSH 

published its first article disseminating data 

on the magnitude of the national workplace 

homicide problem [Hales et al. 1988]. This article presented results indicating that worker 

against worker violence, which continues to be 

emphasized by the media, is only a small portion of the WPV that occurs daily in the United 

States. 

The U.S. Department of Labor, through its Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

(OSHA) and the BLS, brought increased focus 

on occupational violence through compliance, 

surveillance, analysis, and information dissemination efforts.Although no specific Federal regulations then (or now) addressed WPV, OSHA 

began to cite employers where violent incidents 

occurred under the General Duty Clause [29 

USC* 654 5(a)(1)], which requires employers to 

provide safe and healthful work environments 

for workers. OSHA also provided and disseminated, through reports and the OSHA Web site, 

violence prevention guidance for high risk sectors and populations such as health care, social 

services, late-night retail establishments, and 

taxi and livery drivers. The BLS has clarified the 

*

United States Code. 

Workplace Violence 3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 • Introduction 

injury and fatality risks to workers from violent 

incidents through its nonfatal and fatal injury 

surveillance and special analyses of characteristics of occupational violence. 

In the mid 1990s, as more researchers were 

becoming engaged in the study of occupational violence, the California Occupational 

Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) 

developed a model that described three distinct 

types of WPV based on the perpetrator’s relationship to the victim(s) and/or the place of 

employment [Cal/OSHA 1995, Howard 1996]. 

Later, the Cal/OSHA typology was modified 

to break Type III into Type III and Type IV, 

creating the system that remains in wide use 

today [IPRC 2001]. (See Table 1.) This typology has proven useful not only in studying and communicating about WPV but 

also in developing prevention strategies. 

Certain occupations, such as taxicab drivers 

and convenience store clerks, face a higher risk 

of being murdered at work [IPRC 2001], while 

health care workers are more likely to become 

victims of nonfatal assaults [NIOSH 2002]. 

Since nearly all of the U.S. workforce (more 

than 140 million) can potentially be exposed 

to or affected by one of the four types of WPV, 

occupational safety and health practitioners 

Table 1. Typology of workplace violence 

Type Description 

I: Criminal intent The perpetrator has no legitimate relationship to the business or its employee, and is usually committing a crime in conjunction with the violence. 

These crimes can include robbery, shoplifting, trespassing, and terrorism. 

The vast majority of workplace homicides (85%) fall into this category. 

II: Customer/client The perpetrator has a legitimate relationship with the business and becomes violent while being served by the business. This category includes 

customers, clients, patients, students, inmates, and any other group for 

which the business provides services. It is believed that a large portion 

of customer/client incidents occur in the health care industry, in settings 

such as nursing homes or psychiatric facilities; the victims are often patient caregivers. Police officers, prison staff, flight attendants, and teachers 

are some other examples of workers who may be exposed to this kind of 

WPV, which accounts for approximately 3% of all workplace homicides. 

III: Worker-on-worker The perpetrator is an employee or past employee of the business who attacks or threatens another employee(s) or past employee(s) in the workplace. Worker-on-worker fatalities account for approximately 7% of all 

workplace homicides. 

IV: Personal relationship The perpetrator usually does not have a relationship with the business but 

has a personal relationship with the intended victim. This category includes victims of domestic violence assaulted or threatened while at work, 

and accounts for about 5% of all workplace homicides. 

Sources: CAL/OSHA 1995; Howard 1996; IPRC 2001. 

4 Workplace Violence 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

250

ns 

200 193 

tio

150 

of cita150 mber 100 Nu

50

13 

41 

0 

0

3 3 

1970–1974 1975–1979 1980–1984 1985–1989 1990–1994 1995–1999 2000–2004

5-year period 

1 • Introduction 

and advocates should be concerned. Examples of high-risk industries include the retail 

trade industry, whose workers are most often 

affected by Type I (criminal intent violence), 

and the health care industry, whose workers 

may generally be affected most by Type II (client, customer, or patient violence). Although 

all four types of WPV can potentially occur 

in any workplace, Type III (worker-on-worker violence) and Type IV (personal relationship violence, also known as intimate partner 

violence), are more likely to occur across all industry sectors. 

WPV includes a much wider range of behaviors than just overt physical assaults that result 

in injury or death. Thus, WPV has been defined 

as “violent acts, including physical assaults and 

threats of assault, directed toward persons at 

work or on duty” [NIOSH 1996]. It is widely 

agreed that violence at work is underreported, 

particularly since most violent or threatening behavior—including verbal violence (e.g., threats, 

verbal abuse, hostility, harassment) and other 

forms, such as stalking—may not be reported 

until it reaches the point of actual physical assault or other disruptive workplace behavior. 

Most of the research that was conducted over the 

last half of the decade of the 90s was published in 

scientific and professional journal articles. Figure 2 shows the dramatic increase in the number of research articles published in the medical 

literature that dealt with WPV from the 1980s, 

when the occupational fatality surveillance data 

first showed that occupational homicide was 

the second leading cause of traumatic occupational death, through 2004 [National Library of 

Medicine 2005].Similar results were obtained in 

searches of the occupational safety and health, 

business, and social science literature. 

Figure 2. Medline entries for WPV for 5-year periods from 1970 to 2004. 

Workplace Violence 5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 • Introduction 

In April 2000, the University of Iowa Injury 

Prevention Research Center sponsored a meeting entitled Workplace Violence Intervention 

Research Workshop in Washington, D.C. The 

workshop brought together invited participants to discuss WPV and recommend strategies for addressing this national problem. The 

workshop recommendations were published 

as Workplace Violence: Report to the Nation in 

February 2001 [IPRC 2001]. This report identified key research issues and called for funding 

to address these research needs. 

In December 2000, Congress appropriated $2 

million to NIOSH to develop a WPV Research 

and Prevention Initiative consisting of intramural and extramural research programs targeting all aspects of WPV. Most of the money 

was used to fund new research grants undertaken by extramural researchers. Intramural 

research efforts focused on collaborating with 

other agencies to collect improved data on 

WPV from workers and employers, convening 

a Federal interagency task force to coordinate 

Federal research activities, and collaborating with other groups to raise awareness of 

WPV and disseminate information developed 

through the Initiative. 

In June 2002, the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s National Center for the Analysis of 

Violent Crime hosted a symposium on WPV 

bringing together a multidisciplinary group 

to look at the latest thinking in prevention, 

intervention, threat assessment and management, crisis management, and critical incident 

response. The results were published in March 

2004 in Workplace Violence: Issues in Response 

[Rugala and Isaacs 2004]. 

As part of the WPV Research and Prevention 

Initiative, NIOSH convened a series of stakeholder meetings on WPV during 2003. The 

purpose of these meetings was to allow subject 

matter experts from business, academia, government, and labor organizations to collectively 

discuss WPV in terms of current progress, research gaps, and potential collaborative efforts. 

Stakeholders with interest in the following topic 

areas met during the timeframes noted: 

■	 May 2003—Violence in Health Care 

Settings 

■	 June 2003—Domestic Violence in the 

Workplace 

■	 August 2003—Violence in Retail Settings 

■	 November 2003—Violence Against Law 

Enforcement and Security Professionals 

One of the recurring themes that emerged 

from the stakeholder discussions was the need 

for a national conference on WPV prevention. 

In January 2004, NIOSH assembled a diverse 

planning committee to begin developing this 

forum. On November 15–17, 2004, NIOSH 

held, for the first time, a national conference on 

WPV prevention, entitled Partnering in Workplace Violence Prevention: Translating Research 

to Practice [NIOSH 2004]. 

This document is the final product resulting 

from the November 2004 conference. It summarizes what conference participants think 

are key strategies required for successful WPV 

prevention, further research and communication needs, barriers and gaps that impede prevention, and strategies for addressing them. 

The document also summarizes participants’ 

thoughts about potential partners among 

Federal, State, and private agencies with the 

resources and skills necessary to collaborate 

in prevention efforts, conduct further research, and facilitate appropriate regulations. 

It is hoped that this report will serve several 

important purposes—to raise awareness of 

employers, workers, policy makers, and the 

public in general to the fact that WPV continues to be a major public health issue; to 

assist business and labor leaders in adopting 

effective prevention programs and strategies; 

6 Workplace Violence 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 • Introduction 

to aid researchers in identifying future projects; 

and to prompt government officials to consider 

more comprehensive national programs. 

1.3 Methods and Objectives 

During the conference, NIOSH assembled a 

diverse group of experts representing the four 

WPV typologies and the various disciplines engaged in WPV research and prevention efforts 

(see Appendix for a full list of participants). The 

conference was structured to give participants 

an opportunity to discuss successful WPV prevention strategies, barriers and challenges to 

WPV prevention, major research and information dissemination gaps, and potential roles for 

various organizations in WPV prevention over 

the next decade. In order to address the objectives in an effective manner, discussion points 

were posed to participants in breakout sessions 

that were divided into four WPV typologies: 

Criminal Intent (Type I), Customer/Client 

(Type II), Worker-on-Worker (Type III), and 

Personal Relationship (Type IV). 

The objectives of the conference are reflected 

in the following instructions given to discussion participants: 

■	 Identify successful WPV prevention 

strategies. 

■	 Identify barriers and challenges to and 

strategies for implementing WPV prevention. 

■	 Identify major research and information dissemination gaps in WPV 

prevention efforts. 

■	 Identify existing and potential partners and their roles in advancing WPV 

prevention. 

