w o r k p l a c eiolence dealing with

United States

Office of

Personnel

Management

Office of 

Workforce Relations

OWR-09

February 1998

a Guide for

Agency Planners
A Guide forAgency Planners

FOREWORD

Preventing workplace violence is a growing concern in the United States. Public interest and

media attention have focused primarily on dramatic but very rare types of violence such as

shootings by disgruntled employees in office buildings. Planners of workplace violence programs

face the dual challenge of reducing employees’ anxiety about very rare risk factors while focusing

their attention on more likely sources of danger. Undue anxiety about the “office gunman” can

stand in the way of identifying more significant, but less dramatic, risk factors such as poorly

lighted parking lots or gaps in employee training programs. This anxiety can also make it more

difficult to cope with one of the most common workplace violence problems — the employee

whose language or behavior frightens coworkers.

Federal employees in organizations such as the National Institute for Occupational Safety and

Health and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration have played a leading role in

helping employers recognize and respond appropriately to the actual risks of workplace violence

faced by their employees. At the same time, the risk of violence against Federal employees

themselves has received increased attention, particularly in response to the tragic loss of life in the

terrorist bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995. For many

Federal workers, the anti-government sentiment they had handled on the job for years suddenly

acquired a new and terrifying context.

Even before the Oklahoma City tragedy, Federal managers and specialists, like their private sector

counterparts, were becoming aware of the dangers of workplace violence and concerned about

developing preventive programs for their employees. This was a challenging endeavor. When they

turned to the private sector for expert guidance, they often found advice that was not necessarily

compatible with Federal laws and regulations, or that failed to cover issues faced by Federal

employees. However, in attempting to develop their own programs, agencies often discovered that

they lacked the expertise necessary for a truly comprehensive approach. Depending on its mission,

an agency might be rich in law enforcement personnel but without the needed resources in mental

health or other disciplines whose input was essential.

In the spirit of reinventing government, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management organized the

Interagency Working Group on Violence in the Workplace. The purpose was to bring together a

multi-disciplinary group of experienced professionals from throughout the Federal Government in

order to develop comprehensive approaches to analyzing and responding to threats or incidents of

violence in the Federal workplace. This document is a product of the U.S. Office of Personnel

Management and the Interagency Working Group.
Dealing with Workplace Violence

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This handbook reflects the contributions of experts from many professions and many Federal

agencies. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) wishes to thank all those who contributed

to the development of the handbook. We especially appreciate the assistance given by the

Department of Justice and the General Services Administration’s Federal Protective Service on

issues concerning law enforcement and security. Special thanks also go to the individuals listed

below whose willingness to share their expertise, experience, and talents enabled OPM to develop

guidance that provides answers to some of the most difficult questions about handling potentially

violent situations.

Melvin Basye, Federal Protective Service

Gary Beard, Federal Protective Service

Bernard Beidel, U.S. House of Representatives

Thomas Bresson, Smithsonian Institution

Donna Byler, Department of Army

Cathleen Civiello, Ph.D., Department of Defense

Scott Cooper, Esq., Department of Justice

Ben Elliott, Department of Justice

Robert L. Eufemia, Ed.D., Government Printing Office

Yvonne Fair, Department of Navy

Robert A. Fein, Ph.D., Consultant

Cynthia Field, Consultant

Michael Gelles, Psy.D., Naval Criminal Investigative Service

Lauretta Grier, Department of Housing and Urban Development

Lana Katz, American Federation of Government Employees, retired

Mark Maggio, Federal Judicial Center

Peter McCauley, Internal Revenue Service, retired

Michael McClure, Department of Army

Randi Mendelsohn, Federal Emergency Management Agency

Lloyd Reese, Department of Veterans Affairs, retired

Milagro Rodriguez, American Federation of Government Employees

Eugene Rugala, Federal Bureau of Investigation

Lisa Teems, Department of Health and Human Services

Bryan Vossekuil, U.S. Secret Service

Janice Walker, Department of Navy

Patricia Willman, Department of Interior

John D. Zielinski, National Labor Relations Board
A Guide forAgency Planners i

INTRODUCTION

Purpose of Handbook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

The Importance of Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

PART I: THE BASIC STEPS 

OF PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

SECTION 1 PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Forming a Planning Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Working with Your Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Steps in the Planning Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

SECTION 2 DEVELOPMENT OF WRITTEN 

POLICY STATEMENT

Advantages of Written Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Policy Statement Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Recommended Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

SECTION 3 PREVENTION

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Warning Signs of Violence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Pre-Employment Screening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Security Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Using Alternative Dispute Resolution 

(ADR) as a Preventive Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

PART II: CASE STUDIES

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Basic Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

How to Use the Case Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Case Study 1 - A Shooting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Case Study 2 - Viciously Beating 

and Wounding a Coworker . . . . . . . 35

Case Study 3 - A Suicide Attempt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Case Study 4 - Stalking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Case Study 5 - A Domestic Violence Situation . . . . 43

Case Study 6 - A Threat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Case Study 7 - Veiled Threats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Case Study 8 - A Threat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ii Dealing with Workplace Violence

PART II: CASE STUDIES (continued)

Case Study 9 - A Threat Made During 

an EAP Counseling Session . . . . . . 56

Case Study 10 - Threats Made By an Ex-Employee 58

Case Study 11 - Threats From Non-Employees . . . . 61

Case Study 12 - Intimidation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Case Study 13 - Intimidation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Case Study 14 - Frightening Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Case Study 15 - Frightening Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Case Study 16 - Disruptive Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

PART III: BACKGROUND INFORMATION

SECTION 1 FACT FINDING/INVESTIGATING

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Types of Investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

Administrative Investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

Preparation and Procedures in 

Administrative Investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

Interview Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

Other Considerations for the Agency Planning Group 89

SECTION 2 THREAT ASSESSMENT

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Threat Assessment Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

Excerpts from Threat Assessment: 

An Approach to Prevent Targeted Violence . . . . . . . . 93

SECTION 3 EMPLOYEE RELATIONS CONSIDERATIONS

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

Administrative Actions to Keep an 

Employee Away from the Worksite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

Disciplinary Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

Disabilities As a Defense Against Alleged Misconduct 108

Ordering and Offering Psychiatric Examinations . . . . 109

Disability Retirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

Appeals of a Disciplinary Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

SECTION 4 EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE 

PROGRAM CONSIDERATIONS

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

Overview of the Employee Assistance Program . . . . . 113

TABLE OF CONTENTS
A Guide forAgency Planners iii

SECTION 4 EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE 

PROGRAM CONSIDERATIONS (continued)

The Employee Assistance Program’s Role in 

Dealing with Workplace Violence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

Other EAP Considerations for the

Agency Planning Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

SECTION 5 WORKPLACE SECURITY

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

Security Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

Law Enforcement and Security Assistance . . . . . . . . 122

Physical Security Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

Physical Security in GSA Owned or Leased Buildings 124

Physical Security Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

Computer Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

Examples of Handouts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

SECTION 6 ORGANIZATIONAL RECOVERY

AFTER AN INCIDENT

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

Management Steps to Help an Organization Recover 133

The Critical Incident Stress Management Process . . . 135

Critical Incident Stress Debriefing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

Critical Incident Stress Defusing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140

PART IV: RESOURCES

Federal Government Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

Non-Government Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

Computer Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

TABLE OF CONTENTS
iv Dealing with Workplace Violence
A Guide forAgency Planners 1

Introduction

Purpose of This handbook, developed by the U.S. Office of Personnel

Handbook Management and the Interagency Working Group on Violence 

in the Workplace, is the result of a cooperative effort of many

Federal agencies sharing their expertise in preventing and dealing

with workplace violence. It is intended to assist those who are

responsible for establishing workplace violence initiatives at their

agencies. However, we anticipate that its usefulness will extend

well beyond the planning phase since many of the sections provide

information that can be helpful for managers and specialists as

they deal with difficult workplace violence situations. 

Overview Part I of the handbook introduces a process for developing an 

effective workplace violence program. It guides an agency’s

planning group through the basic steps of developing programs,

policies, and prevention strategies. 

Case studies Part II presents a set of case studies for the planning group to 

use in analyzing agency needs, planning programs, and training

personnel to respond to workplace violence situations. The case

studies introduce a wide range of challenges an agency may face,

and they provide discussion questions to help the planning group

develop the most effective approach to these challenges. 

Basic technical Part III offers basic technical information on several areas of 

information expertise that may be involved in workplace violence programs.

Its purpose is to serve as a reference for planning group members 

as they find themselves working with colleagues whose

professional background is different from their own. While in no

way comprehensive enough to serve as a training manual, it helps

the planning group become more familiar with the technical

language, legal constraints, and other special issues that each

profession brings to the interdisciplinary group.

Guidance The guidance is based on the collective expertise and

experience of Federal Government law enforcement off i c e r s ,

security specialists, criminal investigators, attorneys, employee

relations specialists, Employee Assistance Program counselors,
Introduction

2 Dealing with Workplace Violence

Overview forensic psychologists, and union officials. It consists

(continued) primarily of “lessons learned” from many years of experience

with actual cases involving potentially violent employees. 

The guidance covers not only incidents of physical violence, such

as shootings and assaults, but also the far more prevalent incidents

of intimidating, “bullying,” and other inappropriate behavior that

frighten employees. It covers incidents involving employees and

incidents involving individuals from outside the agency

threatening violence against agency employees. 

The Importance The central theme which emerges from the shared experience of

of Planning these specialists from different disciplines is this: While some 

cases of workplace violence can be dealt with swiftly and easily

by a manager with the assistance of just one specialist or one

office, most cases can be resolved far more easily and effectively

if there is a joint effort which has been planned out in advance by

specialists from different disciplines.

Be prepared Many who have never experienced workplace violence say, I

don’t need to worry about this. It would never happen in my

office. Violent incidents are relatively rare, but they do occur, and

lives can be lost. A little preparation and investment in prevention

now could save a life. There is no strategy that works for every

situation, but the likelihood of a successful resolution is much

greater if you have prepared ahead of time. 

The benefits of The experience of agencies who have developed programs has 

a joint effort shown that managers are more willing to confront employees 

who exhibit disruptive and intimidating behavior when they 

are supported by a group of specialists who have done their

homework and are prepared to reach out to others when they

know a situation is beyond their expertise. This team approach

promotes creative solutions and much needed support for the

manager in dealing with difficult situations that might otherwise

be ignored. 

Deal with Ignoring a situation usually results in an escalation of the problem.

disruptive situations Morale and productivity are lowered; effective employees leave

the organization. On the other hand, dealing effectively with

situations like hostility, intimidation, and disruptive types of

conflict creates a more productive workplace. This can have a
Introduction

A Guide forAgency Planners 3

The Importance deterrent effect on anyone contemplating or prone to committing 

of Planning acts of physical violence. Employees will see that there are

(continued) consequences for their actions and that disruptive behavior is not

tolerated in their organization. 

This handbook is intended to complement existing Federal

Government publications on workplace violence, such as the

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health’s Violence

in the Workplace Risk Factors and Prevention Strategies, and the

Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s Guidelines for

Preventing Workplace Violence for Health Care and Social

Service Workers.
4 Dealing with Workplace Violence
PART I

The Basic Steps of

Program Development

A Guide forAgency Planners 5
6 Dealing with Workplace Violence
Program Development

Overview There are many different approaches agencies can take in

developing plans to prevent workplace violence. An approach that

works well in one agency may not be suitable for another. T h i s

section outlines some broad guidelines that can help agencies in:

◆ Analyzing their current ability to handle potentially 

violent situations,

◆ Filling in any skills gaps that exist,

◆ Developing a procedure for employees to report incidents, and

◆ Developing response plans. 

Forming a Successful agency programs usually start by forming a planning

Planning Group group. The planning group evaluates the agency’s current ability

to handle violent incidents and recommends ways to strengthen its

response capability.

Typically, members of a planning group include representatives

from management, Employee Relations, Employee Assistance

Program (EAP), Law Enforcement, and Security. Organizations

that are too small to have a law enforcement/security component

often have a representative of the Federal Protective Service

(when they have jurisdiction) or the local police on their planning

group. Depending on the size and structure of the agency,

membership may also include representatives from Safety, Health

Unit, Medical Department, Office of Equal Employment

Opportunity, Public Affairs, and other appropriate offices. 

Participation on the planning group should always be offered to

the Office of the General Counsel and the Office of Inspector

General. When these offices are not represented on the planning

group, they usually act as consultants to it. 

While many offices may be represented on the planning group,

only a few of them will generally be involved in responding to

reported incidents. For example, representatives from Employee

A Guide forAgency Planners 7

PART I: SECTION 1
Program Development

Forming a Relations, EAP, and Security often make up the incident response 

Planning Group team. Typically, representatives from the other offices will not be

(continued) involved in responding directly to incidents, but they will act as 

consultants to the incident response team or play an active role

only in certain types of situations. 

Working with An agency should involve the union early on in the process of

Your Union planning workplace violence programs. Unions are the elected

representatives of bargaining unit employees and are legally

entitled to negotiate over many conditions of employment of

those employees. Although some of the substantive issues

relating to workplace violence, including issues concerning

internal security, may be outside the duty to bargain, this does not

mean that consultation and discussion with the union cannot occur.

Union involvement is particularly appropriate where there are

labor-management partnership councils. It is a good practice to

involve recognized unions up-front, before decisions are made, 

so that they can have an opportunity both to express employees’

concerns and to bring to bear their expertise and knowledge. 

For example, the union may be aware of employees in the agency

who have special skills in conflict resolution or crisis counseling.

The union may also be helpful in identifying training needs 

of employees with regard to workplace violence prevention. 

Union involvement demonstrates both the agency’s and union’s

commitment to the success of a workplace violence program. 

Steps in the 

Planning Process

#1. Analyze agency’s Conducting an analysis of the agency’s current ability to handle 

current ability to potentially violent situations is a necessary effort. Looking at 

handle potentially previous incidents that have occurred at your agency and 

violent situations evaluating how effectively they were handled is a good way to start.

Attention should be given to identifying patterns of risk and potential

prevention strategies, for example, where a particular workgroup is

having a number of complaints in a given period of time. 

Also, reviewing the case studies in Part II of this handbook and

analyzing how they were handled in other agencies can help

planning groups determine if their own agency would be prepared

to handle similar incidents. 

8 Dealing with Workplace Violence
Program Development

Steps in the Staff expertise. Because of their different missions, agencies 

Planning Process have different areas of staff expertise. Some organizations have 

(continued) strong law enforcement capabilities, some have an in-house 

medical staff, some have in-house Employee Assistance Program

(EAP) counselors, and some have criminal investigators.

Agencies may have employees who have special skills that 

could be put to good use in a potentially violent situation, such as

employees who are skilled in mediation, conflict resolution, crisis

counseling, investigations, or threat assessment. Identifying

offices and individuals ahead of time, working with them in the

planning stages, and agreeing on a coordinated response effort is

one of the most effective ways of preparing an agency to handle

potentially violent situations should they arise.

Level of security and jurisdictional issues. An important part of

the analysis is to examine the current level of security at your agency.

Follow the advice of your security office or, if you are in a building

without a security staff, contact the General Services A d m i n i s t r a t i o n ’s

Federal Protective Service (when they have jurisdiction) or local law

enforcement about recommended basic security measures. 