The conference included the following: 

■	 State-of-the-art presentations from a 

panel of experts in each WPV type 

■	 An evening group event featuring a series 

of one-act plays reflecting the human impact of violence in the workplace and cultural issues concerning violence 

■	 Breakout sessions that addressed the 

four discussion points among each of 

the four WPV types 

■	 Introductory and summary presentations of the discussions of each breakout session, by session moderators in 

plenary sessions 

■	 A closing summary session 

This report should provide a useful framework for thinking about the current state of 

WPV research, prevention, and communication activities in the United States. Chapter 2 

presents a discussion of barriers and gaps that 

impede the development and implementation of WPV prevention programs. Chapter 3 

summarizes the best WPV strategy/program 

practices presented by conference participants. 

This summary represents an implicit template 

for addressing WPV prevention on a company, corporate, agency, and national level and 

includes strategies both general and specific 

to the four types of WPV. Chapter 4 presents 

a discussion of general research needs; Chapter 5 addresses the importance of linking research findings to practical prevention efforts. 

One of two important themes of the conference—partnership—is the focus of discussion 

in Chapter 6. Included are some ideas about 

partners who should be involved in national, 

community, and company collaborations, and 

what they could be doing to address WPV. 

Chapter 7 provides some concluding thoughts 

and a call to action for potential collaborators 

in a national WPV prevention effort. The Appendix provides a full list of conference participants. 

Workplace Violence 7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 	

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Barriers and Gaps that 

Impede WPV Prevention and 

Strategies to Overcome Them 2 

Conference participants identified and discussed numerous barriers and gaps facing 

those working to implement existing strategies 

and programs addressing WPV prevention or 

those seeking to study and fill knowledge gaps 

related to WPV risks and prevention. In many 

cases, strategies for addressing and overcoming 

these barriers and gaps were proposed and discussed. Employers, managers and supervisors, 

safety practitioners, workers, members of the 

public safety and legal professions, researchers, designers and manufacturers of protective technologies and products, educators and 

communicators, and others—all face difficulties in the process of identifying, documenting, assessing, preventing, and communicating 

about violent workplace events. 

This report essentially addresses two key audiences—those who are responsible for 

implementing WPV prevention programs in 

communities, companies, or workplaces (policy 

makers, employers, managers, safety and health 

practitioners, members of teams who come from 

multiple disciplines and perspectives, workers, 

etc.) and those who face challenges related to 

exploring and filling the gaps in our knowledge 

of WPV and WPV prevention (researchers). 

The most important barriers and gaps that impede the implementation of effective WPV prevention programs, strategies, and interventions 

usually depend on the particular organization in 

question, and sometimes the type of WPV. These 

issues are also discussed in Chapter 3. 

Barriers impeding research efforts include lack 

of access to company and workplace information, and inadequate data to define the scope 

of WPV. Knowledge of intervention effectiveness is sparse, and information about the costs 

of both WPV incidents and prevention efforts 

versus benefits of specific prevention strategies 

and programs is lacking. Too little is known 

regarding specific characteristics of perpetrators, victims, companies, and circumstances 

surrounding violent events. These issues are 

discussed in Chapter 4. 

2.1 Barriers to WPV 

Prevention Practice 

2.1.1	 Corporate Attitude, Denial 

For some companies, a prevailing corporate attitude or denial of the potential for WPV, may 

be strong enough that employers and managers remain unconvinced that they need to address it. In some, violence is not recognized 

as a high priority among competing threats 

until a tragic, violent event occurs. In many organizations, the value of WPV prevention in 

8 Workplace Violence 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 	 	 		

	 		

	 	 	

	 	 		

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 	

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 	 	 	 		

 

 

2 • Barriers and Gaps that Impede WPV Prevention, and Strategies to Overcome Them 

reducing liability and turnover and increasing 

productivity is not well understood. Employers may also hesitate to explore WPV risks 

and issues because they are wary about negative company image, legal liability, assuming 

responsibility for workers’ private lives, and 

worker enlightenment and empowerment. One 

line of thinking is that workers who become 

aware of these issues will certainly file complaints 

and claims. All of these factors are barriers to 

developing policies, providing training, recognizing and reporting violence, and developing 

and implementing WPV prevention programs. 

Workers readily perceive the lack of management acknowledgment of WPV and support for 

WPV prevention. On the other hand, corporate 

leaders who set out to raise awareness of WPV 

and improve workplace communication, demonstrate their acknowledgement of WPV and 

provide a foundation for improved reporting 

and risk assessment and program development 

and implementation. 

2.1.2	 The Culture of Violence; 

De-humanization of 

Workplaces 

A profound barrier to WPV prevention is related to the culture of violence that permeates 

U.S. society, including workplaces. 

2.1.3	 Lack of Worker Empowerment 

Violent events (especially Type 1 violence) 

are prevalent in small businesses where 

workers may lack a voice. Workers without a 

voice—that is, without a personal opportunity to provide their concerns or participate in 

leadership decisions—or without an advocate 

to speak for them,have great difficulty influencing the adoption or even the consideration of 

prevention programs. In many businesses, large 

and small, disconnects exist between management and workers that impede communication of concerns and collaboration. 

2.1.4	 Lack of Incentives, 

Disincentives 

Conference participants believe that there are 

too few incentives for companies to implement WPV prevention programs. Few regulatory requirements address violence, many 

guidelines addressing violence are outdated, 

and the many legal issues prompted by Federal, State and local statutes, ordinances, and 

regulations present challenges to WPV prevention and can seem an impenetrable thicket. 

Current laws are often ineffective, unenforced, 

and inconsistent from State to State. Employers who might consider WPV prevention programs may feel at a competitive disadvantage 

if no mandatory, enforced regulations exist 

that cover the entire industry sector. If more 

compelling data on costs of violence and 

costs/benefits of prevention programs and 

strategies were available, companies would 

likely have more incentive to invest resources 

in WPV prevention programs. In addition, 

the positive effects of knowledgeable workers 

empowered to provide input and participate 

in planning and decision making, which can 

include improved safety and health, morale, 

efficiency, and productivity, provide an important incentive to management. 

2.1.5	 Lack of Awareness 

For some, the most substantial barrier is 

simply a lack of awareness of the scope and 

importance of the problem on the part of 

employers and workers alike. This lack of 

awareness extends beyond company walls to 

all levels of the public and private sector and 

the general public. 

2.1.6	 Lack of Information, Access to 

Available Information 

For other knowledgeable employers, a lack of 

access to risk information or evidence-based 

Workplace Violence 9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 	

	 	

 

2 • Barriers and Gaps that Impede WPV Prevention, and Strategies to Overcome Them 

prevention programs or strategies may form 

a difficult barrier to action. Those programs 

and interventions that have been evaluated 

and shown effective in specific settings—for 

instance the interventions addressing violence 

resulting from convenience store robberies—have not been adopted in all workplaces where similar risks and circumstances are 

present. Further, they have not been evaluated 

for other workplaces and industry sectors facing similar risks. Many other programs and 

interventions that have been adopted or suggested for different types of WPV and different workplace settings and circumstances have 

not been rigorously evaluated, if evaluated at 

all. If evidence-based prevention programs 

and strategies are available, the information 

mostly resides in academia or government 

agencies. Researchers in academia and government are often satisfied with publication of 

their findings in the peer-reviewed literature, 

or lack the knowledge and means to further 

disseminate or translate their results for use in 

at-risk companies. As a result, employers may 

not be fully cognizant of the risks they and 

their workers face. Or, an employer or practitioner who is aware of the risks and who has 

the desire to establish and implement a prevention program may not be able to find or 

access evidence-based programs and interventions to use or choose from. 

Among companies with WPV programs, some 

are reluctant to share WPV information (e.g., 

statistics, program information, effectiveness 

data), even among other departments in the 

same company. Privacy issues and proprietary and competitive attitudes may influence 

companies and agencies to guard their data, 

thus hindering data sharing. Compounding 

the effect of this barrier, researchers may fall 

short of the efforts needed to engage and partner with employers. This in turn limits the 

ability of researchers to determine characteristics of violent events, characteristics of those 

who are involved in and affected by them, and 

potential preventive approaches and their effectiveness. OSHA has guidelines for late night 

retail [OSHA 2004], but companies not under 

OSHA jurisdiction may not be aware of this 

information. Potential sources of information 

useful to businesses include police department 

crime prevention units, Web-based violence 

prevention and security sites, and insurance 

companies. 

2.1.7	 Lack of Communication/ 

Training 

A major barrier to awareness and prevention 

of WPV is an overall lack of adequate and effective communication and training about 

what constitutes violence (definition); when 

violence has occurred (incident reporting); 

what the company does about violence (policy, 

procedures, disposition); and what peers and 

partners have learned and are doing (research, 

prevention, collaboration). In the pursuit of individual responsibilities and tasks, the importance of communication may be overlooked 

entirely or given a low priority among competing demands. 

2.1.8	 Lack of Resources 

Many of the companies facing high risks of 

WPV are small companies with limited resources for research, prevention, and evaluation. In an increasingly pressurized economy 

and in the absence of sufficient cost-benefit 

data, prevention may be seen as an unwarranted expenditure rather than an investment with a return. Employers may address 

competing demands first unless a tragic violent event has already occurred to gain their 

attention and prompt action. Small companies often have neither the resources nor 

the staffs to address problems from a multidisciplinary perspective. 