Work out in advance all jurisdictional issues among the various

security and law enforcement entities that may be involved should

an emergency occur. There have been cases where an employee

has called 911 and critical moments were lost because the Federal

Protective Service or in-house law enforcement were the ones

with jurisdiction, rather than the local police. In other cases,

employees called their in-house security guards and time was lost

while local police were being contacted because the security

guards did not carry firearms.

A Guide forAgency Planners 9

“Identifying offices and individuals ahead of

time, working with them in the planning stages,

and agreeing on a coordinated response effort

is one of the most effective ways of pre p a r i n g

an agency to handle potentially violent

situations should they arise.”
Program Development

Steps in the Jurisdictional issues are sometimes complicated and must be

Planning Process worked out ahead of time. See Part III, Section 5 for further

(continued) discussions of security issues and considerations.

#2. Fill the skills gaps Skills deficiencies exist even in large agencies with numerous

resources at hand. In some organizations training is needed. (See

page 18 for a discussion of training.) However, crisis situations

occur infrequently and it is often not practical to maintain inhouse expertise for every aspect of the agency’s response plan. 

If this is the case, suggested sources of outside assistance include:

◆ Other government agencies. Get to know specialists in 

other government agencies. Federal agencies often share 

expertise, especially when crisis situations occur. They are also 

an invaluable source for learning about new training materials and

effective training approaches.

◆ Local Police. If you do not have in-house law enforcement,

or are not in a building served by the Federal Protective Service,

get to know your local police officers. Invite them in to work with

your planning group. They can recommend security measures.

They can tell you about jurisdiction and what they would do if you

called them during an incident. They can teach employees

personal safety techniques and how to avoid becoming a victim. 

◆ Other community resources. Locate and work with

resources in your community. For example, if you don’t have

immediate access to emergency mental health consultation, you

can work with your local community mental health department,

“hotline” staff, hospital, or emergency crisis center. A nearby

university may have faculty who are willing to be consulted.

#3. Develop The primary consideration in developing a reporting procedure is 

a procedure for to make sure that it encourages employees to report all incidents, 

employees to even minor ones. Some agencies use hotlines. Some arrange for 

report incidents a member of the team to take the calls, usually a specialist from

Employee Relations or Security. Other agencies require employees

to report incidents to their supervisor (or to any agency supervisor),

who in turn reports these incidents to Employee Relations or Security.

Credibility for any reporting system will be dependent upon

whether reports are handled quickly and effectively. Word

10 Dealing with Workplace Violence
Program Development

Steps in the spreads quickly among employees when a report is made and

Planning Process nothing is done, when a report is handled improperly, or when 

(continued) the allegations are not treated confidentially. Therefore, before a

reporting procedure is announced to employees, ensure that the

agency staff who will be responding to reported incidents are

trained and able to handle any reported incidents. 

Also important to the success of any reporting system is

m a n a g e m e n t ’s encouragement for reporting incidents. A g e n c y

managers must create an environment that shows that management

will always respond to reports of incidents and to employee concerns.

Incident reports should be reviewed on a periodic basis to provide

feedback on the effectiveness of existing intervention strategies

and prevention efforts. 

#4. Develop plans to Given the wide range of incidents and situations that can occur at 

respond to workplace the worksite (from disruptive behavior to shootings) and, within 

violence incidents that range, the wide variation in threatening and disruptive behaviors,

it is difficult for agencies to define specifically the responsibilities 

of the different offices that would be involved in responding to an

incident under a workplace violence program. Agencies have 

found it useful to classify incidents in broad categories, for example,

e m e rg e n c y / n o n - e m e rg e n c y, or emerg e n c y / t h r e a t s / b u l l y i n g / d i s r u p t i v e

b e h a v i o r, or coworker/outsider. 

Using these broad categories, agencies can determine which off i c e s

will generally respond to each type of incident and what role each

o ffice would play in the response effort. Agencies can plan for both

immediate responses and long-term responses, when appropriate. For

example, in the case of a suicide threat, the plan may state that the

Employee Assistance Program (EAP) counselor determines whether

further action is necessary. If the suicide threat seems imminent, the

plan may state that the community’s emergency services (or local

police) are contacted. The plan would also state what management

would do if the EAP counselor were not immediately available.

A Guide forAgency Planners 11

Take threats seriously. Employees may 

not step forward with their concerns if 

they think that management will minimize

these concerns.
Program Development

Steps in the To facilitate developing a plan that works for your agency, a series

Planning Process of case studies are provided in Part II of this handbook. There

(continued) you will find examples of the plans that were in place to handle a

number of situations. 

It will become apparent from reviewing these examples that plans

for a coordinated response to reported incidents must be kept

flexible. Responsibility for overall coordination and direction is

usually assigned to one individual or one office. The coordinator

must have the flexibility to use the plan as a guideline, not a

mandatory set of procedures. More important, the coordinator

must have the flexibility to tailor the recommended response 

to the particular situation. It is important to recognize that

threatening situations often require creative responses. Given 

this, the importance of flexibility cannot be overemphasized. 

The case studies in Part II highlight the need for backup plans in 

situations calling for an immediate response where the individual 

responsible for a certain aspect of the response effort has gone

home for the day, is on vacation, or is out of the building at a

meeting. Taking a team approach in responding to a potentially

violent situation is an ideal way to provide backup coverage. 

A team approach ensures that all staff in Employee Relations, 

the Employee Assistance Program, Security, and other offices 

are thoroughly trained and prepared to work together with

management to deal with potentially violent situations. It 

ensures coverage, regardless of which staffer in each of the 

offices is on duty when the incident occurs. 

12 Dealing with Workplace Violence

You can’t always prevent violence because

violent incidents are sometimes unpredictable,

but you can reduce the risk by planning ahead

and being prepared to act swiftly to deal with

threats, intimidation, and other disruptive

behavior at an early stage.
Development of

Written Policy

Statement

Advantages of Once a workplace violence program is ready to be implemented,

Written Policies agencies must decide whether to issue a written policy statement.

Among the advantages of issuing a statement are: 

◆ It informs employees that the violence policy covers

intimidation, harassment, and other inappropriate behavior that

threatens or frightens them; 

◆ It encourages employees to report incidents; 

◆ It informs employees whom to call; and 

◆ It demonstrates senior management’s commitment to dealing

with reported incidents. 

Agency programs can also be implemented without a written 

policy statement. In these agencies, employees are often given

information about the program (especially whom to call) in training

sessions, on posters, in newsletter articles, or by other similar

methods. Note: Agencies have an inherent right to take action

against employees who engage in disruptive or threatening behavior

whether or not they have issued a written policy statement.

Policy Statement A workplace violence policy statement should convey that:

Contents

◆ All employees are responsible for maintaining a safe 

work environment; 

◆ The policy covers not only acts of physical violence, but

harassment, intimidation, and other disruptive behavior;

◆ The policy covers incidents involving coworkers and incidents

involving individuals from outside the agency perpetrating

violence against agency employees;

A Guide forAgency Planners 13

PART I: SECTION 2
Development of Written Policy Statement

Policy Statement ◆ The agency will respond appropriately to all reported incidents;

Contents (continued)

◆ The agency will act to stop inappropriate behavior; and

◆ Supervisors and all of the offices involved in responding to

incidents will be supported by agency management in their

efforts to deal with violent and potentially violent situations.

Recommended Consider the following recommendations in developing your

Approaches written policy statement:

Keep it brief A written policy statement should be brief and simple.

Implementation details can be provided in training and in 

more detailed backup documents. For example, roles and

responsibilities of the various offices involved in responding to

potentially dangerous situations can be outlined in memoranda of

understanding or in operating manuals/instructions rather than in

the written policy statement that is issued to all agency employees.

This approach gives agency staff the flexibility they will need to

deal creatively with these fluid, unpredictable situations. 

Consider the T h e re are disadvantages to using definitions of terms such 

disadvantages of as violence, threats, and harassment in your written policy 

using definitions statement. Definitions can discourage employees from reporting

incidents that they do not believe fall within the definition. The

reporting system should not deter employees from reporting

situations that frighten them. An employee knows a threat or

intimidation or other disruptive behavior when he or she

experiences it — definitions are not necessary. If you want to

clarify the scope of your organization’s concept of one or more 

of the terms in the policy, you could use examples. For example,

you may want to give examples of verbal and non-verbal

intimidating behavior.

Another consideration is that definitions are often restrictive and

may create legal problems in the future when you are taking

disciplinary actions against the perpetrators of workplace

violence. Use of definitions can make it more difficult to defend

a case on appeal.

Be cautious with C o n s i d e r that there could be negative consequences from using 

“Zero Tolerance” the term “zero tolerance.” It could create legal problems in the

14 Dealing with Workplace Violence
Development of Written Policy Statement

Recommended future when you are taking disciplinary actions against the

Approaches perpetrators of workplace violence. Use of the term could make it

(continued) more difficult to defend a case on appeal because a third party could

conclude, however mistakenly and inappropriately, that the agency

has not considered a penalty appropriate for the particular offense. 

There are other possible consequences. The term “zero tolerance”

might appear to eliminate any flexibility an agency has in dealing

with difficult situations even if this is not intended. Another

undesirable side effect is that the appearance of inflexibility can

discourage employees from reporting incidents because they do

not want to get their coworker fired — they just want the

behavior stopped. This appearance of inflexibility also may

discourage early intervention in potentially violent situations. 

The sample policy on the next page contains language that is

similar to “zero tolerance” but takes care of the previously

mentioned concerns. It says the agency will not tolerate violent

or disruptive behavior and then clarifies what that means by

saying “that is, all reports of incidents will be taken seriously 

and dealt with appropriately.” 

Consult with Consult your Office of General Counsel for the legal 

Legal Counsel implications of your draft policy.

A Guide forAgency Planners 15
Development of Written Policy Statement

Agencies that wish to issue a written policy statement can use the following sample, changing the

format and tone as appropriate, and adapting it for their own situations.

Sample Written Policy Statement

MEMORANDUM FOR EMPLOYEES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF _________

FROM: DEPARTMENT OR AGENCY HEAD

SUBJECT: Workplace Violence

It is the [insert Department or Agency name]’s policy to promote a safe environment for its

employees. The Department is committed to working with its employees to maintain a work

environment free from violence, threats of violence, harassment, intimidation, and other disruptive

behavior. While this kind of conduct is not pervasive at our agency, no agency is immune. Every

agency will be affected by disruptive behavior at one time or another.

Violence, threats, harassment, intimidation, and other disruptive behavior in our workplace will 

not be tolerated; that is, all reports of incidents will be taken seriously and will be dealt with

a p p r o p r i a t e l y. Such behavior can include oral or written statements, gestures, or expressions that

communicate a direct or indirect threat of physical harm. Individuals who commit such acts may be

removed from the premises and may be subject to disciplinary action, criminal penalties, or both. 

We need your cooperation to implement this policy effectively and maintain a safe working

environment. Do not ignore violent, threatening, harassing, intimidating, or other disruptive

behavior. If you observe or experience such behavior by anyone on agency premises, whether he

or she is an agency employee or not, report it immediately to a supervisor or manager. Supervisors

and managers who receive such reports should seek advice from the Employee Relations Office at

xxx-xxxx regarding investigating the incident and initiating appropriate action. [PLEASE NOTE:

Threats or assaults that require immediate attention by security or police should be reported

first to security at xxx-xxxx or to police at 911.]

I will support all efforts made by supervisors and agency specialists in dealing with violent,

threatening, harassing, intimidating or other disruptive behavior in our workplace and will monitor

whether this policy is being implemented effectively. If you have any questions about this policy

statement, please contact ______________ at xxx-xxxx.

16 Dealing with Workplace Violence
Prevention

Overview One major component of any workplace violence program is

prevention. The topics in the previous sections, such as program

development and union involvement, are important parts of a

workplace violence prevention program. This section will focus

on additional measures that can be taken to reduce the risk of

violent behavior.

Warning Signs The first question many people ask when starting to develop a 

of Violence workplace violence prevention program is, How can we identify

potentially violent individuals? It is understandable that people 

want to know this — and that “early warning signs” and “profiles” 

of potentially violent employees are in much of the literature on 

the subject of workplace violence. It would save time and solve

problems if managers could figure out ahead of time what behaviors

and personality traits are predictive of future violent actions.

Indicators of No one can predict human behavior and there is no specific 

potentially “profile” of a potentially dangerous individual. However,

violent behavior indicators of increased risk of violent behavior are available.

These indicators have been identified by the Federal Bureau of

I n v e s t i g a t i o n ’s National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime,

Profiling and Behavioral Assessment Unit in its analysis of past

incidents of workplace violence. These are some of the indicators:

◆ Direct or veiled threats of harm;

◆ Intimidating, belligerent, harassing, bullying, or other

inappropriate and aggressive behavior;

◆ Numerous conflicts with supervisors and other employees;

◆ Bringing a weapon to the workplace, brandishing a weapon in

the workplace, making inappropriate references to guns, or

fascination with weapons;

◆ Statements showing fascination with incidents of workplace

violence, statements indicating approval of the use of violence

to resolve a problem, or statements indicating identification

with perpetrators of workplace homicides;

A Guide forAgency Planners 17

PART I: SECTION 3
Prevention

Warning Signs of ◆ Statements indicating desperation (over family, financial, and

Violence (continued) other personal problems) to the point of contemplating suicide;

◆ Drug/alcohol abuse; and 

◆ Extreme changes in behaviors.

Each of these behaviors is a clear sign that something is wrong.

None should be ignored. By identifying the problem and dealing

with it appropriately, managers may be able to prevent violence

from happening. Agency planning groups should ensure that the

appropriate staff member (or an incident response team) is

prepared to assist supervisors and other employees in dealing with

such situations. Some behaviors require immediate police or

security involvement, others constitute actionable misconduct and

require disciplinary action, and others indicate an immediate need

for an Employee Assistance Program referral.

On the other hand, it is seldom (if ever) advisable to rely on what

are inappropriately referred to as “profiles” or “early warning

signs” to predict violent behavior. “Profiles” often suggest that

people with certain characteristics, such as “loners” and “men in

their forties,” are potentially violent. This kind of categorization

will not help you to predict violence, and it can lead to unfair and

destructive stereotyping of employees. 

The same can be said of reliance on “early warning signs” that

include descriptions of problem situations such as “in therapy,”

“has had a death in the family,” “suffers from mental illness,” or

“facing a RIF (reduction in force).” Everyone experiences stress,

loss, or illness at some point in life. All but a very few people

weather these storms without resorting to violence. Managers

should, of course, be trained to deal with the kinds of difficulties

mentioned here, such as bereavement or mental illness. However,

this training should focus on supporting the employee in the

workplace, and not in the context of, or on the potential for,

workplace violence.

Training Training is a critical component of any prevention strategy.

Training is necessary for employees, supervisors, and the staff

members of each office that may be involved in responding to an

incident of workplace violence. 

18 Dealing with Workplace Violence
Prevention

Training (continued) Training sessions conducted by the agency’s Employee A s s i s t a n c e

Program, Security, and Employee Relations staffs are particularly

helpful, enabling employees to get to know experts within the

agency who can help them when potentially violent situations

arise. Employees and supervisors seek assistance at a much earlier

stage when they personally know the agency officials who can

help them. The following are types of training that have proved

e ffective in preventing violence and other threatening behavior.