10 Workplace Violence 
	 	

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 	 	 		

	 	 	

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	

	 	 		

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 	 	 		 	

 

2 • Barriers and Gaps that Impede WPV Prevention, and Strategies to Overcome Them 

2.1.9	 Lack of Reporting 

Violent events, wherever they occur, may not 

be reported for various reasons. When WPV 

occurs in companies that lack an enlightened, prevention-oriented culture, victimized workers may be inhibited from reporting 

single incidents or patterns of abusive behavior that would be reported and addressed in 

other companies. In such companies, victims 

or witnesses of violence may feel that nothing will be done if they do report. Otherwise 

well meaning employers or managers in companies that do not communicate to workers 

the behaviors that are considered to be violent, the mechanisms for reporting them, and 

assurances of security, confidentiality, and 

prompt response, may be unwittingly fostering a violent work environment that could 

ultimately experience a tragic, violent event. 

Too often, in the aftermath of such a tragedy, 

people remember precursor events or behaviors that should have prompted reporting, 

response, and intervention at the time they 

occurred. Sadly, failures to report verbal or 

physical abuse represent lost opportunities 

for prevention. Lack of reporting is also a fundamental barrier to effective surveillance, a 

critical component of WPV prevention at all 

levels, from company-level to national-level 

prevention. 

2.1.10	 Lack of Effective Followup 

to Reported WPV Events 

Victims and recipients of threats or harassment expect a firm response. When management fails to respond promptly and firmly to 

reported WPV incidents, or does not follow 

through according to company policies and procedures,workers will perceive the lack of management commitment.Workers will then be hesitant 

to report future violent events and behaviors. 

2.1.11	 Lack of Written WPV Policy, 

Definitions, and Consequences 

(See Chapter 3.) 

A company or corporation without a written 

WPV prevention program or policy may fail 

to provide critical information necessary to 

protect workers. Prevention efforts may not 

succeed without written documentation that 

includes company policy on WPV, definitions 

that clearly indicate what specific behaviors 

constitute WPV and are therefore prohibited 

actions, the specific consequences of those actions, who is accountable for the program and 

specific elements, and the roles and responsibilities of all workers. 

2.1.12	 Lack of Teamwork, 

Partnerships 

Interdisciplinary and interdepartmental work is 

very difficult to initiate and maintain, even within the walls of one company. Effective programs 

require the combined efforts of employers, workers, law enforcement, and, for larger companies, 

the multiple departments with a stake in violence 

prevention and worker safety and health. 

2.2 Gaps in WPV Prevention 

Research 

2.2.1	 Lack of WPV Intervention 

Evaluation Research 

The ideal situation is for employers and 

practitioners planning and implementing 

WPV prevention programs to have credible, 

evidence-based interventions, strategies, curricula, and programs available. A primary research need in WPV prevention is to obtain 

evaluation data on strategies and interventions 

for a variety of workplace applications. 

Workplace Violence 11 
	 	 	 	 		 	

	 	 	 	 	

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

	 	

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 	

	 	 	 	 		

	 	

2 • Barriers and Gaps that Impede WPV Prevention, and Strategies to Overcome Them 

2.2.2	 Lack of Best Practices for 

Implementation 

The need for practical and proven guidance for 

program implementation goes hand-in-hand 

with the need for evidence-based prevention 

programs and strategies. Critical information about best practices for WPV programs is 

needed by employers and practitioners. 

2.2.3	 Lack of (or Inadequacy of) 

Data 

Currently available data—based largely on police responses, emergency room admissions, 

workers’ compensation claims, insurance 

payments to victims, and death certificates— 

do not reflect the scope of WPV, especially 

considering the incidence of noninjury and 

nonphysical events (e.g., threats, bullying, 

harassment, stalking). Reluctance on the part 

of corporations and companies to release 

data and to admit researchers into their environments for the purpose of collecting incidence data or evaluating interventions and 

programs impedes description of the WPV 

experience, as well as further investigations of 

causation and prevention. In addition, the victims and witnesses of WPV may be reluctant 

to report incidents for a variety of reasons. 

(See Section 2.1.9.) Aside from cultural and 

behavioral impediments to the acquisition of 

better data, technical issues exist that must be 

overcome. For example, a commonly accepted, operational definition of what constitutes 

WPV, while not perfectly fitting every scenario 

imaginable, will be necessary to the uniform 

collection of data. Standardized data collection using common definitions is essential 

to draw reasonable conclusions on effective 

prevention. Standardization may require the 

following: 

■	 Better categorization of data 

■	 Addition of key pieces of data to existing data sets 

■	 Researcher access to data from companies and insurers, as well as workplaces 

2.2.4	 Lack of Information about the 

Costs of WPV; the CostEffectiveness of Prevention 

The economics of WPV represents a substantial gap in knowledge. Understandably, employers desire and respond to solid, empirical 

cost data on actual and potential losses from 

WPV and benefits of prevention programs and 

interventions. They are interested in understanding costs relative to benefits and return 

on investment when it comes to development 

and implementation of programs. Employers 

may not expect each and every intervention 

to pay for itself, but they do seek a general 

idea of what to expect as a result of investing 

in prevention. A difficult concept to calculate 

and convey is the cost of a non-event—that is, 

one that is prevented through programmatic 

investment. Other important cost considerations include the loss of experienced workers and the resultant new personnel hiring 

and training costs. 

2.2.5	 Research and Communication 

Needs Specific to Type I 

(Criminal Intent) Prevention 

Research is needed to provide evidence about 

effectiveness of specific environmental, behavioral, and administrative interventions in 

non-convenience-store settings. Also uncertainties about effectiveness of other suggested 

interventions require additional research to 

enable the attainment of consensus in controversial topics such as effectiveness of on-site 

guards, bullet-resistant barriers, certain training elements, and multiple clerks. 

12 Workplace Violence 
	 	

	 	 	 	 		

	 	 	 		

 

	 	

	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 		

	 		

 

	 	 	

 

2 • Barriers and Gaps that Impede WPV Prevention, and Strategies to Overcome Them 

2.2.6	 Research and Communication 

Needs Specific to Type II 

(Client on Worker Violence) 

Prevention 

Currently, not enough is known about what 

produces violence in social service, health care, 

and other settings for worker-client interaction. What is known has not always been widely reported in the scientific literature or by the 

national media. Risk estimates are not available 

that clarify the influence of various situational 

and environmental factors. 

2.2.7	 Research and Communication 

Needs Specific to Type III 

(Worker on Worker) Prevention 

Type III WPV is somewhat unique among the 

types in that most of the losses incurred as a 

result of a violent incident (e.g., losses related 

to the victim, the perpetrator, the damages, the 

productivity, etc.) are usually borne solely by 

one employer. More solid information about 

the direct relationship between the availability 

of reliable data and the opportunity for prevention, and the resultant potential for controlling 

costs through intervention, may be effective 

in persuading employers to share information 

and provide access needed by researchers. 

2.2.8	 Research and Communication 

Needs Specific to Type IV 

(Interpersonal Violence) 

Prevention 

More rigorous, science-based efforts are needed in characterizing risk factors, costs, and 

effectiveness of WPV prevention programs and 

strategies addressing Type IV violence. 

2.2.9	 Other General Research Needs 

Conference participants also offered a substantial list of research gaps, most of which were 

not discussed in detail. 

According to Conference participants, research 

is needed to better understand the following: 

■	 Variations in what is being done in individual businesses, industry sectors, law 

enforcement, and State and local governments 

■	 What motivates businesses to take action in addressing WPV 

■	 What types of regulation are effective 

■	 Work organization and how it affects 

WPV prevention program implementation and impact 

■	 Characteristics of both perpetrators and 

victims of each type of WPV 

■	 Successful management systems for 

tracking WPV and followup activities 

■	 What makes training effective—that is, 

what content, teaching methods, intervals, etc. 

■	 How to disseminate information about 

effective violence prevention strategies 

and programs more widely and/or more 

appropriately 

■	 How to effectively communicate 

—	 What WPV is 

—	 Protection and prevention as positive issues 

—	 The importance of scientific research in addressing WPV 

Workplace Violence 13 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 	 		

	 	 	

	 	

 

 

 

 

WPV Prevention Programs 

and Strategies 3

This chapter is tailored for use by employers, 

managers, and safety and health practitioners 

who desire to develop and implement or evaluate company WPV prevention programs. Conference participants were asked to identify and 

discuss WPV prevention strategies, which may 

range from comprehensive, overarching company policies and programs to individual intervention strategies that seek to modify environment 

or behavior. Prevention programs and strategies 

that might offer increased protection against 

WPV in general are discussed first, followed by 

program and strategy elements that are unique 

to specific WPV typologies. 

3.1 Strategies or Approaches 

That May Apply to More 

Than One Type of WPV 

3.1.1	 Management and Worker 

Commitment 

The importance of management commitment 

to WPV prevention policies and programs 

cannot be overemphasized. Top management 

support helps ensure that adequate resources 

(including staffing) will be applied to the program, that the program will be launched from 

the top down, and that the effort will likely be 

accepted throughout the organization and sustained. Worker participation in planning, development, and implementation of programs 

and strategies is also important. The concept 

of dynamic commitment (i.e., involving both 

management and workers) in WPV prevention 

was discussed as a fundamental necessity underlying the allocation of adequate prevention 

program resources and the development of a 

violence prevention culture within an organization. 

3.1.2	 Multidisciplinary Team Approach 

to WPV Prevention 

Another common theme voiced often during the conference was the need for collaboration of people from different disciplines, 

company units or departments, and levels of 

the organization. The involvement of persons 

with diverse expertise and experience is especially critical due to the depth and complexity 

of WPV prevention. Such teamwork is crucial 

for planning, developing, and implementing 

programs, as well as serving discrete functions, 

such as threat assessment teams formed to review and respond to reported physical, verbal, 

or threatened violence. Some of the key levels, 

disciplines, and departments mentioned included management, union, human resources, 

14 Workplace Violence 
 

	 	 		

	 	

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 • WPV Prevention Programs and Strategies 

safety and health, security, medical/psychology, 

legal, communications, and worker assistance. 

The pre-arranged use of outside expertise and 

collaboration with local law enforcement and 

local service providers was also offered as a way 

for companies to ensure effective programs, 

particularly in smaller companies with fewer 

workers, departments, and resources. Proactive planning/collaboration with local law enforcement may be helpful should an incident 

requiring police response occur. 

3.1.3	 Written WPV Policy/Program 

Tailored to Organization’s Needs 

A documented company policy/program must 

include definitions that clearly indicate what 

behaviors constitute WPV, including threatening or abusive physical and verbal behavior. 

Prohibited actions must be specified, and the 

specific consequences of those actions spelled 

out. A review and response system for all reported violent incidents must be in place, 

along with guidelines to assist those with the 

responsibility to review and respond. Specific 

procedures are needed for reviewing each reported incident, and mechanisms are needed 

to support and protect all affected persons. 

Ineffective followup undermines worker perception of management commitment and negates incentives to report incidents. Victims 

and recipients of threats or harassment expect 

a firm response. Review and response to reported violence might best be accomplished 

via a team approach (e.g., a threat assessment 

team). 

Clear, precise definitions; mandatory comprehensive (all incidents) reporting; a structure and process in place for reporting; and 

timely and reliable review and response will 

all contribute to accurate reporting, which 

in turn enables precise risk assessment and 

dedication of appropriate resources to the 

program. These elements will also provide a 

basis for program evaluation. Programs that 

discourage reporting or blame the victim 

will not likely be successful. At a minimum, 

the WPV policy/program should be reviewed 

annually but optimally can be easily tweaked 

as necessary. Good communication, confidentiality, teamwork, and accountability are 

musts. Communication must flow vertically 

(management to staff and vice-versa) and 

horizontally (i.e., across organizational divisions or departments). Communication can 

take many forms, and organizations should 

think outside the box when communicating 

information about WPV policies/programs. 

For example, information about company 

policy/programs can be communicated as 

inserts with pay stubs or on stickers for telephones. A WPV prevention program should 

be well integrated with other company programs. 

3.1.4	 Training 

Training for both managers and workers is 

a key element in any WPV prevention program. The presence of management at training sessions can increase the visibility of the 

organization’s top-level commitment to prevention. Training content may differ by type 

of WPV (see Sections 3.2 through 3.5), but 

in general, training (initially and on a recurring basis) should be provided on the hazards found in the organization’s workplaces 

and in the organization’s prevention policies 

and procedures, with emphasis on reporting requirements and the companies’ review, 

response, and evaluation procedures. Training can be implemented from the top down, 

with managers and supervisors trained first. 

A train-the-trainer approach can be used, 

with supervisors responsible for training and 

evaluating training for their own staffs. Specialized training on creating a positive work 

environment and developing effective teams 

Workplace Violence 15 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 • WPV Prevention Programs and Strategies 

could be useful, as well as training to improve 

awareness of cultural differences (diversity) 

and to enable the development of workers’ 

cultural competence. 

3.1.5	 Culture Change 

Employers should examine the workplace to 

determine if there are cultural barriers to WPV 

awareness and prevention. If needed, the workplace culture should be modified to foster increased awareness of WPV and prevention, the 

clarification and enumeration of acceptable and 

unacceptable behavior,WPV reporting, availability of support for victims, and availability of help 

for perpetrators (if employed by the company, as 

in Type III and sometimes Type IV WPV). 

3.1.6	 Evaluation 

Prevention programs and strategies should be 

evidence-based to the extent that evidence is 

available. However, often action must be taken 

before data can be collected and evidence of effectiveness obtained. It is crucial that companies 

make the effort to evaluate programs and strategies and cooperate with researchers in intervention effectiveness evaluation research. Employers 

may waste valuable resources on hazard control 

and training if evaluation procedures are not 

integrated into programs to measure impact. 

Information about successful programs and 

strategies must be effectively shared and communicated within companies and industry sectors 

and, where applicable, across sectors. While it is 

true that rigorous evaluation is challenging and 

often involves substantial cost, employers and researchers may, through collaboration, find ways 

to leverage their combined resources to selectively assess strategy and program effectiveness. In 

addition, such partnerships may provide a 

vehicle for sharing evaluation methods and 

results across many companies in an industry 

sector. 

3.2 Strategies Specific to 

Type I (Criminal Intent) 

Prevention 

The potential for Type I WPV exists across all 

industries but is prevalent in certain industries 

characterized by interaction with the public, 

the handling of cash, etc. Certain industries in 

the retail trade sector (convenience and liquor 

stores, for example) face higher than average 

risks. Specific environmental, behavioral, and 

administrative strategies have been implemented and evaluated as a result, particularly 

in convenience stores. A core group of interventions has been determined to be effective in 

convenience stores [Hendricks et al. 1999, Loomis et al. 2002], including the following: 

1. Environmental interventions 

—	 Cash control 

—	 Lighting control (indoor and outdoor) 

—	 Entry and exit control 

—	 Surveillance (e.g., mirrors and 

cameras, particularly closed-circuit 

cameras) 

—	 Signage 

2. Behavioral interventions 

—	 Training on appropriate robbery 

response 

—	 Training on use of safety equipment 

—	 Training on dealing with aggressive, 

drunk, or otherwise problem persons 

3. Administrative interventions 

—	 Hours of operation 

—	 Precautions during opening and 

closing 

—	 Good relationship with police 

16 Workplace Violence 
	 	 	

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 	 	 	

		

	 	

 

 

3 • WPV Prevention Programs and Strategies 

—	 Implementing safety and security 

policies for all workers 

Some interventions for convenience stores 

and other workplaces are controversial or not 

universally agreed upon by researchers. These 

instructions will require additional study, including the following: 

■	 Having multiple clerks on duty 

■	 Using taxicab partitions 

■	 Having security guards present 

■	 Providing bullet-resistant barriers 

3.3 Strategies Specific to 

Type II (Customer/Client 

Violence) Prevention 

3.3.1	 Adequate Staffing, Skill Mix 

One strategy that emerged from discussions of 

the Type II panel is that of ensuring adequate 

staffing and mix of skills to effectively serve client, customer, or patient needs. Low responsiveness and quality of service, which can result 

from inadequate staffing and skills of personnel, 

can produce frustration and agitation in clients 

or patients. For clients and patients, acute needs 

and accompanying real or perceived urgency 

combined with a history of violence, can place 

both staff and other clients/patients at risk. In 

addition, social services or health care workers 

who work alone may be vulnerable to assault, 

especially in worker-client relationships where 

the client has a criminal background or is mentally ill or emotionally disturbed. 

3.3.2	 Training 

In addition to general training on WPV hazards and organizational policies and procedures, training specific to Type II violence 

could include recognition of behavioral cues 

preceding violence, violence de-escalation 

techniques and other related interpersonal 

and communication skills, new requirements 

(in health care) for patient seclusion and restraint, and proper restraint and take-down 

techniques. 

3.3.3	 Accreditation Criteria Tied to 

WPV Prevention 

Another strategy would have accreditation 

bodies specify WPV program and training requirements as criteria for successfully meeting 

accreditation standards for social service and 

health care organizations and facilities. Specific programming and training in response to 

the demands of meeting such criteria should 

improve workplace protection from client/patient-based violence. 

3.4 Strategies Specific to 

Type III Violence (Workeron-Worker) Prevention 

3.4.1	 Evaluating Prospective 

Workers 

Preventing worker-on-worker violence begins 

during the hiring process by employers who 

ensure that job applicants are properly and 

thoroughly evaluated by means of background 

checks and reference verification. 

3.4.2	 Training in Policies/Reporting 

A key in worker-on-worker violence prevention is the comprehensive reporting of all prohibited behaviors among workers, including 

threatening, harassing, bullying, stalking, etc. 

Therefore, training during new worker orientation and subsequent refresher training should 

focus on company WPV definitions, policies, 

Workplace Violence 17 
 

	 	 		

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 	 	 		

	 	 	

 

3 • WPV Prevention Programs and Strategies 

and procedures. Also, reporting should be 

strongly encouraged and supported. 

3.4.3	 Focus on Observable 

Behaviors 

The perpetrators are present or former workers who usually have substantial knowledge 

of coworkers, physical surroundings, and often security and violence prevention measures. Observation and reporting of changes 

in behavior that become a concern are critical. 

Therefore, a successful prevention strategy will 

provide procedures for reporting and addressing 

observable behaviors that elevate to concerns. A 

strong company focus and emphasis on the observation and reporting of behaviors that generate concern, coupled with timely and consistent 

response (see Section 3.1.3), may help create a 

climate that deters violent behavior. 

3.5 Strategies Specific to Type 

IV (Personal Relationship 

Violence) Prevention 

3.5.1	 Training in Policies and 

Reporting 

To prevent Type IV violence, company policies and procedures must provide workers 

with clear-cut information about the nature 

of personal relationship or intimate partner 

violence (IPV), its observable traits and cues, 

and methods for discerning it in coworkers. 