Employee training All employees should know how to report incidents of violent,

intimidating, threatening and other disruptive behavior. All

employees should also be provided with phone numbers for quick

reference during a crisis or an emergency. In addition, workplace

violence prevention training for employees may also include

topics such as:

◆ Explanation of the agency’s workplace violence policy;

◆ Encouragement to report incidents;

◆ Ways of preventing or diffusing volatile situations or

aggressive behavior;

◆ How to deal with hostile persons;

◆ Managing anger;

◆ Techniques and skills to resolve conflicts;

◆ Stress management, relaxation techniques, wellness training;

◆ Security procedures, e.g., the location and operation of safety

devices such as alarm systems;

A Guide forAgency Planners 19

Providing appropriate training informs

employees that management will take threats

seriously, encourages employees to report

incidents, and demonstrates management’s

commitment to deal with reported incidents.
Prevention

Training (continued) ◆ Personal security measures; and

◆ Programs operating within the agency that can assist

employees in resolving conflicts, e.g., the Employee

Assistance Program, the ombudsman, and mediation.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)

recommends that employees in health care and social services

organizations should receive formal instruction on the specific

safety and security hazards associated with their particular job or 

f a c i l i t y. Detailed information is available in OSHA’s Guidelines for

P reventing Workplace Violence for Health Care and Social Serv i c e

Wo r k e r s (see page 147 for website and ordering information). 

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

(NIOSH) also discusses the importance of training that is tailored

to the specific risks in the employee’s workplace. NIOSH’s

publication Violence in the Workplace: Risk Factors and

Prevention Strategies discusses clearly identifiable workplace risk

factors, such as dealing with the public, and emphasizes that

training will be more useful and credible when it addresses risk

factors specific to job tasks or locations (see page 145 for website

and ordering information).

Supervisory training In addition to the training suggested above, special attention

should be paid to general supervisory training. The same

approaches that create a healthy, productive workplace can also

help prevent potentially violent situations. It is important that

supervisory training include basic leadership skills such as setting

clear standards, addressing employee problems promptly, and

using the probationary period, performance counseling, discipline,

and other management tools conscientiously. These interventions

can keep difficult situations from turning into major problems.

Supervisors don’t need to be experts on violent behavior; what is

needed is a willingness to seek advice from the experts.

Some agencies include training on workplace violence as part of

general supervisory training, some conduct separate training

sessions on workplace violence, and some include it in crisis

management training. Whichever approach is taken, supervisory

training should cover:

20 Dealing with Workplace Violence
Prevention

Training (continued) ◆ Ways to encourage employees to report incidents in which

they feel threatened for any reason by anyone inside or

outside the organization,

◆ Skills in behaving compassionately and supportively towards

employees who report incidents,

◆ Skills in taking disciplinary actions,

◆ Basic skills in handling crisis situations,

◆ Basic emergency procedures, and

◆ How to ensure that appropriate screening of pre-employment

references has been done.

Incident response The members of the incident response team need to be competent 

team training in their own professions and they need to know when to call for

outside resources. Participating in programs and training sessions

sponsored by government and professional organizations, reading

professional journals and other literature, and networking with

others in the profession are all helpful in dealing with workplace

violence situations.

Team members also need to understand enough about each other’s

professions to allow them to work together eff e c t i v e l y. Response

team training should allow discussion of policies, legal constraints,

technical vocabulary, and other considerations that each profession

brings to the interdisciplinary group. Part III of this handbook is

intended to introduce team members to key issues in professions

other than their own.

A Guide forAgency Planners 21

“Training sessions conducted by the agency’s

Employee Assistance Program, Security, and

Employee Relations staffs are particularly

helpful, enabling employees to get to know

experts within the agency who can help them

when potentially violent situations arise.”
Prevention

Training (continued) Much of the incident response team training can be accomplished 

by practicing responses to different scenarios of workplace

violence. The case studies in Part II of this handbook are

intended for this purpose. Practice exercises can help the staff

understand each other’s responses to various situations so that

there is no confusion or misunderstanding during an actual

incident. In addition, practice exercises can prepare the staff to

conduct the supervisory training suggested above.

The team members also need to consult regularly with other

personnel within the organization who may be involved in dealing

with potentially violent situations. Those who are consulted on an

ad hoc basis should receive some appropriate training as well.

Pre-Employment Pre-employment screening is an important part of workplace

Screening violence prevention. Prior to hiring an employee, the agency

should check with its servicing personnel office and legal office, 

if necessary, to determine what pre-employment screening

techniques (such as interview questions, background and reference

checks, and drug testing) are appropriate for the position under

consideration and are consistent with Federal laws and regulations.

Security Measures Maintaining a physically safe work place is part of any good

prevention program. Agency facilities use a variety of security

measures to help ensure safety. These include:

◆ Employee photo identification badges; 

◆ On-site guard services and/or individually coded card keys for 

access to buildings and areas within buildings according to

individual needs; and

22 Dealing with Workplace Violence

Use practice exercises to see how the 

incident response team would deal with

different situations.
Prevention

A Guide forAgency Planners 23

Security Measures ◆ Guard force assistance in registering, badging, and directing

(continued) visitors in larger facilities.

Part III, Section 5 contains additional suggestions for preventive

security measures and resources for obtaining additional information.

Using Alternative Some agencies use ombudsman programs, facilitation, mediation,

Dispute Resolution and other methods of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) as

(ADR) as a preventive strategies in their workplace violence programs. ADR

Preventive Strategy approaches often involve a neutral third party who can assist

disputing parties resolve disagreements. ADR is most helpful in 

workplace violence programs at the point when a problem first

surfaces, i.e., before an employee’s conduct rises to a level that

warrants a disciplinary action. 

Weapons Prohibition 

Possession or use of firearms and other dangerous weapons 

on a Federally owned or leased facility, including grounds,

parking lots and buildings, is illegal. 18 USC Section 930 (a)

and (b) state:

“Whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present

a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal

f a c i l i t y, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this

title or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.”

(Certain exceptions apply. See 18 USC Section 930(c).) 

“Whoever with intent that a firearm or other

dangerous weapon be used in the commission of a

crime, knowingly possesses or causes to be present

such firearm or dangerous weapon, in a Federal

facility, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this

title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.”

It is important to post signs of the prohibition against weapons at

the entrances to Federal buildings. Agency employees should be

trained to report suspected violations immediately to a building

security official, a supervisor, or other appropriate authority.
Prevention

Using ADR as a The following is a short description of some ADR techniques that

Preventive Strategy agencies have found useful in dealing with potential workplace

(continued) violence problems at the very earliest stages.

Ombudsmen Ombudsmen are individuals who rely on a number of techniques

to resolve workplace disputes. These techniques include

counseling, mediating, conciliating, and fact-finding. Usually,

when an ombudsman receives a complaint, he or she interviews

the parties, reviews available information and policies, and offers

options to the disputants. Typically, ombudsmen do not impose

solutions. The effectiveness of the ombudsman lies in his or her

problem-solving ability. Generally, an individual not accepting an

option offered by the ombudsman is free to pursue a remedy using

another forum for dispute resolution. 

Facilitation Facilitation techniques improve the flow of information in a

meeting between parties to a dispute. The term “facilitator” is often

used interchangeably with the term “mediator,” but a facilitator

does not typically become as involved in the substantive issues as

does a mediator. The facilitator focuses more on the process

involved in resolving a matter. Facilitation is most appropriate

when the intensity of the parties’emotions about the issues in

dispute are low to moderate, the parties or issues are not extremely

polarized, or the parties have enough trust in each other that they

can work together to develop a mutually acceptable solution.

Mediation Mediation uses an impartial and neutral third party who has no

decision-making authority. The objective of this intervention is to

assist the parties to voluntarily reach an acceptable resolution of

issues in dispute. Mediation is useful in highly polarized disputes

where the parties have either been unable to initiate a productive

dialogue, or in cases where the parties have been talking and have

reached a seemingly insurmountable impasse. 

A mediator, like a facilitator, makes primarily procedural

suggestions regarding how parties can reach agreement.

Occasionally, a mediator may suggest some substantive options 

as a means of encouraging the parties to expand the range of

24 Dealing with Workplace Violence
Prevention

Using ADR as a possible resolutions under consideration. A mediator often works

Preventive Strategy with the parties individually to explore acceptable resolution

(continued) options or to develop proposals that might move the parties 

closer to resolution. 

Interest-Based Interest-Based Problem Solving is a technique that creates 

Problem Solving effective solutions while improving the relationship between the

parties. The process separates the person from the problem,

explores all interests to define issues clearly, brainstorms

possibilities and opportunities, and uses some mutually agreed

upon standard to reach a solution. It is often used in collective

bargaining between labor and management in place of traditional,

position-based bargaining. However, as a technique, it can be

effectively applied in many contexts where two or more parties

are seeking to reach agreement.

Peer Review Peer Review is a problem solving process in which an employee

takes a dispute to a panel of fellow employees and managers 

for a decision. The decision may or may not be binding on the

employee and/or the employer, depending on the conditions of the

particular process. If it is not binding on the employee, he or she

would be able to seek relief in traditional forums for dispute

resolution if dissatisfied with the decision under peer review.

The principal objective of the method is to resolve disputes early

before they become formal complaints or grievances.

For a resource about these and other alternative dispute resolution

techniques, see page 145.

A Guide forAgency Planners 25
26 Dealing with Workplace Violence
PART II

Case Studies

A Guide forAgency Planners 27
28 Dealing with Workplace Violence
Case Studies

Introduction The call comes in. 

Someone’s been shot — there is a fight going on — someone’s

been threatened — someone’s being stalked by an ex-boyfriend —

someone’s threatening suicide — someone wants to put a stop to

the “Bullying” behavior that’s been going on in his office. 

These are just a few examples of the types of incidents reported.

How each agency responds to these reports will differ, not only

among agencies but also within each agency, because the

circumstances surrounding each situation are different. Even in

agencies that are highly structured and have well-thought-out

procedures in place, the response will necessarily depend on:

◆ The nature of the incident, 

◆ The circumstances surrounding the incident, 

◆ Who is available to respond, and 

◆ Who has the skills to deal with the particular situation.

What has been learned from agencies’many years of experience is

that the most effective way to handle these situations is to take a team

approach, rather than having one office handle a situation alone. In

some cases of workplace homicides, it became apparent that the

situation got out of control because personnel specialists did not

inform security about a problem employee, or coworkers were not

warned about the threatening behavior of an ex-employee, or one

agency specialist felt he had to “go it alone” in handling the situation.

Agencies should have plans in place ahead of time so that

emergency and non-emergency situations can be dealt with as

soon as possible. However, it is also necessary to build the

maximum amount of flexibility possible into any plan. 

Basic Concepts Since agencies and situations differ, specific steps or procedures

to follow on a Governmentwide basis would be inappropriate and

A Guide forAgency Planners 29

PART II
Case Studies

Basic Concepts impractical. However, there are some basic concepts that all

(continued) agencies should keep in mind when formulating their strategy to

address workplace violence.

◆ Respond promptly to immediate dangers to personnel 

and the workplace.

◆ Investigate threats and other reported incidents.

◆ Take threats and threatening behavior seriously; employees

may not step forward with their concerns if they think that

management will dismiss their worries.

◆ Deal with the issue of what may appear to be frivolous

allegations (and concerns based on misunderstandings) by

responding to each report seriously and objectively.

◆ Take disciplinary actions when warranted.

◆ Support victims and other affected workers after an incident.

◆ Attempt to bring the work environment back to normal after

an incident.

How to Use the The case studies presented in this section are derived from real

Case Studies life situations that have arisen in Federal agencies. They are

intended to provide assistance to agency planners as they develop

workplace violence programs and assess their readiness to handle

these types of situations. It should be noted that, in some of the

case studies, the circumstances have been modified to make them

better learning tools. 

As you read the case studies, keep in mind that there is no one

correct way to handle each situation. The case studies should not

be taken as specific models of how to handle certain types of

situations. Rather, they should be a starting point for a discussion

and exploration of how a team approach can be instituted and

adapted to the specific needs and requirements of your agency.

30 Dealing with Workplace Violence
Case Studies

How to Use the

Case Studies

(continued)

Questions for discussion The case studies are intended to raise questions such as:

1. Do we agree with the approach the agency took in the case study? 

2. If not, why wouldn’t that approach work for us?

3. Do we have adequate resources to handle such a situation?

Questions for Establish a system to evaluate the effectiveness of your response 

program evaluation in actual situations that arise so that you can change your

procedures if necessary. Ask the following questions after

reviewing each of the case studies and after planning how your

agency would respond to the same or a similar situation:

1. Does our workplace violence program have a process for

evaluating the effectiveness of the team’s approach following

an incident?

2. Would our written policy statement and written procedures

limit our ability to easily adopt a more effective course of

action in the future, if an evaluation of our response showed

that a change in procedures was necessary?

3. Do we have plans to test our response procedures and

capability through practice exercises and preparedness drills

and change procedures if necessary?

Although these case studies are derived from real life situations,

the characters in them are fictional and have been created for

educational purposes. No reference to any individual living or

dead is intended or should be inferred.

A Guide forAgency Planners 31
The Incident The report comes in: Two employees have been killed in the

workplace and two have been wounded. A witness has called 911

and the police and ambulances have arrived. The perpetrator (an

agency employee) has been taken into custody, the victims are

being sent to the hospital, and the police are interviewing

witnesses and gathering evidence.

Response In this situation, the agency’s crisis response plan called for the

immediate involvement of:

(1) A top management representative,

(2) A security officer,

(3) An employee relations specialist, 

(4) An Employee Assistance Program counselor, and 

(5) An official from the public affairs office. 

Top management representative. The manager, an Assistant

Director of a field office with 800 employees, coordinated the

response effort because she was the senior person on duty at the

time. In addition to acting as coordinator, she remained available

to police throughout the afternoon to make sure there were no

impediments to the investigation. 

She immediately called the families of the wounded and assigned

two other senior managers to notify the families of the deceased.

She also arranged for a friend of each of the deceased coworkers

to accompany each of the managers. She took care of numerous

administrative details, such as authorizing expenditures for

additional resources, signing forms, and making decisions about

such matters as granting leave to coworkers. (In this case, the

police evacuated the building, and employees were told by the

Assistant Director that they could go home for the rest of the day,

but that they were expected to return to duty the following day.)

32 Dealing with Workplace Violence

CASE STUDY

Case Study 1 –

A Shooting
A Guide forAgency Planners 33

CASE STUDY

Case Study 1 – To ensure a coordinated response effort, she made sure that 

A Shooting agency personnel involved in the crisis had cell phones for 

(continued) internal communication while conducting their duties in various

offices around the building.

Security staff. The security staff assisted the police with

numerous activities such as evacuating the building.

Employee Relations Specialist. The employee relations

specialist contacted the agency’s Office of the General Counsel

(OGC) and Office of Inspector General (OIG) and alerted them to

the situation so that they could immediately begin to monitor any

criminal proceedings. He made a detailed written record of the

incident, but he did not take statements from witnesses because 

it could have impeded the criminal investigation and possible

subsequent prosecution of the case. He also helped the supervisor

draft a letter of proposed indefinite suspension pending the

outcome of the potential criminal matter. He worked closely 

with the OGC, OIG, and prosecutor’s office to obtain relevant

information as soon as it was available so the agency could

proceed with administrative action when appropriate. 