Employers must train workers in what to do if 

they should suspect that a coworker is involved 

in interpersonal violence, either as a victim or 

perpetrator. Training should emphasize the 

relevant company policies and procedures. 

3.5.2	 A Culture of Support 

A company should strive to create a culture of 

support for victims that includes assurances no 

penalties exist for coming forward, complete 

confidentiality will be observed, safety and security protocols will be implemented, and referrals to appropriate community services will 

be provided as options to workers. A company 

should also inform all workers about the consequences of being a perpetrator of IPV or any 

other form of WPV. The company should communicate clearly through policies and training 

that IPV behavior is inappropriate and will be 

dealt with. Furthermore, the company should 

attempt to create a culture that both supports 

victims and enables perpetrators to seek help. 

Providing referrals to appropriate community 

services and implementing long-term programs that address battering and bullying behavior are reasonable approaches. 

18 Workplace Violence 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Research Needs for WPV 

Prevention 4 

This chapter presents WPV research needs, as 

identified by conference participants. It is tailored for use by researchers and research agencies and institutes engaged in, or interested in 

the study of WPV risk and prevention. Conference participants were asked to identify and 

discuss research and information dissemination gaps and offer strategies for filling those 

gaps. The overarching research needs identified by participants are presented below. It is 

hoped that this chapter can be used to inform 

the development of WPV research strategies 

and agendas. Further, it should be useful as 

a basis for formulating new research projects 

and for forging partnerships. 

■	 Establish national strategy/agenda. 

Under the leadership of NIOSH, researchers from government, academic 

and private research institutes, businesses and associations, worker advocacy groups and unions, and other 

organizations, should collaborate with 

business leaders, safety and health 

practitioners and advocates, and other 

interested stakeholders to establish a 

national research agenda for WPV. 

■	 Conduct evaluation research. A critical endeavor for research-business collaboration 

is the evaluation of prevention strategies and programs. The need is broad, 

spanning the wide range of prevention 

options, the types of violence, and the 

variety of industry sectors and individual workplaces. Evaluation research 

is also expensive and time consuming. 

Therefore, a strategic approach is needed in which priorities are carefully considered, costs are shared and resources 

leveraged, and results are widely disseminated especially to at-risk employers and workers and the associations 

and unions that represent them. 

■	 Develop consistent WPV definitions. 

Employers, workers, and everyone else 

with a stake in occupational violence 

must have a clear, shared conception of 

what constitutes WPV. In addition to 

a shared conceptual definition, a consistent operational definition is needed 

for comparability in reporting and data 

collection. 

■	 Ensure consistent and universal reporting. Reporting is an issue at the 

company level, at the industry level, 

and at the national level. Accurate and 

consistent reporting will enable both 

Workplace Violence 19 
4 • Research Needs for WPV Prevention 

■

targeting of prevention research and ■ Conduct economics research. Deciassessment of trends and effectiveness. sion makers in the private sector are 

accustomed to analyzing costs, benShare data among partners. Both busi­ efits, return on investments—in short, 

nesses and agencies possess data on examining the bottom line issues that 

reported WPV incidents, which if col- impact their businesses. Realistic aslected, combined, and analyzed, would sessments of the costs of WPV to busished light on the broader WPV expe­ nesses and society in general, and the 

rience in the United States, and could cost-benefit of prevention, including 

potentially enable more focused and cost-effectiveness comparisons of efthereby cost-efficient prevention ef­ fective, focused prevention options are 

forts in companies or sectors. needed. 

20 Workplace Violence 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Linking Research to Practice 5

Research that has been conducted to date 

must be translated into practical preventive 

workplace action. It is clear that Conference 

participants see a gap in the availability of 

evidence-based prevention options for industry—that is, between what is known and what 

is applied in the workplace. As additional evaluation studies and demonstration projects 

are concluded, research findings of effective 

preventive interventions must be proactively 

translated into prevention products and technologies and transferred to and implemented 

in workplaces. The translation, transfer, and 

wider implementation of prevention strategies and programs may be as or more time 

consuming, costly, and challenging as their 

initial development and validation. However, 

the substantial input provided by participants 

in the conference suggests that an excellent 

opportunity exists for a broad, collaborative 

effort to do the following: 

■	 Take stock of the knowledge base for 

WPV prevention. 

■	 Explore the gaps in that knowledge. 

■	 Prioritize needed research and information efforts. 

■	 Identify opportunities for wider implementation of known effective prevention 

measures throughout workplaces, companies, and industries at risk. 

■	 Identify and use existing data, findings, and knowledge that have yet to be 

translated and transferred to practical 

prevention technologies, products, interventions, strategies, programs, curricula, and recommendations. 

■	 Collaborate and cooperate fully with 

potential partners to plan new research 

with implications for practical prevention. 

■	 To help ensure such research, engage 

partners (particularly business and industry partners) earlier in the process 

of identifying problem areas and conceptualizing research projects and approaches. 

Conference participants identified the following overarching needs in linking research to 

practice: 

■	 Establish and maintain a clearinghouse 

of WPV-related information, particularly 

evidence-based programs and strategies. 

As in many domains, the volume of 

information related to WPV risks and 

prevention is growing. A daunting 

Workplace Violence 21 
 

 

 

 

 

 

5 • Linking Research to Practice 

■

challenge looms in the organization, 

validation (assessment of reliability), 

tailoring, and distribution of information about WPV risks, prevention strategies and options, research findings, 

cost data, and other pertinent knowledge components. A key design objective should be easy access for employers 

and all other partners. 

Sponsor national, public information/ 

education campaigns to raise awareness 

of WPV, emphasize the importance of 

prevention programs, and provide contact information for support services. 

Wider awareness of the prevalence of 

WPV is needed among at-risk employers 

and workers, policy makers, media, and 

the general public. Federal government 

partners should help communicate existing knowledge, including what constitutes WPV, the types of WPV, the 

sectors and occupations at risk, and the 

critical roles of research, evaluation, and 

company policies and programs in the 

prevention effort. Information about 

availability of support services for organizations and individuals should be 

included. Such information might be 

particularly useful to companies seeking to develop and implement WPV 

programs, and individuals seeking help 

who may be either victims or perpetrators of WPV. 

22 Workplace Violence 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Partners and Their Roles 6

Participants in conference discussions repeatedly emphasized the importance of collaborating and partnering in WPV prevention—from 

the interdisciplinary and interdepartmental 

collaboration (so crucial to developing and implementing prevention programs) to national 

interorganizational partnerships (essential for 

advancing WPV research, implementing findings, and evaluating efforts). Partners need to be 

identified and engaged; roles need to be determined; agendas, strategies, and plans need to be 

developed; and programs need to be established, 

implemented, and evaluated. 

This section identifies some of the partners 

(or types of partners) that participants suggested were necessary to the WPV research and 

prevention effort, as well as some of the roles 

and responsibilities that participants thought 

fit well with each based on their missions and 

activities. 

6.1 NIOSH 

NIOSH was recognized as a key organization, 

both in assuming specific roles and responsibilities suggested during the discussions and in 

facilitating the collective efforts of a wide range 

of partners. NIOSH was recognized for its current roles and activities as a leading research 

center, as a voice for objectivity in research and 

dissemination, as a strong advocate for identifying and improving effective research and 

prevention approaches, and as an organization 

that leverages resources, engages stakeholders, 

and prepares and disseminates information for 

the business community. 

In addition to the NIOSH role in conducting, 

collaborating in, and coordinating WPV research, the following principal roles were suggested for NIOSH: 

■	 Developing and keeping a clearinghouse 

of information about violent workplace 

events, model programs, data collection 

instruments, implementation practices, 

and other pertinent information potentially useful to employers and other 

stakeholders 

■	 Developing (1) data-gathering standards 

for compiling data from disparate sources and (2) a reporting system that captures all WPV events—verbal abuse and 

other threatening behaviors as well as injury outcomes 

■	 Leading an effort to make the issue of 

WPV more visible (through public information and education campaigns, 

for example) 

Workplace Violence 23 
 

 

 

 

 

6 • Partners and their Roles 

6.2 Other Federal Partners 

Suggested roles for other relevant Federal partners (such as OSHA, BLS, the Department of 

Justice, the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, the Veteran’s Administration, and other agencies that collect relevant 

data or regulate industry) in collaboration 

with NIOSH include the following: 

■	 Coordinating the national WPV prevention effort over the next decade 

■	 Forging a common definition with employer alliances and worker advocacy 

groups to identify the range of behaviors that constitute WPV 

■	 Gathering data on the Federal workforce 

(the Nation’s largest worker group) 

■	 Implementing WPV prevention programs in Federal workplaces 

■	 Ensuring and maintaining up-to-date 

statistics on WPV 

■	 Adopting a partnership model to develop regulations addressing WPV 

6.3 State Agencies 

These roles were suggested for State agencies: 

■	 Collaborating with Federal partners 

to embrace common definition(s) of 

WPV 

■	 Quantifying victimizations among State 

workers and thereby adding to the available data 

■	 Determining specific and relevant strategies for prevention in State government 

6.4 Private-Sector 

Companies, Corporations, 

and Alliances 

Roles suggested for private-sector companies, 

corporations, and alliances are the following: 

■	 Contributing to the effort to forge 

common WPV definitions along with 

government agencies and worker advocacy groups 

■	 Sharing data on WPV events as well 

as successes, problems, and methods 

to overcome barriers in implementing 

WPV prevention programs and strategies. 

■	 Adopting WPV prevention strategies 

that have been recommended and verified by Federal agencies 

6.5 Business and Community 

Organizations 

Suggested roles for business and community 

organizations are as follows: 

■	 Serving as conveners, bringing together 

factions of the community to engage in 

dialog, striving to comprehend the issue, and forging a coordinated response 

to WPV prevention 

■	 Sharing prevention programs and strategies: a businesses-helping-businesses 

approach 

■	 Assisting government, media, and educational institutions in increasing public 

awareness of WPV risks and prevention 

24 Workplace Violence 
 

 

 

 

 

 

6 • Partners and their Roles 

6.6 Insurers 

The following roles were suggested for insurers: 

■	 Providing incentives, primarily by reducing workers’ compensation premiums for employers who implement WPV 

prevention programs that demonstrably 

lower workers’ compensation costs 

■	 Supporting research that seeks economic evidence that violence prevention provides a return on investment to 

employers or other entities investing in 

WPV prevention 

6.7 Law Enforcement 

Roles suggested for law enforcement agencies 

include the following: 

■	 Collecting more detailed data and standardizing definitions 

■	 Disseminating evidence-based prevention information 

■	 Providing assistance to businesses in 

taking prevention steps 

■	 Participating in research efforts to 

address the prevention of workplace 

crime and violence 

■	 Focusing on community-oriented policing 

6.8 The Legal Profession 

These roles were suggested for the legal profession: 

■	 Appropriately balancing the need for 

collecting accurate WPV victimization 

data with the tangle of overlapping privacy interest laws 

■	 Securing exemptions or waivers from 

existing privacy restraints in order to 

collect data 

■	 Training attorneys to be sensitive and 

provide outreach to affected clients 

6.9 Academic Research 

Institutions 

The following roles were suggested for academic research institutions: 

■	 Training new researchers entering the 

field 

■	 Raising the research bar by setting the example in research and crafting violence 

prevention strategies based on findings 

■	 Playing a proactive role in accessing private industry data 

■	 Emphasizing in its law, business, and 

management curricula the dynamics of 

WPV and its impact on workers, families, and corporate health 

6.10 The Media 

The role suggested for the media was providing 

public service announcements (PSAs) in support of public information campaigns. 

6.11 The Medical Community 

The medical community’s suggested role was 

to improve recognition and reporting of potential cases of injury or stress from WPV. 

6.12 Worker Assistance 

Programs 

Suggested roles for worker assistance programs 

were the following: 

Workplace Violence 25 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6 • Partners and their Roles 

■	 Improving screening and recognition of 

potential WPV issues 

■	 Being involved in response to WPV incidents to serve victim, witness, and coworker needs 

6.13 Social Advocacy 

Organizations 

Roles suggested for social advocacy organizations were the following: 

■	 Contributing to the effort to forge common WPV definitions with Federal, 

State, business, and labor partners 

■	 Developing media campaigns following 

the model provided by Mothers Against 

Drunk Driving (MADD) 

6.14 Other National 

Organizations 

The following roles were suggested for other 

national organizations: 

■	 Having safety and security specialists and 

organizations interact with research and 

regulatorycommunitiestoenableresearchto-practice linkage (incorporate findings 

in their programs and procedures) and to 

provide expert input to researchers and 

regulators 

■	 Having academic schools of architecture, urban planning, and civil engineering to interact with violence 

prevention partners to provide expert 

input to research and regulatory efforts 

and to incorporate safety and security 

considerations into their designs 

26 Workplace Violence 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Conclusions 7

This report summarizes the discussions that 

occurred during the conference Partnering 

in Workplace Violence Prevention: Translating 

Research to Practice in Baltimore, Maryland, 

in November 2004. Many ideas are presented 

about what is missing from the national effort to study and prevent WPV. Some gaps 

could be addressed by increasing intervention 

evaluation research; improving reporting, data 

collection, and data sharing; facilitating and 

enabling organizations to foster the dynamic 

commitment and cooperation of employers 

and workers; analyzing costs and cost-benefits; 

and improving organization and delivery of 

risk and prevention information. Other gaps 

are more specific to the types of violence, the 

various roles and relations among partnering 

organizations, or the industries and occupations involved. 

Great strides have been made over the past 

two decades. Likewise, opportunities exist to 

address the barriers and gaps outlined in this 

report and to achieve a more coordinated, efficient, and cost-effective national effort to 

understand, control, and prevent violent incidents at work. These violent incidents damage 

or destroy the victims’ sense of security, dignity, and (too often) their well-being and their 

lives. They represent a large toll to our society. 

The key to the utility and impact of a report 

such as this is the extent to which people and 

organizations can visualize and initiate the efforts and partnerships needed to understand 

and reduce the risks of WPV within their 

spheres of influence. We encourage your interest, involvement, and collaboration in this 

effort. 

Workplace Violence 27 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References
 

BLS [2005]. Census of fatal occupational injuries. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics [http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cfoi. 

pdf]. 

Bureau of Justice Statistics [2001]. Violence in the workplace, 1993–1999: special report from the National 

Crime Victimization Survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics [www. 

ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/vw99.pdf]. 

Cal/OSHA [1995]. Cal/OSHA guidelines for workplace 

security. Sacramento, CA: California Occupational Safety and Health Administration [www.dir.ca.gov/dosh/ 

dosh%SFpublications/worksecurity.html]. 

Hales T, Seligman PJ, Newman SC, Timbrook CL [1988]. 

Occupational injuries due to violence. J Occup Med 

30(6):483–487. 

Hendricks SA, Landsittel DP, Amandus HE, Malcan J, 

Bell J [1999]. A matched case-control study of convenience store robbery risk factors. J Occup Environ Med 

41(11):995–1004. 

Howard J [1996]. State and local regulatory approaches 

to preventing WPV. Occup Med: State of the Art Reviews 11:2. 

IPRC [2001]. WPV: a report to the nation. Iowa City, IA: 

University of Iowa, Injury Prevention Research Center, 

February. 

Liberty Mutual [2004]. Liberty mutual workplace safety 

index: the direct costs and leading causes of workplace 

injuries. Boston, MA: Liberty Mutual, 4 pp. [http://www. 

libertymutual.com/omapps/ContentServer?cid=107843 

9448036&pagename=ResearchCenter%2FDocument% 

2FShowDoc&c=Document]. 

Loomis D, Marshall SW, Wolf SH, Runyan CW, Butts 

JD [2002]. Effectiveness of measures for prevention of 

workplace homicide. JAMA 287(8):1011–1017. 

National Library of Medicine. PubMed bibliographic database search conducted on-line (search strategy: “WPV” 

OR “occupational violence” OR “workplace assault” OR 

“occupational assault” OR “workplace homicide” OR 

“occupational homicide”) [www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed]. Date accessed: July 8, 

2005. 

NIOSH [1996]. Current Intelligence Bulletin 57: Violence in the workplace; risk factors and prevention strategies. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and 

Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 96–100. 

NIOSH [1989]. National traumatic occupational fatalities, 1980–1985. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease and 

Control Prevention, National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 

89–116. 

NIOSH [2002]. Violence: occupational hazards in hospitals. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services, Centers for Disease and Control Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and 

Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2002–101. 

NIOSH [2004]. Partnering in workplace violence prevention: translating research to practice. Conference 

held in Baltimore, Maryland, November 15–17. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services, Centers for Disease and Control Prevention, 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

[www.cdc.gov/niosh/conferences/work-violence/]. 

OSHA [2004]. Guidelines for preventing WPV for health 

care and social service workers, OSHA 3148-01R. Washington, DC: Occupational Safety and Health Administration [www.osha.gov/Publications/osha3148.pdf]. 

Rugala EA, Isaacs AR [2004]. Workplace violence: issues 

in response. Quantico, VA: FBI Academy, Federal Bureau 

of Investigation, National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime, Critical Incident Response Group [www.fbi. 

gov/publications/violence.pdf ]. 

USC. United States Code. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

28 Workplace Violence 
 

 

 

 

Appendix
 

Conference Participants 

Participants in Partnering in Workplace Violence Prevention: Translating Research to Practice,
 

Baltimore, Maryland, November 15–17, 2004
 

Jorge Acuna 

Crisis Prevention Institute 

jacuna@crisisprevention.com 

262–317–3445 

Steve Albrecht 

Albrecht Training & Development 

drsteve@drstevealbrecht.com 

619–445–4735 

Sania Amr 

University of Maryland, School of Medicine 

samr@epi.umaryland.edu 

410–706–1466 

Kristi Anderson 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and 

Health 

kanderson2@cdc.gov 

304–285–6362 

Debra Anderson 

University of Kentucky 

debra.anderson@uky.edu 

859–257–3410 

Susie Ashby 

U.S. Army 

Susie.Ashby@usag.apg.army.mil 

410–306–1057 

Jim Azekely 

International Taxi Drivers Safety Council 

Jim4Safety@aol.com 

304–525–0902 

Karen Baker 

National Sexual Violence Resource Center 

kbaker@nsvrc.org 

717–909–0710, Ext. 101 

Charlene Baker 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

cbaker@cdc.gov 

770–488–1737 

Marianne Balin 

Blue Shield of California Foundation 

marianne.balin@blueshieldcafoundation.org 

415–229–5215 

Angela Banks 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

abanks@cdc.gov 

770–488–4273 

Gregory T. Barber Sr. 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration 