Employee Assistance Program (EAP) counselor. The agency

had only one EAP counselor on duty at the time. However, in

prior planning for an emergency, the agency had contracted with a

local company to provide additional counselors on an “as needed”

basis. The one EAP counselor on duty called the contractor and

four additional counselors were at the agency within an hour.

The counselors remained available near the scene of the incident

to reassure and comfort the employees. Since they were not

agency employees, they wore readily visible identification badges.

After the Office of Inspector General received permission from

the prosecutor’s office, the agency EAP counselor arranged for a

series of Critical Incident Stress Debriefings (CISD) to take place

two days later (see page 136 for a discussion of CISD). She also

arranged for two contract EAP counselors to be at the workplace

for the next week to walk around the offices inquiring how the

employees were doing and to consult with supervisors about how

to help the employees recover.
34 Dealing with Workplace Violence

CASE STUDY

Case Study 1 – Public Affairs Officer. The Public Affairs Officer handled all 

A Shooting aspects of press coverage. She maintained liaison with the

(continued) media, provided an area for reporters to work, and maintained 

a schedule of frequent briefings. She worked closely with the

agency’s Office of Congressional Relations, who handled calls

from congressional offices about the incident.

Questions for the 1. How would your agency have obtained the services of 

Agency Planning Gro u p additional EAP counselors?

2. How would employees be given information 

about this incident?

3. Who would clean up the crime scene?

4. Would you relocate employees who worked in the area of the

crime scene?

5. What approach would your agency take regarding granting

excused absence on the day of the incident and requests for

leave in the days/weeks following the incident?

6. How would you advise management to deal with work

normally assigned to the victims/perpetrator?

7. What support would your agency provide to supervisors to 

get the affected work group(s) back to functioning?
The Incident The following incident was reported to the agency’s Incident

Response Team. A female employee had broken off a romantic

relationship with a male coworker, but he wouldn’t leave her

alone. She finally had a restraining order served to him. After

receiving the restraining order, the perpetrator lost control and

entered the woman’s office. He hit her; she fell from her chair.

While she was on the floor, he broke a soda bottle and cut her

face with the broken glass. While this was going on, coworkers

heard the commotion and called the police. The perpetrator fled

the scene before police arrived and the victim was transported to

the hospital.

Response The Incident Response Team immediately implemented the

following plan.

Security. The Security officer worked with hospital security to

ensure that the victim got around-the-clock security while she was

in the hospital. He ensured that the hospital staff knew not to

give out any information about the victim to callers. He gave the

victim advice, reading material, and a video on personal safety.

He made sure the perpetrator’s card key was inactivated, and he

had pictures of the perpetrator made for the building guards. He

coordinated efforts with local police.

Employee Assistance Program (EAP). The EAP c o u n s e l o r

visited the victim in the hospital and ensured that she was being

seen regularly by a social worker on the hospital staff. She

worked with the victim’s colleagues to help them be supportive of

the victim when she came back to work. The EAP c o u n s e l o r

visited the worksite to let coworkers know she was available to

t h e m .

Employee Relations. The employee relations specialist contacted

the agency’s Office of General Counsel and Office of Inspector

General and alerted them to the situation so that they could begin

to monitor any criminal proceedings. He helped the supervisor

develop a notice of proposed indefinite suspension using the

crime provision set forth in 5 USC 7513(b). 

A Guide forAgency Planners 35

CASE STUDY

Case Study 2 –

Viciously Beating and

Wounding a Coworker
36 Dealing with Workplace Violence

CASE STUDY

Case Study 2 – Union. The union was fully supportive of the agency’s efforts to

Viciously Beating help the victim. Since both the victim and the perpetrator were 

and Wounding bargaining unit employees, the union was aware of its role to 

a Coworker represent all employees in the bargaining unit. In this particular 

(continued) case, the perpetrator grieved, but because of the viciousness of 

the attack, union officials were reluctant to take the case to

arbitration. In addition, realizing that this could happen to other

employees, the union officials obtained brochures on stalking

from their national headquarters and invited an expert speaker on

the subject to a chapter meeting.

Supervisor. The employee’s supervisor obtained all the necessary

forms and assisted the employee in filing an Office of Workers

Compensation Programs (OWCP) claim to pay for hospital and

medical costs. The supervisor and the employee’s coworkers

visited her in the hospital, kept in touch with her during her

convalescence, and kept her up-to-date on news from the office.

Agency Attorney. An agency attorney maintained contact with

the local prosecutor’s office.

Resolution The police caught and arrested the perpetrator after about 10 days.

The agency proposed and effected a removal action against the

perpetrator based on a charge of “Wounding a coworker.” He did

not appeal the action. 

The employee remained hospitalized for two days and then went

to the home of a friend until the perpetrator was apprehended.

She remained at home for another two weeks before returning to

work. Her OWCP claim was accepted. She continues to stay in

touch with the Employee Assistance Program counselor who had

visited her at the hospital and assisted her during her time away

from the office. The counselor referred her to a support group for

battered women, and she finds it very helpful.

The perpetrator was found guilty and received jail time. After jail

time was served, and at the suggestion of an agency attorney, the

court forbade the perpetrator to contact the victim or the agency

as one of the conditions of probation. The security officer alerted

security guards and discussed security precautions with the

victim, ensuring that there would be an effective response if the

perpetrator violated this restriction.
Questions for the 1. Who at your agency would monitor the proceedings of the 

Agency Planning Gro u p criminal case, e.g., to be aware of the situation if the

perpetrator got out of jail on bail or probation?

2. Does your security office maintain liaison with and keep in

contact with agency or local law enforcement authorities in

order to coordinate efforts in these type of cases?

3. Do you have a procedure in place for cleaning up the scene of

the incident after investigators are finished examining it?

4. Would employees at your agency know who to call in an

emergency — for example, 911, the Federal Protective

Service, in-house security, or in-house law enforcement?

A Guide forAgency Planners 37

CASE STUDY

Case Study 2 –

Viciously Beating and

Wounding a Coworker

(continued)
The Incident A member of the agency’s Incident Response Team received a

frantic call from an employee saying that her coworker just left

her office muttering about the final straw — you all won’t have

me to push around any more. She said she’s been worried for

weeks about the possibility of her coworker committing suicide

and knows now she should have called earlier. The staff member 

who took the call told the employee to see if she could find her

coworker and remain with her. Help was on its way.

Response For incidents involving suicide threats, the agency’s plan was to

call local police if there seemed to be imminent danger and, if 

not enough was known about the situation, to contact security 

and the Employee Assistance Program (EAP) counselor to do an

immediate assessment of the situation.

The team member who took the initial call first contacted a Security

o fficer who immediately located the two employees. The EAP

counselor could not be reached immediately, so the team member

called an employee in the Human Resources (HR) department who

had earlier volunteered to help out in emergency situations (she had

been trained in her community in dealing with suicide attempts). 

The HR specialist arrived at the distressed employee’s off i c e

within two minutes of the call. The employee was crying at this

point and making statements such as, No one can help me a n d I t ’ l l

be over soon. The HR specialist recognized what was happening

and asked the security officer to call police and an ambulance and

tell them there was a suicide attempt. After calling the police, the

security officer went outside to meet the emergency workers and

direct them to the scene. The HR specialist then learned from the

woman that an hour earlier she had swallowed 10 pills. The police

and ambulance were on the scene within three minutes of the call

and the woman was hospitalized.

The HR specialist contacted the employee’s family and then

prepared a report of the incident. The Employee Assistance

Program counselor consoled and supported the coworker who

had initially called the Incident Response Team.

38 Dealing with Workplace Violence

CASE STUDY

Case Study 3 – 

A Suicide Attempt
Case Study 3 – Emergency treatment was successful, and the employee was

A Suicide Attempt admitted to the hospital’s psychiatric unit. The EAP counselor 

(continued) and HR specialist stayed in touch with the employee and

supported her in planning her return to work. She returned 

to work four weeks later, functioning with the help of antidepressant medication and twice-weekly psychotherapy sessions. 

With the employee’s consent, the EAP counselor arranged a

meeting involving the employee, her supervisor, and the Human

Relations specialist to coordinate her treatment and work

activities. The supervisor agreed to adjust the employee’s work

schedule to fit her therapy appointments as a reasonable

accommodation, and the supervisor provided guidance on

procedures and medical documentation requirements for leave

approval. The counselor, supervisor, and employee agreed on a

plan for getting the employee immediate emergency help if she

should feel another crisis coming on.

Resolution Two years later, the employee is doing well, working a normal

schedule, and continues to be a productive employee. She no

longer takes anti-depressant medication, but she stays in touch

with both her psychiatrist and the EAP counselor.

Questions for the 1. Do you agree with the agency’s approach in this case?

Agency Planning Group

2. Does your agency have back-up plans for situations where key

team members are not available?

3. Has your agency identified employees with skills in 

handling emergencies?

4. Does your workplace violence policy and training encourage

employees to report incidents at an early stage?

5. Does your workplace violence policy and training encourage

employees to seek guidance with regard to problems that

trouble them even when they don’t fully understand the nature

of the problem? 

6. If the employee had left the building before emergency

personnel arrived, does your plan provide for contacting the

appropriate authorities?

A Guide forAgency Planners 39

CASE STUDY
The Incident A supervisor called the Employee Relations office to request a

meeting of the workplace violence team for assistance in handling

a situation he’s just learned about. He was counseling one of his

employees about her frequent unscheduled absences, when she

told him a chilling story of what she’s been going through for the

past year. She broke up with her boyfriend a year ago and he’s

been stalking her ever since. He calls her several times a week

(she hangs up immediately). He shows up wherever she goes on

the weekends and just stares at her from a distance. He often

parks his car down the block from her home and just sits there.

He’s made it known he has a gun.

Response This agency’s plan calls for the initial involvement of security, the

Employee Assistance Program (EAP), and employee relations in

cases involving stalking. The security officer, the EAP counselor,

and employee relations specialist met first with the supervisor and

then with the employee and supervisor together. At the meeting

with the employee, after learning as much of the background as

possible, they gave her some initial suggestions.

◆ Contact her local police and file a report. Ask them to assess her

security at home and make recommendations for improvements.

◆ Log all future contacts with the stalker and clearly record the

date, time, and nature of the contact. 

◆ Let voice mail screen incoming phone calls.

◆ Contact her own phone company to report the situation.

◆ Give permission to let her coworkers know what was going on

(she would not agree to do this). 

◆ Vary her routines, e.g., go to different shops, take different

routes, run errands at different times, report to work on a

variable schedule.

The team then worked out the following plan:

40 Dealing with Workplace Violence

CASE STUDY

Case Study 4 –

Stalking
Case Study 4 – 1. The Employee Relations specialist acted as coordinator of the 

Stalking (continued) response effort. He made a written report of the situation and

kept it updated. He kept the team members, the supervisor,

and the employee apprised of what the others were doing to

resolve the situation. He also looked into the feasibility of

relocating the employee to another worksite.

2. The S e c u r i t y o fficer immediately reported the situation to the local

police. With the employee’s consent, she also called the police

where the employee lived to learn what steps they could take to

help the employee. She offered to coordinate and exchange

information with them. The security officer arranged for increased

surveillance of the building and circulated photos of the stalker to

all building guards with instructions to detain him if he showed up

at the building. She brought a tape recorder to the employee’s

desk and showed her the best way to tape any future voice mail

messages from the stalker. She also contacted the agency’s phone

company to arrange for its involvement in the case. 

3. The Employee Assistance Pro g r a m counselor provided support

and counseling for both the employee and the supervisor

throughout the time this was going on. He suggested local

o rganizations that could help the employee. He also tried to

convince her to tell coworkers about the situation.

4. The Union arranged to sponsor a session on stalking in order

to raise the consciousness of agency employees about the

problem in general.

After a week, when the employee finally agreed to tell coworkers

what was going on, the EAP counselor and security officer jointly

held a meeting with the whole work group to discuss any fears or

concerns they had and give advice on how they could help with

the situation.

Resolution In this case, the employee’s coworkers were supportive and

wanted to help out. They volunteered to watch out for the stalker

and to follow other security measures recommended by the

security specialist. The stalker ended up in jail because he tried to

break into the employee’s home while armed with a gun. The

security officer believes that the local police were able to be more

responsive in this situation because they had been working

together with agency security on the case.

A Guide forAgency Planners 41

CASE STUDY
Case Study 4 – 

Stalking (continued)

Questions for the 1. Do you agree with the agency’s approach in this case?

Agency Planning Gro u p

2. What would you do in a similar situation if your agency

doesn’t have security guards? 

3. What would you do if coworkers were too afraid of the stalker

to work in the same office with the employee?

4. What would you do if/when the stalker gets out of jail on bail

or out on probation? 

5. Would your Office of Inspector General have gotten involved

in this case, e.g., coordinated agency efforts with local law

enforcement agencies?

42 Dealing with Workplace Violence

CASE STUDY
The Incident A team member, the employee relations specialist, receives a

phone call from an employee. She reports that she has just

finished a long conversation with a friend and coworker, a parttime employee, who revealed to her that she is a victim of

domestic violence. To her surprise, she learned that the woman’s

husband has been abusing her since their first child was born. 

He is careful to injure her only in ways that do not leave visible

signs, and she feels sure no one would ever believe her word

against his. The family’s assets, even "her” car, are all in his

name, and her part-time salary would not be enough for herself

and the children to live on. Further, he has threatened to kill her

if she ever leaves him or reveals the truth. After talking with the

employee, the coworker agreed to let the situation be reported to

the workplace violence team.

Response The Employee Relations specialist agreed to meet with both

employees immediately. The abused woman asked to have her

friend along and, at the employee relations specialist’s suggestion,

gave her permission to explain the situation to the two employees’

supervisor. After interviewing her in a caring, supportive way to

get basic information, she asked other team members, the security

director and the Employee Assistance Program (EAP) counselor,

to join her in analyzing the situation. Then she met with the

abused employee, her friend (at her request), and her supervisor to

report on the team’s recommendations.

The Employee Assistance Program counselor arranged for the

abused woman to see another counselor, who had an open

appointment that same day, for counseling and referral to the

community agencies that could help her.

The counselor referred her to a comprehensive shelter for victims

of abuse. She explained the comprehensive services the shelter

could offer her: a safe place to stay with her children, advice on

how to get out of her home situation safely, legal advice, and

much other helpful information. At first, the employee was 

afraid to change the status quo. After several meetings with the

Employee Assistance Program counselor and encouraging talks

A Guide forAgency Planners 43

CASE STUDY

Case Study 5 –

A Domestic Violence

Situation
Case Study 5 – with her friend, she agreed to talk with the shelter staff. Her 

A Domestic Violence friend drove her to the meeting. They worked with her to develop

Situation (continued) a safe plan for leaving home with her children.

The employee asked the workplace violence team to coordinate

with the shelter staff. After discussing her plan with them, the

Security director identified that right after she left home would be

a high risk period and arranged for a guard to be at the workplace

during that time. He supplied photographs of the husband to the

guard force. 