Barber.Greg@dol.gov 

202–693–2473 

Cathleen Batton 

Baltimore County Police Department 

CBatton@co.ba.md.us 

410–931–2145 

DeAnna Beckman 

University of Cincinnati 

deanna.beckman@uc.edu 

513–558–3951 

Javier Berezdivin 

AngerExperts.com 

javierb@aol.com 

305–757–2161 

David Bernstein 

Forensic Consultants, PC 

drbernstein@forensicconsultants.com 

860–833–7732 

Workplace Violence 29 
 

 

 

 

Jean Berrier 

Convenience Store Safety Committee 

Davidberrier@cox.com 

757–425–2396 

Patricia Biles 

Biles and Associates 

bandbiles@aol.com 

202–484–8226 

Vicki Black 

U.S. Army 

Vicki.Black@usag.apg.army.mil 

410–278–7155 

Heather Blackiston 

DAOHN 

heather.blackiston@mbna.com 

302–458–0586 

Barbara Blakeney 

American Nurses Association 

Bblakene@ana.org 

James Blando 

New Jersey Department of Health 

james.blando@doh.state.nj.us 

609–777–3039 

Chris Blodgett 

Washington State University 

blodgett@wsu.edu 

509–358–7679 

Meg Boendier 

Workplace Violence Advocate 

mboendier@aol.com 

Matt Bowyer 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and 

Health 

mbowyer@cdc.gov 

304–285–5991 

Mark Braverman 

Marsh USA 

mark.braverman@marsh.com 

202–263–7938 

Ann Brockhaus 

ORC Worldwide 

brockhaus@orc-dc.com 

202–293–2980 

Jean–Pierre Brun 

Laval University 

jean–pierre.brun@mng.ulaval.ca 

418–656–2405 

Tanya Burrwell 

American Psychological Association 

tburrwell@apa.org 

202–336–6049 

John Byrnes 

AON Aggression Management 

DrJohnByrnes@AggressionManagement.com 

407–804–2434 

Nancy Carothers 

Convenience Store Safety Committee 

nmcaroth@pacbell.net 

650–867–8349 

Norman Caulfield 

Commission for Labor Cooperation 

ncaulfield@naalc.org 

202–464–1107 

Rebecca Cline 

Ohio Domestic Violence Network 

rclineodvn@aol.com 

330–725–8405 

James Coleman 

National Council of Chain Restaurants 

jcoleman@constangy.com 

571–522–6100 

Joanne Colucci 

American Express Company 

joanne.colucci@aexp.com 

877–208–7492 

30 Workplace Violence 
 

 

 

Phaedra Corso 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

pcorso@cdc.gov 

770–488–1734 

Francis D’Addario 

Starbucks Coffee Company 

fdaddari@starbucks.com 

206–318–8736 

Linda Dahlberg 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

ldahlberg@cdc.gov 

770–488–4496 

Lucia Davis–Raiford 

Miami–Dade County Government 

davisra@miamidade.gov 

305–375–2685 

David Dawson 

Empowerlink Threat Management 

empowerlink@iprimus.ca 

905–945–0101 

Butch de Castro 

American Nurses Association 

Bdecastro@ana.org 

Katherine Deitcher 

DAOHN 

katherine.deitcher@mbna.com 

302–432–0025 

Richard V. Denenberg 

Workplace Solutions, Inc. 

worksolutions@taconic.net 

518–398–5111 

Tia Schneider Denenberg 

Workplace Solutions, Inc. 

worksolutions@taconic.net 

518–398–5111 

Frank Denny 

Department of Veterans Affairs 

frank.denny@mail.va.gov 

202–273–9743 

Bob DeSiervo 

American Society of Safety Engineers 

bdesiervo@asse.org 

847–768–3402 

Carmen Dieguez 

Miami–Dade County Government 

ccd@miamidade.gov 

305–375–2682 

Edward DiSabatino 

MBNA Bank 

francis.dixon@mbna.com 

302–457–2167 

Francis Dixon 

MBNA Bank 

francis.dixon@mbna.com 

302–457–2179 

Stephen Doherty 

Doherty Partners LLC 

s.doherty@dohertypartners.com 

617–393–9928 

Brooke Doman 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and 

Health 

bdoman@cdc.gov 

Robert Dorsey 

Santa Clara County Domestic Violence 

Council 

bdorsey@cisco.com 

408–525–0107 

Terrie Dort 

National Council of Chain Restaurants 

dortt@nrf.com 

202–626–8183 

Workplace Violence 31 
 

 

 

 

Rosanne Dufour 

Commission des normes du travail 

rosanne.dufour@cnt.gouv.qc.ca 

418–380–8521 

Carole Dupere 

Commission des normes du travail 

carole.dupere@cnt.gouv.qc.ca 

514–873–4947 

Jennifer Edens 

Federal Bureau of Prisons 

jedens@bop.gov 

202–514–4492 

Gerhard Eisele 

Oak Ridge Associated Universities 

eiseleg@orau.gov 

865–576–2208 

Rosemary Erickson 

Athena Research Corporation 

rjerickson@athenaresearch.com 

605–275–6028 

Shelley Erickson 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety 

and Inspection Service 

shelley.erickson@fsis.usda.gov 

515–727–8981 

Don Faggiani 

Police Executive Research Forum 

dfaggiani@policeforum.org 

202–321–9354 

Gary Farkas 

Psychologist/HR Consultant 

gary@garyfarkas.com 

808–521–2433 

Richard Fazzio 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration 

fazzio.richard@dol.gov 

617–565–8110 

Giuseppe Fichera 

Department Occupational Health Clinica Del 

Lavoro Luigi Devoto 

giuseppe.fichera@unipd.it 

0039/02/5454091 

Dawn Fischer 

U.S. Army 

Dawn.Fischer@usag.apg.army.mil 

410–278–3609 

John Flood 

U.S. Air Force 

jbflood68@yahoo.com 

405–234–2262 

Pamela Foreman 

University of California San Francisco 

pforeman@itsa.ucsf.edu 

707–292–1886 

James Fox 

Northeastern University 

j.fox@neu.edu 

617–373–3296 

Kelley Frampton 

U.S. Bureau of Labor 

frampton_K@bls.gov 

202–691–6189 

Roland (Ron) Fravel III 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety 

and Inspection Service 

roland.fravel@fsis.usda.gov 

202–690–1999 

Eric Frazer 

Forensic Consultants, PC 

Yale University School of Medicine 

drfrazer@forensicconsultants.com 

203–624–0111 

Tom Galassi 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration 

Galassi.Thomas@dol.gov 

202–693–2100 

32 Workplace Violence 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Linda Garber 

State Farm Insurance 

linda.c.garber.cyp2@statefarm.com 

434–872–5958 

Chantenia Gay 

U.S. Department of Labor 

gay.chantenia@dol.gov 

202–693–4906 

Dorothy Goff 

Consultant 

651–777–0311 

Teague Griffith 

National WPV Prevention Partnership/SCDVC 

scdvcmail@domesticviolence.net 

509–487–6783 

Paula Grubb 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and 

Health 

pgrubb@cdc.gov 

513–533–8179 

Jeffrey Hagen 

The Community College of Baltimore County 

jhagen@ccbcmd.edu 

410–780–6955 

Mary Jane Haggitt 

University of Washington 

rredcar@comcast.net 

770–712–8113 

Patrick Hancock 

Baltimore County Public Schools 

phancock@bcps.org 

410–887–4133 

Sarah Hansel 

VA Maryland Health Care System 

sarah.hansel@med.va.gov 

410–642–2411, Ext. 5499 

Jim Hardeman 

WPV Prevention, Inc. 

JAAMES73@AOL.COM 

508–746–6021 

Randy Harper 

HCR Manor Care 

rharper@hcrmanorcare.com 

410–480–2333 

Daniel Hartley 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and 

Health 

dhartley@cdc.gov 

304–285–5812 

Gail Heller 

gheller@choicesdvcols.org 

614–258–6080 

Jennifer Hilliard 

American Association of Homes and Services 

 for the Aging 

jhilliard@aahsa.org 

202–508–9444 

Michael Hodgson 

Veterans Health Administration 

muh7@mail.va.gov 

202–273–8353 

John Howard 

Director, National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health 

jhoward1@cdc.gov 

202–401–6997 

Terri Howard 

Target Corporation 

terri.howard@target.com 

612–761–4214 

Lee Husting 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and 

Health 

ehusting@cdc.gov 

404–498–2506 

Workplace Violence 33 
 

 

Lisalyn R. Jacobs 

Legal Momentum 

ljacobs@legalmomentum.org 

202–326–0040 

Lynn Jenkins 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and 

Health 

ljenkins@cdc.gov 

304–285–5822 

Barbara Kabrick 

International Taxi Drivers Safety Council 

barbj2799@comcast.net 

509–475–3842 

Ann Kaminstein 

DV Initiative 

ann@dvinitiative.com 

617–306–6969 

Michelle Keeney 

U.S. Secret Service 

Michelle.Keeney@usss.dhs.gov 

202–406–5205 

Gwendolyn Keita 

American Psychological Association 

gkeita@apa.org 

202–336–6044 

Susan Kindred 

CCBC-Catonsville 

skindred@ccbcmd.edu 

410–455–5133 

Trina King 

U.S. Postal Service 

trina.l.king@usps.gov 

202–268–3981 

Carrie Kirasic 

Weber Aircraft 

Clkirasic@msn.com 

Nicholas Lamis III 

Miami–Dade County Government 

NLamis@miamidade.gov 

305–375–2680 

John Lane 

The Omega Threat Management Group, Inc. 