With the woman’s consent, the supervisor and security director

discussed the situation with coworkers, shared the picture with

them, and explained what they should do in various contingencies.

At the meeting one coworker began complaining about danger to

herself. The friend argued persuasively that, This could happen 

to any of us. Would you rather we stick together, or leave one

another to suffer alone? This rallied the group, and the coworker

decided to go along with the others.

The Supervisor agreed to use flexitime and flexiplace options to

make the employee more difficult to find. Not only would she be

working a different schedule; she would report to a suburban

telecommuting center instead of the agency’s central office.

The supervisor explained to the employee that she would like

very much to have her on board full time, as she was an excellent

worker, but that there was no position available. However, she

encouraged her to seek a full time job, and made phone calls to

colleagues in other departments to develop job leads for her. One

of her professional associates offered to allow the employee to use

their organization’s career transition center, which had excellent

job search resources, and was located in a different part of town

from her normal worksite.

Resolution The employee executed her plan for leaving home and moved to

the shelter with her children. She worked with an attorney to

obtain financial support and to begin divorce proceedings. She

often had times of doubt and fear but found the shelter staff very

supportive. Her coworkers encouraged her to call daily with

reports on her progress.

44 Dealing with Workplace Violence

CASE STUDY
Case Study 5 – The husband appeared at the office only once, a few days after his

A Domestic Violence wife moved into the shelter. He shouted threats at the security

Situation (continued) guard, who calmly called for backup from the local police.

Fearing for his reputation, he fled the scene before police could

arrive. The guard force continued to monitor any efforts by the

husband to gain entry to the building.

Six months later, the employee has obtained a full-time position at

a nearby office within the same agency. She discovered that they

also had a workplace violence team and made them aware of her

situation, just in case she should need their help. She and her

children have moved into an apartment. The children are seeing 

a child psychologist, recommended by the Employee Assistance

Program counselor, to help them make sense of an upsetting

situation, and she attends a support group for battered women.

Her friend from her former office has helped her with

encouragement, support, and suggestions on how to handle the

stresses of single parenthood.

Questions for the 1. Are your team members knowledgeable about 

Agency Planning Gro u p domestic violence?

2. What do you think about the role of the friend? How would

you encourage agency employees to support coworkers in

these types of situations?

3. Does your agency have access to career transition services to

help in these types of situations?

4. Has your planning group identified someone knowledgeable

about restraining/protective orders to discuss with the

employee the pros and cons of obtaining one?

A Guide forAgency Planners 45

CASE STUDY
The Incident At a smoking break with one of his colleagues from down the hall, an

employee was re p o rted to have said, I like the way some employees

handle problems with their supervisors — they eliminate them.

One of these days I’m going to bring in my gun and take care of

my problem. The employee who heard the statement re p o rted it to

his superv i s o r, who in turn re p o rted it to his superv i s o r, who called a

member of the workplace violence team.

Response In the case of a reported threat where there does not appear to be

an imminent danger, the agency’s plan called for the employee

relations specialist to conduct an immediate preliminary

investigation and for the team to meet with the supervisor

immediately afterward to look at the available evidence and

strategize a preliminary response. 

That afternoon, the Employee Relations specialist interviewed

the employee who heard the threat, that employee’s supervisor,

the supervisor of the employee who made the threat, and

subsequently the employee who allegedly made the threat. 

The employee who made the threat denied saying any such 

thing. There were no witnesses. 

The supervisor of the employee who allegedly made the threat

reported that, several months earlier, the same employee had

responded to his casual question about weekend plans by saying,

I’m going to spend the weekend in my basement with my guns

practicing my revenge. At that time, the supervisor had warned

the employee that such talk was unacceptable at work and

referred the employee to the Employee Assistance Program

(EAP). Both supervisors expressed concern for their staff’s

safety. Based on comments from supervisors and the employee

who made the threat, the employee relations specialist

recommended that a more thorough investigation be done. 

At the meeting where the employee relations specialist’s findings

were discussed, the following people were present: the first- and

second-level supervisor of the employee who allegedly made the

threat, an Associate Director of the agency, the agency security

46 Dealing with Workplace Violence

CASE STUDY

Case Study 6 –

A Threat
Case Study 6 – officer, the employee relations specialist, the EAP counselor, and

A Threat (continued) an attorney with the General Counsel’s Office. 

One of the team members recommended that the employee be

given a counseling memo and referred to the Employee A s s i s t a n c e

Program. The consensus of the others, however, based on the

employee relations specialist’s oral report, was to recommend to

the supervisor that the employee be placed on excused absence

pending an investigation and that he be escorted from the premises. 

The Security Off i c e r and the employee’s second-level S u p e r v i s o r

went together to give the alleged threatener a letter that stated, T h i s

is to inform you that effective immediately you will be in a paid,

non-duty status, pending an agency determination re g a rding your

actions on June 10. You are re q u i red to provide a phone number

w h e re you can be reached during working hours. They also took

away his identification badge and office keys, and escorted him to

the building exit. 

The team consulted with the agency’s Office of Inspector General

which arranged for a criminal investigation to be conducted. The

Criminal Investigator interviewed all of the employee’s

coworkers and two other employees who the coworkers indicated

had knowledge of this employee’s prior statements against his

supervisors. He then interviewed the alleged threatener.

The criminal investigator checked to see if the employee had a

police record. He did not. The investigator also checked his

workplace to see if he had any weapons at the office or if he had

any written material of a threatening nature. The search of his

workplace found nothing of consequence. 

The investigative report showed that the employee told his

coworkers on several occasions that he had no respect for his

supervisor and that he thought that threatening him was an

effective way to solve his problems with him. Signed statements

indicated that he bragged about knowing how to get his way with

his boss. 

The prosecutor’s office, after receiving the investigative report,

made a determination that it would not prosecute the case and

informed management that they could proceed with administrative

action. The team recommended a proposed removal action since

A Guide forAgency Planners 47

CASE STUDY
Case Study 6 – the evidence showed that the employee was using threats to 

A Threat (continued) intimidate his supervisor.

Resolution The second-level supervisor proposed a removal action based on a

charge of “threatening a supervisor.” A top manager who had not

been directly involved in the case initially insisted that the agency

enter into a settlement agreement that would, among other things,

give the employee a clean Standard Form (SF) 50. However,

based on the particular facts in this case, the team convinced him

that he was not solving any problems by settling the case in this

way and was, in fact, just transferring the problem to another

unsuspecting employer. The top manager finally agreed and the

employee was removed from Federal service. 

Questions for the 1. What would your agency have done about checking references

Agency Planning Gro u p before hiring this employee?

2. What do you think would have been the risks of settling the

case with a clean SF 50?

3. How would your agency have handled the case if the key

witness (i.e., the employee who heard the threat) had

demonstrated certain behavior that cast doubt on his credibility? 

48 Dealing with Workplace Violence

CASE STUDY

Even though the agency did not settle the case, and did, in

fact, effect a removal action, the employee was soon hired by

another agency anyway. The new agency never checked his

references and is now experiencing the same type of

intimidating behavior from the employee.
The Incident A team member took a phone call from a supervisor who said,

One of my employees said this morning that he knows where my

kids go to school. I know that doesn’t sound like much to you, 

but if you saw the look in his eyes and heard the anger in his

voice, you’d know why I need your help in figuring out what to do.

Response The team member who took the call heard more details about the

incident and then set up a meeting with the supervisor who made

the report, a security specialist, an employee relations specialist,

and an Employee Assistance Program (EAP) counselor.

At the meeting, the Supervisor who made the report told the team

that the employee who said that he knows where his kids go to

school has been engaging in intimidating behavior against him for

the past year since he became his supervisor. The supervisor had

spoken with him on several occasions to let him know that his

behavior was unacceptable. He also had given him a written

warning along with a written referral to the EAP.

Because the office was in a General Services Administration

controlled building, the Security specialist then called the

regional office of the Federal Protective Service (FPS). The FPS

contacted the threat assessment unit of the state police, who

agreed to assign a threat assessment consultant to assist the

agency. In a phone consultation with the team, the Threat

Assessment Consultant suggested that the team arrange for an

immediate investigation by an investigator who was experienced

in workplace violence cases. The investigator should explore the

following areas: 

1. What further background information can be learned about the

relationship between the supervisor and alleged threatener? 

2. What is the relationship between the supervisor and his other

employees and coworkers?

3. Have there been problems of a similar nature with the alleged

t h r e a t e n e r’s previous supervisors? If so, how were they resolved

A Guide forAgency Planners 49

CASE STUDY

Case Study 7 –

Veiled Threats
Case Study 7 – or handled? If there were problems with previous supervisors, 

Veiled Threats were they similar to or different from the current situation?

(continued)

4. What are the alleged threatener’s relationships with

coworkers? Might there be other potential victims? Are there

also interpersonal problems between the alleged threatener and

other employees? 

5. Are there unusually stressful problems in the life of the alleged

threatener, e.g., divorce, financial reversal, or any other recent

significant traumatic event?

6. Does anyone else feel threatened based on their interaction

with the alleged threatener? 

7. Does the alleged threatener have access to weapons? Has he

recently acquired weapons?

The threat assessment consultant scheduled another telephone

consultation with the team for three days later. He also suggested

that the investigator not interview the alleged perpetrator until

after the next phone consultation.

The investigation was conducted immediately by a Professional

Investigator and the team reviewed the investigative report prior

to the next phone conversation with the threat assessment

consultant. The report contained statements by the employee’s

supervisor about veiled threats the employee had made, such as 

If you give me that assignment, you’ll be sorry, I know where

you live, and I see you every day on your way to work. (The

employee lives at the opposite end of town from the supervisor.) 

Also in the investigative report was a transcript (and a tape

recording) of two voice mail messages that the supervisor found

intimidating—one in which the employee said he needed annual

leave that day to go for target practice and another one in which

he said he couldn’t come to work that day because he had to go

hunting. Again, the supervisor’s statement showed that he

considered the employee’s tone of voice to be intimidating and

said that, on the day previous to each of these phone calls, the

employee had acted as though he was angry about new

assignments the supervisor had given him. The supervisor said 

he has taken several precautions as a result of the threats. 

50 Dealing with Workplace Violence

CASE STUDY
Case Study 7 – For example, he told his children to take precautions, installed

Veiled Threats dead bolt locks at his home, and asked the local police to do a

(continued) security survey of his home. In addition to the investigative

report, the security office obtained a police record showing a

misdemeanor conviction for spousal abuse several years earlier.

Participating in the phone consultation with the threat assessment

consultant was the workplace violence team, the second-line

supervisor, and the director of the office. The purpose of the

consultation was to:

◆ Analyze the information contained in the investigative report, 

◆ Determine what additional information was needed, 

◆ Determine whether to interview the alleged perpetrator,

◆ Help the team members organize their thinking about how to

proceed with the case, and 

◆ Discuss a range of options that could be taken.

The threat assessment consultant recommended that the

investigator interview three coworkers, the employee’s ex-wife,

and subsequently the alleged threatener. The purpose of the

interview with the alleged threatener would be to corroborate

what was said by the others and get his explanation of why he

made the statements. The interview would also communicate to

him that this kind of conduct has been noticed, troubles people,

and is not condoned. He advised that security measures,

including having a security officer in the next room, be taken

when the alleged threatener was interviewed. The threat

assessment consultant also gave the team guidance in the

preservation of evidence, such as written material and tape

recordings, and in the documentation of all contacts.

During the interview, the alleged threatener made what the

investigator believed were several additional veiled threats 

against the supervisor. He even behaved in a way that led the

investigator to be concerned about his own safety.

Based on the findings of the investigation, the threat assessment

consultant concluded that the employee presented behaviors that 

A Guide forAgency Planners 51

CASE STUDY
Case Study 7 – showed that a real possibility existed that the employee, if pushed,

Veiled Threats might carry out some of his threats toward the supervisor and his

(continued) family. He expressed concern that, if the employee continued to

work in the same office, the situation could escalate. Management

decided to place the employee on excused absence for the safety

of the threatened supervisor.

The threat assessment consultant worked with team members to

develop a plan for ongoing security. For example, he suggested

the team identify one member to coordinate case management,

recommended monitoring any further communication between the

employee and other agency employees (e.g., any phone calls, any

email messages, and any showing up at residences were to be

reported to the case manager). He recommended that security

officials be in the area, though not visible, whenever meetings

were held with the employee. The threat assessment consultant

remained available for telephone consultation as the team carried

out the plan.

Resolution Though the agency had concerns that any agency action might

trigger an action against the supervisor’s family, the agency went

ahead and removed the employee based on a charge of threatening

behavior. The agency’s analysis considered the credibility of the

supervisor and employee, and the information and evidence

gathered. The employee did not appeal the removal action.

The agency security officer gave the supervisor advice on

personal safety and discussed with him the pros and cons of

obtaining a restraining order for his family. The security officer

also helped the supervisor get in touch with the local office of

victim assistance for additional ideas on ways to protect his

family. The threat assessment consultant also spoke with the

supervisor and suggested that he may want to go to the school,

school bus driver, and neighbors and make them aware of the

problem and the alleged threatener’s appearance (show them his

picture). The reason for involving the school and neighbors

would be to encourage them to report any suspicious activities 

to the police. He also talked to the supervisor about police

involvement and discussed filing criminal charges. If the police

said the situation was not serious enough to file criminal charges,

he suggested finding out from the police what was serious enough

to warrant an arrest. For example, he could explore with police 

52 Dealing with Workplace Violence

CASE STUDY
Case Study 7 – what would constitute a pattern of behavior that might be

Veiled Threats considered serious enough to pursue action under the state’s

(continued) stalking or harassment statute.

Questions for the 1. If this incident were reported at your agency, would you have 

Agency Planning Gro u p used a criminal investigator or administrative investigator to

conduct the initial investigation?

2. If your agency has a criminal investigative service, have you

discussed the feasibility of involving agency criminal

investigators at an early stage in the process of dealing with

threatening behavior, i.e., in situations where threatening

behavior does not yet rise to the level of a crime?

3. Has your agency identified a threat assessment professional to

whom you could turn for assistance if the need arose?

4. How does your agency keep up with Merit Systems Protection

Board case law on charges and threats?

5. If this happened at your agency, and the threatening behavior

continued, what would you do to protect the supervisor and 

his family?

A Guide forAgency Planners 53

CASE STUDY
The Incident A visibly upset male employee cornered a female employee in 

her office, and said quietly and slowly that she will pay with her

life for going over his head to ask about his work. The male

employee then stared at his coworker with his hands clenched

rigidly at this side before leaving the office and slamming the

door behind him. The female employee, fearful and shaken,

reported this to her supervisor, who immediately reported the

incident to the director of Employee Relations.

Response The agency’s response plan calls for involvement of Employee

Relations, Security and the Employee Assistance Program (EAP)

in cases involving threats. Immediately following the report to

the response team, the Security Officer contacted the female

employee to assist her in filing a police report on the threat and to

discuss safety measures that she should be taking. The victim

was also referred to the EAP, where she received brief counseling

and educational materials on handling severe stress.

An investigation was immediately conducted by an investigator

from the Office of Inspector General. In her statement, the

female employee repeated what she had reported to the supervisor

earlier about the threat. In his statement, the male employee

stated that, on the day in question, he had been upset about what

he felt were some underhanded activities by the female employee

and his only recollection about the conversation was that he made

a general statement like You’ll pay to her. He stated that this was

not a threat, just an expression. The investigation showed that the

employee had several previous incidents of intimidating behavior

which had resulted in disciplinary actions.

Resolution After reviewing the results of the investigation, the supervisor

proposed a removal action, finding that the female employee’s

version of the incident was more credible. In his response to the

proposed notice, the employee brought in medical documentation

that said he had a psychiatric disability of Post Traumatic Stress

Disorder, which caused his misconduct, and he requested a

reasonable accommodation. The deciding official consulted with 

54 Dealing with Workplace Violence

CASE STUDY

Case Study 8 –

A Threat
Case Study 8 – an agency attorney and employee relations specialist who explained 

A Threat (continued) that nothing in the Rehabilitation Act prohibits an agency from

maintaining a workplace free of violence threats of violence.

F u r t h e r, they explained that a request for reasonable accommodation

does not excuse employee misconduct nor does it shield an

e m p l o y e e from discipline. The deciding official determined that

removal was the appropriate discipline in this case. The employee

did not appeal the action.

Questions for the 1. Do you agree with the agency’s approach in this case?

Agency Planning Gro u p

2. If this situation occurred at your agency, would you have

involved law enforcement early in the process?

3. Who would conduct the investigation at your agency?

4. What else would your agency have done to protect the employee?

5. Would you have requested more medical documentation from

the employee? 

6. What risks must be balanced when selecting a penalty?

A Guide forAgency Planners 55

CASE STUDY
The Incident When the employee first contacted the in-house Employee

Assistance Program (EAP) counselor several months earlier,

he said that he had been referred by his supervisor because of

frequent tardiness and his inability to complete his assignments

on time. He complained of listlessness, lack of interest in his job,

and inability to sleep. The counselor referred the employee to a

psychiatrist for evaluation. The employee agreed to sign releases

so the counselor could contact both his supervisor and the

psychiatrist. The psychiatrist diagnosed depression, prescribed an

anti-depressant, and referred the employee for psychotherapy.

Several weeks later, the supervisor called the EAP counselor 

to report that the employee often came in looking disheveled,

coworkers complained that his speech and manner were

sometimes bizarre, and he bragged of drinking large amounts 

of alcohol each evening. The counselor immediately called the

employee and asked him to come in for a follow-up visit. He

agreed and appeared late that afternoon in a euphoric state. 

He said that he had never felt better in his life and had decided

against psychotherapy. The counselor encouraged him to return 

to the psychiatrist for re-evaluation but he refused. 

The employee was in a talkative mood and began to reminisce

about his Federal career — first his early successes, then recent

disappointments, such as being passed over repeatedly for

promotions and failure to receive any type of recognition. As he

continued, he revealed in a matter-of-fact tone that he had been

spending his evenings planning revenge on his managers because

they had treated him unfairly for many years and they deserved to

be punished. He believed he had planned the “perfect murder”

and that he would never be caught. Thinking at first that he was

just venting his frustration, the counselor questioned him further

and quickly realized that he was very serious. She urged him to

call his psychiatrist immediately and he again refused but said he

would “think about calling” in a day or two.

56 Dealing with Workplace Violence

CASE STUDY

Case Study 9 –

A Threat Made During

an EAP Counseling

Session
A Guide forAgency Planners 57

CASE STUDY

Case Study 9 –

A T h reat Made 

During an EAP

Counseling Session

(continued)

Response As soon as the employee left her office, the EAP counselor called

the psychiatrist and asked whether he viewed the employee’s

statement as a threat. The psychiatrist said he believed it was a

serious threat and recommended that she take immediate action.

The EAP counselor called the police and agency officials and

informed them about the situation. The following morning when

the employee reported to the office, he was met by the local police. 

A police officer brought him to the community’s emerg e n c y

services clinic for an evaluation and subsequently transported him

to the hospital. He remained in the hospital for several weeks. 

Resolution Following discharge, the employee remained at home for several

more weeks, during which time agency management held many

discussions with his treating and consulting physicians. It was

finally decided that the employee would be allowed to return to

work, and not removed from his position, on the condition that, as

long as he remained an employee of the agency, he would continue

in psychotherapy, remain on medication as prescribed, refrain from

alcohol and other drug abuse, and be seen on a regular basis by a

psychiatric consultant to the agency. The employee agreed to the

plan, often known as a last chance agreement. 

Although coworkers had been concerned about the employee’s

strange behavior and had seen him removed from the premises by the

police, several had visited him in the hospital and were supportive of

his return to the office. He worked his remaining years with no

further problems, then retired and moved to another state. 

Questions for the 1. Do you agree with the agency’s approach in handling this case?

Agency Planning Gro u p

2. Would you have let the employee back to work after his

hospitalization? What information would you need to make

this determination? 

3. What safety precautions would your agency take if you 

did/did not take him back? 

4. What should the EAP counselor have done if he denied

making the threat?

5. Would your agency have proposed disciplinary action prior 

to the last chance agreement?
The Incident The first incident report that came in to the agency’s newly

formed workplace violence team was from a field office. Two

months after an employee retired on disability retirement, he

began threatening his ex-supervisor. He knocked on his exsupervisor’s apartment door late one evening. He left threatening

statements on the supervisor’s home answering machine, such as

I just wanted to let you know I bought a gun. On one occasion,

a psychiatrist called the supervisor and the agency’s security

office and told them that the ex-employee threatened to murder

his ex-supervisor. The psychiatrist said the threat should be taken

seriously especially because he was drinking heavily. A coworker

received an anonymous letter stating, It is not over with [name of

supervisor]. Each time a threat was reported, the agency’s

security office would take extra measures to protect the supervisor

while at the workplace and the supervisor would report the

incident to the local police. Each time, the supervisor was

informed that the police were unable to take action on the threats

because they did not rise to a criminal level. The supervisor

spoke with the county magistrate about a restraining order, but

again was told the threats did not rise to the level required to

obtain a restraining order.

Response The workplace violence team held a conference call with the

threatened supervisor, the director of the office, and the security

chief of the field office. They suggested the following actions.

Recommendations for the Security Officer:

◆ Confirm the whereabouts of the ex-employee and periodically

reconfirm his whereabouts.

◆ Meet with local police to determine whether the ex-employee’s

behavior constitutes a crime in the jurisdiction and whether

other applicable charges (such as stalking or harassment)

might be considered. Ask if the police department has a threat

assessment unit or access to one at the state level. Ask police

about contacting the U.S. Postal Service for assistance in

tracing the anonymous letter (18 USC 876).

58 Dealing with Workplace Violence

CASE STUDY

Case Study 10 –

Threats Made by 

an Ex-Employee
Case Study 10 – ◆ Meet with the psychiatrist who called the agency and ask him

Threats Made by to send a letter to the chief of police reporting the threats. A l s o ,

an Ex-Employee inform the psychiatrist about the ex-employee’s behavior and

(continued) discuss whether or not involuntary hospitalization might be an

option. Attempt to establish an ongoing dialogue with the

psychiatrist and try to get a commitment from him to share

information about the case to the extent allowed by confidentiality.

◆ Provide periodic updates to the threatened supervisor on the

status of the case, actions taken, and actions being contemplated.

◆ Provide support and advice to the threatened supervisor,

including telephone numbers and points of contact for local

telephone company, local law enforcement, and local victim

assistance organizations.

Recommendations for the Director of the Field Office:

◆ Meet with security and police to consider options (and their

ramifications) for encouraging the ex-employee to cease and

desist his threatening activities.

◆ Provide support to the supervisor by encouraging the

supervisor to utilize the Employee Assistance Program.

Recommendations for the threatened Supervisor:

◆ Keep detailed notes about each contact with the ex-employee.

Give copies of all the notes to the police. (They explained to

the supervisor that in all probability, each time he went to the

police, it was treated like a new report, and thus, as individual

incidents, they did not rise to the level of a crime.) 

◆ Contact the phone company to alert them to the situation. 

◆ Tape record all messages left on the answering machine. 

◆ Contact the local office of victim assistance for additional ideas.

Resolution Contact with the local police confirmed that each report had been

taken as a new case. When presented with the cumulative

evidence, in fact, the ex-employee’s behavior did rise to the level

of stalking under state law. The police visited the ex-employee 

A Guide forAgency Planners 59

CASE STUDY
Case Study 10 – and warned him that further threats could result in an arrest. At

Threats Made by the threatened supervisor’s request, the county magistrate issued a

an Ex-Employee restraining order prohibiting personal contact and any (continued)

communication. Two months after the restraining order was issued,

the ex-employee was arrested for breaking the restraining order.

The agency security office and the supervisor kept in contact with

the police about the case to reduce any further risk of violence.

Questions for the 1. Do you think the agency’s approach in this case was adequate 

Agency Planning Gro u p protect the supervisor?

2. Have you already established liaison with appropriate law

enforcement authorities to ensure that situations such as this

get the proper attention from the beginning?

3. What would your agency do if the psychiatrist refused to get

involved? Are there any laws in your state requiring mental

health professionals to protect potential victims when threats

have been made?

4. How would you continue to monitor the ex-employee’s

activities after he is released from jail?

5. What would your agency do if the case continued without the

ex-employee being arrested?

60 Dealing with Workplace Violence

CASE STUDY

(continued)
The Incident The agency’s new workplace violence team receives a call from a

small field office. The office staff consists of three employees, two

of whom spend much of their workday outside of the office. All

three employees have had close calls in the past in dealing with

violent individuals. On two occasions, clients who came into the

office lost their tempers because they received answers they did

not like. Several times the employees who conducted their

business outside the office were the targets of threats and

aggressive behavior. How can you help us out here in the 

field? they asked the workplace violence team.

Response Presented with this problem, the workplace violence team

consulted with the following organizations:

◆ The local law enforcement agency in the jurisdiction where the

field office was located;

◆ Several Federal law enforcement agencies, including the

Federal Protective Service;

◆ Other Federal Government agencies that had small field

offices and/or employees who spent most of their workday

outside the office;

◆ The National Victims’ Center;

◆ Prevention units of State Police in several states where the

agency had field offices.

Resolution The agency implemented the following plan not only for the

office that made the initial request, but for many of their other

field offices as well. 

◆ Install a panic button in the office that is connected to a

security service.

◆ Install a video camera (with an audio component) in the public

service area to record any incident that occurs in the office.

A Guide forAgency Planners 61

CASE STUDY

Case Study 11 –

Threats from 

Non-Employees
Case Study 11 – ◆ Reconfigure office furniture, especially in public service areas,

Threats from to maximize security (e.g., rearrange the office furniture and

Non-Employees dividers to give the appearance that the employee is not alone).

◆ Train all employees in personal safety techniques.

◆ Provide back-up for employees in the field when a threatening

situation is suspected.

◆ Provide employees with copies of the laws regarding

harassment, threats, and stalking in their states.

◆ Provide employees with lists of state and local organizations

that can assist them in preventing violence and in dealing with

potentially violent situations.

◆ Arrange for regional and field offices to develop and maintain

liaison with state and local law enforcement agencies.

◆ Establish a system for employees in the field to check in

periodically throughout the day, e.g., an employee would call

and say, I’m entering the Jones residence, and I will call you

back in 30 minutes.

◆ Provide cellular phones, personal alarms, and other safety

devices, as appropriate, to employees in the field.

Questions for the 1. Do you agree with the agency’s approach in this case?

Agency Planning Gro u p

2. What more could be done?

62 Dealing with Workplace Violence

CASE STUDY

(continued)
The Incident A supervisor reported to a Human Resources (HR) specialist that

he recently heard from one of his employees (alleged victim) that

another one of his employees (alleged perpetrator) has been

intimidating him with his “in your face” behavior. The alleged

perpetrator has stood over the alleged victim’s desk in what he

perceived as a menacing way, physically crowded him out in an

elevator, and made menacing gestures. The supervisor stated that

the alleged perpetrator was an average performer, somewhat of a

loner, but there were no behavior problems that he was aware of

until the employee came to him expressing his fear. He said that

the employee who reported the situation said he did not want the

supervisor to say anything to anyone, so the supervisor tried to

observe the situation for a couple of days. When he didn’t

observe any of the behavior described, he spoke with the alleged

victim again and told him he would consult with the Crisis

Management Team.

Response In cases involving reports of intimidation, this agency’s crisis

response plan called for involvement of Human Resources (HR)

and the Employee Assistance Program (EAP) (with the clear

understanding that they would contact other resources as needed).

The first thing the HR specialist did was to set up a meeting for

the next day with the supervisor, an EAP counselor, and another

HR specialist who was skilled in conflict resolution. 

At that meeting, several options were discussed. One was to

initiate an immediate investigation into the allegations, which

would involve interviewing the alleged victim, any witnesses

identified by the alleged victim, and the alleged perpetrator.

Another suggestion offered by the EAP counselor was that, in

view of the alleged victim’s reluctance to speak up about it, they

could arrange a training session for the entire office on conflict

resolution (at which time the EAP counselor could observe the

dynamics of the entire work group). The EAP counselor noted

that conflict resolution classes were regularly scheduled at the

agency. The supervisor also admitted that he was aware of a lot

of tensions in the office and would like the EAP’s assistance in

resolving whatever was causing them.

A Guide forAgency Planners 63

CASE STUDY

Case Study 12 –

Intimidation
Case Study 12 – After discussing the options, the supervisor and the team decided

Intimidation to try the conflict resolution training session before initiating

(continued) an investigation. 

At the training session, during some of the exercises, it became

clear that the alleged victim contributed significantly to the

tension between the two employees. The alleged victim, in fact,

seemed to contribute significantly to conflicts not only with the

alleged perpetrator, but with his coworkers as well. The alleged

perpetrator seemed to react assertively, but not inappropriately, to

the alleged victim’s attempts to annoy him.

Resolution Office tensions were reduced to minimum as a result of the

training session and follow-up work by the Employee Assistance

Program. The employee who initially reported the intimidation to

his supervisor not only realized what he was doing to contribute

to office tensions, but he also actively sought help to change his

approach and began to conduct himself more effectively with his

coworkers. He appreciated getting the situation resolved in a 

low-key way that did not cause him embarrassment and began 

to work cooperatively with the alleged perpetrator. The alleged

perpetrator never learned about the original complaint, but he did

learn from the training session more effective ways to conduct

himself with his coworkers. This incident took place over a year

ago, and the agency reports that both are productive team players.

Questions for the 1. Do you agree with the agency’s approach in this situation?

A g e n c y Planning Gro u p

2. Can you think of other situations that could be addressed

effectively through an intervention with the work group?

3. In what kinds of situations would this approach be 

c o u n t e r- p r o d u c t i v e ?

4. Can you envision a scenario where using the group conflict

resolution session to get at any individualized problem might

have a negative, rather than a positive, effect?

5. Has your agency conducted employee training on such topics

as conflict resolution, stress management, and dealing with

hostile persons?