OMEGATMG@AOL.COM 

310–551–2063 

Douglas Leach 

Blue Shield of CA Foundation 

douglas.leach@blueshieldcafoundation.org 

415–229–5462 

Rocky Leavitt 

Ken Bu Kai, Inc., Martial Arts 

rocky@kenbukan.org 

270–982–3548 

Theresa Leavitt 

Business Leaders National, Inc. 

busilead@kenbukan.org 

270–723–7463 

Cheri Lee 

Texas Health Resources 

cherilee@texashealh.org 

817–462–7073 

Johnny Lee 

Peace at Work 

jlee@peaceatwork.org 

919–719–7203 

Hank Linden 

Longview Associates, Inc. 

Hlinden@problemshavesolutions.com 

914–946–0525 

Herbert Linn 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and 

Health 

hlinn@cdc.gov 

304–285–5947 

34 Workplace Violence 
 

 

Jane Lipscomb 

University of Maryland 

lipscomb@son.umaryland.edu 

Rich Lombard 

Unity Health System 

rlombard@unityhealth.org 

585–589–0662 

Thomas Lowe 

New York State Nurses Association 

thomas.lowe@nysna.org 

212–785–0157, Ext. 200 

Wayne Lundstrom 

WV Fatality Assessment and Control 

 Evaluation (WVFACE) 

wlundstrom@hsc.wvu.edu 

304–293–1529 

Jay Malcan 

Virginia Union University 

jmalcan@ci.richmond.va.us 

804–646–6119 

Daniel McDonald 

Veterans Health Affairs 

daniel.mcdonald@lrn.va.gov 

205–731–1812 

David McKay 

Ohio Domestic Violence Network 

pndmc@bright.net 

937–492–9995 

Kate McPhaul 

University of Maryland Baltimore 

mcphaul@son.umaryland.edu 

410–706–4907 

Dan Michael 

Target Corporation 

Dan.Michael@target.com 

612–696–4133 

Randall Miller 

Baltimore County Police Department 

rmiller@co.ba.md.us 

410–931–2165 

Sarah Miller 

U.S. Department of Labor, Women’s Bureau 

miller.sarah@dol.gov 

202–693–6716 

Leah Morfin 

Ms. Foundation for Women 

lmorfin@ms.foundation.org 

212–709–4405 

Nancy Munro 

American Association of Critical Care Nurses 

jonamunr@hotmail.com 

703–450–7911 

Christine Neubauer 

State Farm Insurance 

Barry Nixon 

National Institute for the Prevention of WPV, 

Inc. 

wbnixon@aol.com 

949–770–5264 

Ellen Nolan 

Prince William County Government 

enolan@pwcgov.org 

703–792–7967 

Denise Null 

General Motors 

denise.p.null@gm.com 

410–631–2103 

John O’Brien 

Veteran’s Medical Center of Baltimore 

John.Obrien@med.va.gov 

410–605–7012 

Emily O’Hagan 

New Jersey Department of Health 

emily.ohagan@doh.state.nj.us 

609–292–9553 

Workplace Violence 35 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anne O’Leary-Kelly 

University of Arkansas 

aokelly@walton.uark.edu 

479–575–4566 

Marc Oliver 

University of Maryland 

moliver@medicine.umaryland.edu 

Richard Ottenstein 

The Workplace Trauma Center 

rjo@workplacetraumacenter.com 

410–363–4432 

Paul Papp 

U.S. Army 

Paul.Papp@usag.apg.army.mil 

410–306–1079 

George W. Pearson 

TritonPCS/SunCom 

gpearson@tritonpcs.com 

804–364–7381 

Corinne Peek–Asa 

University of Iowa Injury Prevention Research 

Center 

corinne-peek-asa@uiowa.edu 

319–335–4895 

Timothy Pizatella 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and 

 Health 

tpizatella@cdc.gov 

304–285–5894 

Roderick Pullen 

Community College of Baltimore County 

System 

rpullen@ccbcmd.edu 

410–455–4455 

Susan Randolph 

University of North Carolina School of

 Public Health 

susan.randolph@unc.edu 

919–966–0979 

Deborah Reed 

Illinois Nurses Association 

debbireedrn@aol.com 

217–523–0783 

Carol Reeves 

University of Arkansas 

creeves@walton.uark.edu 

479–575–6220 

Chiara Rengo 

Department Occupational Health Clinica Del 

Lavoro Luigi Devoto 

omscons@unimi.it 

0039/02/5454091 

Joyce Renner 

State Farm Insurance 

joyce.renner.bh1q@statefarm.com 

301–620–6130 

William Rhoads 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

wrhoads@cdc.gov 

770–488–1284 

Robyn Robbins 

United Food and Commercial Workers Union 

rrobbins@ufcw.org 

202–466–1505 

Roger Rosa 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and 

Health 

rrosa@cdc.gov 

202–205–7856 

Jonathan Rosen 

New York State Public Employees Federation 

Jrosen@pef.org 

518–785–1900, Ext. 385 

Benjamin Ross 

Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

rpss.benjamin@dol.gov 

404–562–2284 

36 Workplace Violence 
 

 

 

Emily Rothman 

Boston University School of Public Health,

 Department of Social and Behavioral 

 Sciences 

emfaith@aol.com 

617–414–1385 

Art Rudat 

America Online, Inc. 

arudat1@aol.com 

703–265–5733 

Eugene Rugala 

earugala@fbiacademy.edu 

703–632–4321 

Robin Runge 

American Bar Association Commission on 

Domestic Violence 

runger@staff.abanet.org 

202–662–8637 

Georgia Sabatini 

MBNA America 

georgia.sabatini@mbna.com 

410–229–6572 

Vikki Sanders 

OSHA Consultation, Minnesota 

Vikki.sanders@state.mn.us 

651–284–5274 

Mario Scalora 

University of Nebraska, Lincoln 

mscalora1@unl.edu 

402–472–3126 

James Scaringi 

Department of Veterans Affairs 

james.scaringi@mail.va.gov 

202–273–7381 

Ronald Schouten 

Massachusetts General Hospital/Harvard 

Medical School 

rschouten@partners.org 

617–726–5195 

Mark Scovill 

Texas Health Resources 

MarkScovill@TexasHealth.org 

817–462–7665 

Rick Seta 

New York Police Department 

rick.seta@mbna.com 

302–457–3242 

Barbara Silverstein 

Washington State Dept Labor and Industries 

silb235@lni.wa.gov 

360–902–5668 

Rita Smith 

National Coalition Against Domestic Violence 

rsmith@ncadv.org 

303–839–1852, Ext. 105 

Kate Snyder 

DAOHN 

kathleen.snyder@mbna.com 

302–432–0024 

Rebecca Speer 

Speer Associates 

speer@workplacelaw.com 

415–283–4888 

Robert Stabler 

Cape Canaveral Hospital 

Bob.Stabler@Health-First.org 

321–868–7235 

Jennifer Stapleton 

Corporate Alliance to End Partner Violence 

jstapleton@domesticviolence.net 

509–487–6783 

Arnie Stenseth 

Athena Research Corp. 

spook163@athenaresearch.com 

605–275–6028 

Workplace Violence 37 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Nancy Harvey 

Steorts International 

safety@crols.com 

703–790–5116 

Kiersten Stewart 

Family Violence Prevention Fund 

kiersten@endabuse.org 

202–682–1212 

Harley Stock 

Incident Management Group 

gbmi@aol.com 

954–452–0434 

Nancy Stout 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and 

Health 

nstout@cdc.gov 

304–285–5894 

Craig Swallow 

craig.swallow@connexion2.com 

+44 7968726891 

Reena Tandon 

Johns Hopkins School of Public Health 

rtando@jhsph.edu 

Linda Tapp 

American Society of Safety Engineers 

LTapp@crownsafety.com 

856–489–6510 

Robin Thompson 

Robin H. Thompson & Associates 

r-t@att.net 

Corey Thompson 

American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO 

C_Thomspon@verizon.net 

202–842–4273 

Craig Thorne 

University of Maryland School of Medicine 

cthorne@medicine.umaryland.edu 

410–706–7464 

Phil Travers 

Consumer Product Safety Commission 

ptravers@cpsc.gov 

303–504–7447 

Glenn Valis 

MBNA America 

glenn.valis@mbna.com 

410–229–6678 

Dana Vogelsang 

Florida Department of Health 

Dana_Vogelsang@doh.state.fl.us 

561–662–5647 

KC Wagner 

Cornell University–ILR 

kcw8@cornell.edu 

212–340–2826 

Jane Walstedt 

U.S. Department of Labor, Women’s Bureau 

Walstedt.Jane@dol.gov 

202–693–6781 

Dutchin Webster 

CWA Local 2107 

Dutchgirl418@aol.com 

410–768–0611 

Kim Wells 

Corporate Alliance to End Partner Violence 

kwells@caepv.org 

309–664–0667 

Deborah Widiss 

Legal Momentum 

dwidiss@legalmomentum.org 

212–925–6635 

Carol Wilkinson 

IBM 

drcarol@us.ibm.com 

914–499–5555 

William Zimmerman 

United States Capitol Police Threat Assessment 

Section 

william_zimmerman@cap-police.senate.gov 

202–224–1495 

38 Workplace Violence