64 Dealing with Workplace Violence

CASE STUDY
The Incident An employee called a member of the agency crisis team for

advice, saying that a coworker was picking on her, and expressing

fear that something serious might happen. For several weeks, she

said, a coworker has been making statements such as, Yo u

actually took credit for my work and you’re spreading rumors

that I’m no good. If you ever get credit for my work again, that

will be the last time you take credit for anybody’s work. I’ll

make sure of that. She also said that her computer files have

been altered on several occasions and she suspects it’s the same

coworker. When she reported the situation to her supervisor, he

tried to convince her that there was no real danger and that she’s

blowing things out of proportion. However, she continued to

worry. She said she spoke with her union representative who

suggested she contact the agency’s workplace violence team.

Response The agency’s plan called for the initial involvement of employee

relations and the Employee Assistance Program (EAP) in

situations involving intimidation. The Employee Relations

specialist and the EAP counselor met with the Supervisor of the

employee who reported the incident. He told them he was aware

of the situation, but that the woman who reported it tended to

exaggerate. He knew the alleged perpetrator well, had supervised

him for years, and said, He just talks that way; he’s not really

dangerous. He gave examples of how the alleged perpetrator is

all talk and not likely to act out. One example had occurred

several months earlier when he had talked to the alleged

perpetrator about his poor performance. The employee had

become agitated and accused the supervisor of being unfair,

siding with the other employees, and believing the rumors the

coworkers were spreading about him. He stood up and in an

angry voice said, You better start treating me fairly or you’re going

to be the one with the pro b l e m . The supervisor reasoned that,

since he’s always been this way, he’s not a real threat to anyone. 

During the initial meeting, the team asked the supervisor to sign a

written statement about these incidents, and recommended that he

take disciplinary action. However, he was reluctant to sign a 

A Guide forAgency Planners 65

CASE STUDY

Case Study 13 –

Intimidation
Case Study 13 – statement or to initiate disciplinary action, and could not be

Intimidation persuaded by their recommendations to do so. 

(continued)

The employee relations specialist conducted an investigation.

Interviews with other coworkers confirmed the intimidating

behavior on the part of the alleged perpetrator and several

coworkers said they felt threatened by him. None were willing to

sign affidavits. The investigator also found a witness to the

incident where the supervisor had been threatened. As the alleged

perpetrator had left the supervisor’s office and passed by the

secretary’s desk, he had said, He’s an (expletive) and he better

watch himself. However, the secretary was also unwilling to sign

an affidavit. 

After confirming the validity of the allegations, but with the

supervisor refusing to take action, and the only affidavit being

from the employee who originally reported the situation, the team

considered three courses of action: 

(1) Arrange for the reassignment of the victim to a work situation

that eliminated the current threatening situation; 

(2) Report the situation to the second line supervisor and

recommend that she propose disciplinary action against the

alleged perpetrator; and 

(3) Locate an investigator with experience in workplace violence

cases to conduct interviews with the reluctant witnesses. The

investigator would be given a letter of authorization from the

director of the office stating the requirement that employees

must cooperate in the investigation or face disciplinary action. 

The team located an Investigator, who was experienced in

workplace violence cases, from a nearby Federal agency and

worked out an interagency agreement to obtain his services.

During the investigation, he showed the letter of authorization to

only one employee and to the supervisor, since he was able to

persuade the others to sign written affidavits without resorting to

showing them the letter. The results of the investigation showed

evidence of intimidating behavior by the alleged perpetrator.

The agency Security specialist met with the alleged perpetrator to

inform him that he was to have no further contact with the victim.

66 Dealing with Workplace Violence

CASE STUDY
Case Study 13 – He also met with the victim to give her advice on how to handle

Intimidation a situation like this if it were to happen again. In addition, he

(continued) recommended a procedure to the team that would monitor

computer use in the division. 

This action resulted in evidence showing that the employee was,

in fact, altering computer files. 

Resolution The first-line supervisor was given a written reprimand by the

second-line supervisor for failing to take proper action in a timely

manner and for failing to ensure a safe work environment. He

was counseled about the poor performance of his supervisory

duties. The alleged perpetrator was charged with both disruptive

behavior and gaining malicious access to a non-authorized

computer. Based on this information, he was removed from

Federal Service.

Questions for the 1. Would supervisory training likely have resulted in quicker 

Agency Planning Gro u p action against the alleged perpetrator?

2. Do you have other approaches for convincing a recalcitrant

supervisor to take action?

3. Do you have other approaches for convincing reluctant

witnesses to give written statements?

4. Are you up-to-date on the case law associated with requiring

the subject of an investigation to give statements? 

5. If you had not been able to convince the reluctant witnesses 

to give written statements, and you only had the one affidavit

to support the one incident, do you think this would have

provided your agency with enough evidence to take

disciplinary action? If so, what type of penalty would 

likely be given in this case?

A Guide forAgency Planners 67

CASE STUDY
The Incident A supervisor contacts the Employee Relations Office because 

one of his employees is making the other employees in the office

uncomfortable. He said the employee does not seem to have

engaged in any actionable misconduct but, because of the

agency’s new workplace violence policy, and the workplace

violence training he had just received, he thought he should at

least mention what was going on. The employee was recently

divorced and had been going through a difficult time for over 

two years and had made it clear that he was having financial

problems which were causing him to be stressed out. He was

irritable and aggressive in his speech much of the time. He would

routinely talk about the number of guns he owned, not in the same

sentence, but in the same general conversation in which he would

mention that someone else was causing all of his problems.

Response At the first meeting with the supervisor, the Employee Relations

specialist and Employee Assistance Program (EAP) counselor

suggested that, since this was a long-running situation rather than

an immediate crisis, the supervisor would have time to do some

fact-finding. They gave him several suggestions on how to do 

this while safeguarding the privacy of the employee (for example,

request a confidential conversation with previous supervisors, 

go back to coworkers who registered complaints for more

information, and, if he was not already familiar with his personnel

records, pull his file to see if there are any previous adverse

actions in it). Two days later they had another meeting to discuss

the case and strategize a plan of action. 

The Supervisor’s initial fact-finding showed that the employee’s

coworkers attributed his aggressive behavior to the difficult

divorce situation he had been going through, but they were

nevertheless afraid of him. The supervisor did not learn any more

specifics about why they were afraid, except that he was shorttempered, ill-mannered, and spoke a lot about his guns (although,

according to the coworkers, in a matter-of-fact rather than in an

intimidating manner).

68 Dealing with Workplace Violence

CASE STUDY

Case Study 14 –

Frightening Behavior
Case Study 14 – After getting ideas from the employee relations specialist and the

Frightening Behavior EAP counselor, the supervisor sat down with the employee and

(continued) discussed his behavior. He told the employee it was making

everyone uncomfortable and that it must stop. He referred the

employee to the EAP, setting a time and date to meet with 

the counselor. 

Resolution As a result of counseling by the supervisor and by the Employee

Assistance Program counselor, the employee changed his

behavior. He was unaware that his behavior was scaring people.

He learned new ways from the EAP to deal with people. He

accepted the EAP referral to a therapist in the community to

address underlying personal problems. Continued monitoring by

the supervisor showed the employee’s conduct improving to an

acceptable level and remaining that way.

Questions for the 1. Do you agree with the agency’s approach in this case?

Agency Planning Gro u p

2. Can you think of other situations that would lend themselves

to this kind of low-key approach?

3. Does your agency have effective EAP training so that

supervisors are comfortable in turning to the EAP for advice?

A Guide forAgency Planners 69

CASE STUDY
The Incident Several employees in an office went to their supervisor to report

an unusual situation which had occurred the previous day. An

agency employee from a different building had been in and out of

their office over a seven-hour period, remarking to several people

that “the Government” had kept her prisoner, inserted

microphones in her head to hear what she was thinking, and

tampered with her computer to feed her evil thoughts. She also

said that her doctors diagnosed her as paranoid schizophrenic,

but that they are wrong about her. She made inflammatory

remarks about coworkers, and made threatening statements such

as, Anybody in my old job who got in my way came down with

mysterious illnesses.

Response The Employee Relations specialist, who took the report,

immediately informed the employee’s supervisor about the

incident. She learned from the employee’s supervisor that until a

few months ago, the employee performed adequately, but had

always seemed withdrawn and eccentric. However, her behavior

had changed (it was later learned that she had stopped taking her

medication) and she often roamed around the office, spending an

hour or more with any employee she could corner. Several

employees had reported to the supervisor that they were afraid she

might hurt them because of her inflammatory statements. She

also learned that a former supervisor had previously given the

employee a reprimand and two counseling memoranda for

inappropriate language and absence from the worksite along with

offering her leave for treatment as a reasonable accommodation.

Upon the recommendation of the employee relations specialist,

the employee was placed on excused absence pending further

agency inquiry and response, with a requirement to call in daily.

The employee relations specialist, who was a trained investigator,

conducted interviews with the employees who filed the reports

and with the employee’s coworkers. She found that most of the

employees were afraid of the woman because of her

inflammatory statements.

70 Dealing with Workplace Violence

CASE STUDY

Case Study 15 –

Frightening Behavior
Case Study 15 – The employee relations specialist then set up a meeting with

Frightening Behavior the woman’s first- and second-line supervisor, the director of

(continued) personnel, the legal office, the director of security, the agency’s

medical officer, and the Employee Assistance Program (EAP)

counselor. The following options were raised:

◆ Propose an indefinite suspension pending an investigation

(option rejected because the agency already had all the

information it needed about the incident).

◆ Reassign or demote the employee to another office (option

rejected because the reported conduct was too serious).

◆ Propose a suspension based on her day-long frightening and

disruptive comments and conduct (option rejected because the

reported conduct was too serious).

◆ Order a medical examination to determine whether the

employee was fit for duty (option rejected because the

employee was not in a position with medical standards or

physical requirements).

◆ Offer a medical examination (option rejected because

supervisor already tried it several times).

◆ Offer her leave for treatment (option rejected because

supervisor already tried it).

The team recommended that the supervisor issue a proposal to

remove based on the events in the other office, i.e., her day-long

frightening and disruptive comments and conduct. They suggested

that the notice also reference the earlier counseling memos and the

reprimand which placed the employee on notice concerning her

absence from her office and inappropriate behavior. 

The supervisor proposed her removal. Three weeks later, the

employee and her brother-in-law came in for her oral reply to the

proposed notice. She denied making any of the statements

attributed to her. Her brother-in-law asked the deciding official to

order her to go for a psychiatric examination, but he was told that

regulations prohibited the agency from doing so. The employee

did not provide any additional medical documentation. 

A Guide forAgency Planners 71

CASE STUDY
Case Study 15 –

Frightening Behavior

(continued)

Resolution The agency proceeded with a removal action based on her

disruptive behavior. Once her brother-in-law realized that her

salary and health benefits would soon cease, he was able to

convince her to go to the hospital for the help she needed and to

file for disability retirement. The agency assisted her in filing

forms with the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). The

disability retirement was approved by OPM and this provided 

her with income and a continuation of medical coverage. 

Questions for the 1. Do you agree with the agency’s approach in handling this case?

Agency Planning Gro u p

2. Does your employee training direct employees to call security

or 911 in emergency situations?

3. Is your team knowledgeable about accessing appropriate

community resources for emergency situations?

4. What if the employee had not been willing and able to apply

for disability retirement herself? Do you know the rules

(discussed on page 111) concerning the agency’s filing for

disability retirement on behalf of the employee?

5. Does your agency’s supervisory training encourage early

intervention in cases of this type?

72 Dealing with Workplace Violence

CASE STUDY
The Incident After workplace violence training was conducted at the agency,

during which early intervention was emphasized, an employee

called the Employee Assistance Program (EAP) member of the

workplace violence team for advice on dealing with his senior

coworker. He said the coworker, who had been hired at the 

GS-14 level six months earlier, was in the habit of shouting and

making demeaning remarks to the other employees in the office.

The senior coworker was skilled in twisting words around and

manipulating situations to his advantage. For example, when

employees would ask him for advice on a topic in his area of

expertise, he would tell them to use their own common sense.

Then when they finished the assignment, he would make

demeaning remarks about them and speak loudly about how they

had done their work the wrong way. At other times, he would

demand rudely in a loud voice that they drop whatever they were

working on and help him with his project. The employee said he

had attempted to speak with his supervisor about the situation,

but was told not to make a mountain out of a mole hill.

Response The EAP Counselor met with the employee who had reported the

situation. The employee described feelings of being overwhelmed

and helpless. The demeaning remarks were becoming intolerable.

The employee believed that attempts to resolve the issue with the

coworker were futile. The fact that the supervisor minimized the

situation further discouraged the employee. By the end of the

meeting with the counselor, however, the employee was able to

recognize that not saying anything was not helping and was

actually allowing a bad situation to get worse.

At a subsequent meeting, the EAP counselor and the employee

explored skills to address the situation in a respectful, reasonable,

and responsible manner with both his supervisor and the abusive

coworker. The counselor suggested using language such as:

I don’t like shouting. Please lower your voice.

I don’t like it when you put me down in front of my peers. 

It’s demeaning when I am told that I am...

A Guide forAgency Planners 73

CASE STUDY

Case Study 16 –

Disruptive Behavior
Case Study 16 – I don’t like it when you point your finger at me.

Disruptive Behavior I want to have a good working relationship with you.

(continued)

The employee learned to focus on his personal professionalism

and responsibility to establish and maintain reasonable boundaries

and limits by using these types of firm and friendly “I statements,”

acknowledging that he heard and understood what the supervisor

and coworker were saying, and repeating what he needed to

communicate to them. 

After practicing with the Employee Assistance Program (EAP)

counselor, the employee was able to discuss the situation again

with his supervisor. He described the situation in non-blaming

terms, and he expressed his intentions to work at improving the

situation. The supervisor acknowledged that the shouting was

annoying, but again asked the employee not to make a mountain

out of a mole hill. The employee took a deep breath and said, It

may be a mole hill, but nevertheless it is affecting my ability to

get my work done efficiently. Finally, the supervisor stated that he

did not realize how disruptive the situation had become and

agreed to monitor the situation. 

The next time the coworker raised his voice, the employee used

his newly acquired assertiveness skills and stated in a calm and

quiet voice, I don’t like to be shouted at. Please lower your

voice. When the coworker started shouting again, the employee

restated in a calm voice, I don’t like being shouted at. Please

lower your voice. The coworker stormed away.

Meanwhile, the Supervisor began monitoring the situation. 

He noted that the abusive coworker’s conduct had improved 

with the newly assertive employee, but continued to be rude and

demeaning toward the other employees. The supervisor consulted

with the EAP counselor and Employee Relations specialist. The

counselor told him, Generally, people don’t change unless they

have a reason to change. The counselor added that the reasons

people change can range from simple “I statements,” such as

those suggested above, to disciplinary actions. The employee

relations specialist discussed possible disciplinary options with

the supervisor.

The supervisor then met with the abusive coworker who blamed the

altercations on the others in the office. The supervisor responded,

74 Dealing with Workplace Violence

CASE STUDY
Case Study 16 – I understand the others were stressed. I’m glad you understand 

Disruptive Behavior that shouting, speaking in a demeaning manner, and rudely

(continued) ordering people around is unprofessional and disrespectful. 

It is unacceptable behavior and will not be tolerated. During 

the meeting, he also referred the employee to the Employee

Assistance Program (EAP).

The coworker continued his rude and demeaning behavior to the

other employees in spite of the supervisor’s efforts. The others,

after observing the newly acquired confidence and calm of the

employee who first raised the issue, requested similar training

from the EAP. The supervisor met again with the EAP counselor

and employee relations specialist to strategize next steps.

Resolution When all of the employees in the office started using assertive

statements, the abusive coworker became more cooperative.

However, it took a written reprimand, a short suspension, and

several counseling sessions with the EAP counselor before he

ceased his shouting and rude behavior altogether.

Questions for the 1. Does your workplace violence training include communication

Agency Planning Gro u p skills to put a stop to disruptive behavior early on (including

skills for convincing reluctant supervisors to act)?

2. How would your agency have proceeded with the case if the

coworker had threatened the employee who spoke to him in an

assertive way?

3. What recourse would the employee have had if the supervisor

had refused to intervene?

A Guide forAgency Planners 75

CASE STUDY
76 Dealing with Workplace Violence
PART III

Background Information

A Guide forAgency Planners 77
78 Dealing with Workplace Violence
Fact Finding/

Investigating

Introduction I can’t work here anymore. I’m afraid he may actually kill one of us.

The supervisor hears the details of the incident that is causing 

the employee to feel threatened. Now the supervisor has to do

something. The incident can’t be ignored. It must be reported.

Once reported, the members of the incident response team (along

with the supervisor) have to look into it. 

What you need to know As in all other serious administrative matters that come to the

agency’s attention, you probably want to learn more about what 

is going on in this situation. You want to know:

◆ What happened?

◆ Who was involved?

◆ Where it happened?

◆ When it happened?

◆ Why it happened?

◆ How it happened?

What to do next Sometimes taking a few minutes for a cursory overview will 

give you enough information to know what to do next. Of 

course, if there is imminent danger, law enforcement must be

notified immediately.

A Guide forAgency Planners 79

PA RT III: SECTION 1

The information in this section provides guidance for the

agency planning group. It is not technical information for

professional investigators; nor is it a summary of factfinding or investigating procedures. Rather, it is intended

to provide the agency planning group with a general

overview of fact-finding/investigating considerations. 

It is also important to note that this section discusses

investigations that are administrative inquiries as distinct

from criminal investigations. 
Fact Finding/Investigating

Introduction However, if there is no imminent danger, deciding what to do next

(continued) will depend on agency procedures and the strategy/relationship

you have worked out ahead of time with your agency’s Office of

the General Counsel, Office of Inspector General, and the law

enforcement organization that has jurisdiction over your worksite.

(For information on law enforcement, see Part III, Section 5.) In

most Federal agencies, these offices are notified immediately

when certain types of reports are made, and they advise team

members (or agency officials) on how to proceed with the

investigation of the case. 

Types of Often, one of the first decisions to be made is whether to conduct

Investigations an administrative or a criminal investigation. The answer will

depend on whether the facts as presented indicate possible

criminal behavior. Since arriving at a decision generally involves

discussion with law enforcement personnel, the Office of the

General Counsel, the Office of Inspector General, and employee

relations specialists, it is imperative to coordinate efforts fully

with these offices ahead of time. Also, as discussed below, an

important point of these discussions is to ensure that actions taken

by an agency during an administrative investigation do not

impede potential criminal prosecutions. 

Administrative

Investigations

Use a qualified If a decision is made to conduct an administrative investigation, it 

i n v e s t i g a t o r is important to use a qualified and experienced professional

workplace violence investigator. The agency planning group

should locate one or more such investigators before the need for

an investigator arises. Your agency probably already has qualified

administrative investigators, for example, in the Office of

Inspector General. Some other good places to look in your own

agency are Employee Relations and Security. In some agencies,

these offices have their own investigators. In others, they contract

with private investigators, or utilize the services of investigators

from other Federal agencies. In any case, they should be able to

help you locate trained, qualified administrative investigators

ahead of time.

80 Dealing with Workplace Violence
Fact Finding/Investigating

Administrative It is important to use an investigator who conducts the

Investigations investigation in a fair and objective manner. The investigation

(continued) should be conducive to developing truthful responses to issues that

may surface. It must be conducted with full appreciation for the

legal considerations that protect individual privacy. It is

imperative that an atmosphere of candor and propriety be

m a i n t a i n e d .

Ensure that criminal Criminal prosecutions must not be compromised by actions taken 

prosecutions are during administrative investigations. It is necessary to ensure that

not compromised the administrative investigator, management, and all members of an

incident response team understand that actions taken during an

administrative investigation may compromise p o t e n t i a l criminal

prosecutions. If the agency obtains statements from the subject of

the investigation in the wrong way, the statements can impede or

even destroy the ability to criminally prosecute the case. On the

other hand, if handled correctly, statements made in administrative

investigations could prove vital in subsequent criminal proceedings.

Therefore, in a case where a decision is made to conduct an

administrative investigation, and there is potential criminal

liability, it is good practice to give the subject of the investigation

what are usually called “non-custodial warnings and assurances.”

That is, the person is given the option of participating in the

interview after being warned that any statements he or she makes

may be used against him or her in criminal proceedings. The

option not to participate in the interview is exercised by the

person’s invocation of his or her Fifth Amendment right against

self-incrimination. Note: Since the person is not legally in

custody, he or she is not entitled to an attorney.

If a decision is made to compel the subject of an investigation to

participate in an interview (instead of being given an option to

participate), the investigator should give Kalkines1 warnings. This

means that the person is told that (1) he or she is subject to

discharge for not answering and (2) statements he or she makes

(and the information gained as a result of these statements)

cannot be used against him or her in criminal proceedings.

1 Derived from Kalkines v United States, 473 F.2d 1391 (1973).

A Guide forAgency Planners 81
Fact Finding/Investigating

Administrative Even if an investigator does not actually give Kalkines warnings,

Investigations if the investigator compels the subject to give a statement, the

(continued) information in the statement (and the information gained as a

result of the statement) cannot be used in criminal proceedings. 

Since this may make criminal prosecution impossible, an

investigator should never give Kalkines warnings or compel

statements from the subject of an investigation without the

permission of the appropriate U.S. Attorney’s or prosecutor’s

office. Such permission is usually obtained by the agency’s

Office of the General Counsel or Office of Inspector General.

Since this is an extremely complicated consideration, be sure to

work closely with your Office of the General Counsel, Office of

Inspector General, and law enforcement organization. In

potentially violent situations, it is often difficult to determine

whether the misconduct is a criminal offense. When there is any

doubt, check it out.

Preparation and A thorough and professional investigative product is the result of

Procedures in thorough, professional preparation and procedures. Personally

Administrative obtaining information from individuals will constitute a

Investigations significant part of any investigation. An awareness of the skills

and techniques necessary for effective interviewing is required. 

In preparing for and conducting investigations, experienced

professional administrative investigators have found the following

approaches to be effective.

Reviewing available The investigator, after thoroughly reviewing the information that 

information gave rise to the investigation, is probably ready to begin the

investigation process. Discrepancies or deficiencies in the

information should be noted so they can be addressed during 

the interviews. 

82 Dealing with Workplace Violence

Additional considerations for the agency planning group,

such as having well-defined agency policies on handling

investigations, are discussed on page 89.
Fact Finding/Investigating

Preparation and 

Procedures in 

Administrative 

Investigations 

(continued)

Selecting an Since the investigator is conducting an official investigation, he or

interview s i t e she should conduct as many interviews as possible in an official

environment, i.e., in government work space (instead of restaurants,

cars, or private homes). Privacy is the most important

consideration in selection of an interview site. The investigator

should guarantee that the room will be available for the entire

i n t e r v i e w, so that there is no disruption of the interview once it

begins. The interview room should be comfortably furnished with

as few distractions 

as possible. 

Scheduling the Depending on the circumstances of the situation, the investigator 

interview may or may not want to contact the individual in advance. In

either event, the investigator should advise the individual of the

general nature and purpose of the interview. If the individual

declines the interview, the investigator should attempt to dissuade

the individual and, if unsuccessful, ascertain and record the

reasons for the declination. If the individual fails to appear more

than once for the interview, the investigator should follow whatever

policy has been decided upon by the agency ahead of time.

Allowing the presence There may be instances when the investigator or the individual 

of additional persons being interviewed wishes to have an additional person present. In

cases involving bargaining unit employees, see the discussion in

the next section. Investigators sometimes prefer to have an agency

representative present when interviewing the subject of the

investigation. In any event, the investigator should follow whatever

policy has been decided upon by the agency ahead of time.

Adhering to the law The provisions of law set forth in 5 USC 7114 (a)(2)(B), 

regarding bargaining commonly known as “Weingarten” rights, cover any examination 

unit employees of a bargaining unit employee by a representative of the agency 

in connection with an investigation. If a bargaining unit

employee reasonably believes that an investigation may result in

disciplinary action, and requests union representation, the

agency has three options: 

A Guide forAgency Planners 83
Fact Finding/Investigating

Preparation and (1) Immediately terminate the interview,

Procedures in 

Administrative (2) Continue the interview with the employee’s representative

Investigations present, or 

(continued)

(3) Give the employee the option of proceeding with the interview

without a representative or terminating the interview. 

Since interpretation of this law is very complex, consult with your

labor relations specialists or Office of General Counsel when

faced with such situations. Note: The law is currently unsettled as

to whether Inspector General investigations are subject to 5 USC

7114 (a)(2)(B).

Taking notes Since watching an investigator take notes can be intimidating to

some people, it is important to establish rapport before beginning

to take notes. The investigator should concentrate on observing

the individual during the interview. Note-taking should not

unduly interfere with observation. Note-taking materials should

be positioned inconspicuously and not become a focus of

attention. The investigator should learn and exercise the skill of

taking adequate notes while still observing the individual and

without distracting the person being interviewed. In some cases,

it may even be useful to have a second investigator or other

official present to take notes.

Should note-taking have a materially adverse effect on the

interview process, the investigator may explain the purpose of

note-taking. The notes are intended for the investigator’s use in

preparing a report and are not a verbatim transcript of the

interview. The investigator can modify or cease note-taking so

long as the information can be recorded in adequate detail after

the interview.

Maintaining control Questions developed ahead of time can be memorized, but 

of the interview they should never be read verbatim from a list or recited in a

perfunctory manner. The investigator should know in advance 

the topics of concern to be covered. The investigator should

maintain a singleness of purpose during the interview. The

investigator should resist any efforts to shorten the interview or

drift from topics of concern. 

84 Dealing with Workplace Violence
Fact Finding/Investigating

Preparation and 

Procedures in 

Administrative 

Investigations 

(continued)

Developing rapport The investigator should have a comfortable style that projects

professionalism and competence. The investigator’s style should

generate rapport with the person being interviewed. An open

approach that conveys a willingness to communicate generally

fosters rapport. Rapport is evident when the individual appears

comfortable with the investigator and is willing to confide

personally sensitive information. Continuing rapport can

oftentimes be maintained if the investigator does not become

judgmental when disagreeable conduct or information is

disclosed. The investigator who can project empathy when

appropriate to do so often gains special insight but, at the same

time, no investigator should get personally involved with the case.

Handling hostility If the investigator feels threatened by the individual being

interviewed, the investigator should stop the interview and

report the situation to the appropriate authorities. 

Investigators may encounter argumentative individuals. When 

this type of hostility is encountered, the investigator can seek to

defuse it by explaining the purpose of the interview and that the

interview is a required part of the investigation. Reminding the

interviewee that the investigator has full authority to conduct the

interview and that the interviewee is required to cooperate may

lessen the reluctance. [See, however, the discussion on page 81

regarding warnings that must be given when requiring the

subject of an investigation to cooperate.] 

Recognizing and acknowledging the person’s hostility and the

reason for it will sometimes let both parties reach the mutual

understanding that the interview will proceed (whether or not the

topics under discussion are related to the hostility). 

If, after repeated attempts in various ways, an individual refuses

to answer a specific question, the investigator should attempt to

learn the reason. The investigator should record the refusal to 

A Guide forAgency Planners 85
Fact Finding/Investigating

Preparation and answer any question and the reason. If the individual wants to

Procedures in terminate the interview, the investigator should attempt to learn

Administrative the reason and to dissuade the individual by addressing the

Investigations concerns. If the individual persists, the investigator should

(continued) conclude the interview.

Interview Te c h n i q u e s This section contains questioning, listening and observing

techniques and suggestions. 

Questioning techniques Questioning usually proceeds from general areas to specific

issues. For example, comments on the dates and location 

of the incident are usually obtained before comments on the

circumstances surrounding the event. 

The investigator should usually frame questions that require a

narrative answer. Soliciting “Yes” or “No” responses restricts the

individual from providing information. Such responses are

helpful when summarizing or verifying information, but they

should be avoided when seeking to elicit new information.

The investigator should use questioning techniques that result in

the most productive responses from the person being investigated.

This requires the investigator to exercise judgment based on

observation of attitude, demeanor, and actions during the

interview. These may change at times during the interview. The

investigator should be continuously alert to such changes and

should modify questioning techniques accordingly.

Non-confrontational approach. The non-confrontational

approach is best. Here are some examples of the nonconfrontational approach.

◆ If a person refuses to answer follow-up questions about an

issue, the investigator notes the refusal to answer and moves

on to the next area of questioning. However, the investigator

then comes back to the issue later.

◆ If the person raises his or her voice in the interview, the

investigator maintains a calm, level voice, or lowers his 

or her voice.

86 Dealing with Workplace Violence
Fact Finding/Investigating

Interview Te c h n i q u e s Direct and non-direct questions. A direct question calls for a

( c o n t i n u e d ) factual or precise answer. Direct questions are ordinarily used

when covering background data. 

Here are some examples of direct questions.

◆ Who told you that he made a threat?

◆ When did you notice that he had a gun?

◆ What were the circumstances surrounding the argument?

Non-direct questions are usually more appropriate in discussing

opinions and feelings because they allow more latitude in responding. 

Here are some examples of non-direct questions.

◆ What led you to say that?

◆ What made that unusual?

◆ Has this happened before to anyone?

◆ What was your reaction when he yelled at you?

Assumptive questions. Assumptive questions assume

involvement in the activity under discussion. The investigator can

use assumptive questions when involvement has already been

admitted, either at some other time or earlier in the interview.

Assumptive questions allow the investigator to assist the

individual in describing the degree of involvement, particularly

when it is difficult to respond narratively. The investigator puts

the individual at ease when using assumptive questions by

demonstrating that the investigator is not shocked by the conduct

being discussed.

Here are some examples of assumptive questions.

◆ Have you made similar statements to others?

◆ Is it fairly routine for you to carry a knife to work?

Summarizing questions. Summarizing questions are used to

verify what has been said in summary form. The investigator

uses summarizing questions to give the individual an opportunity

to hear what the investigator understood. In concluding each

segment of the interview, the investigator should pause after

asking a summarizing question to allow the individual to respond

and verify, correct, disagree with, or amplify a previous response.

A Guide forAgency Planners 87
Fact Finding/Investigating

Interview Te c h n i q u e s Here are some examples of summarizing questions.

(c o n t i n u e d )

◆ In other words, it was not what he said, but the tone of his 

voice, that scared you?

◆ You’re telling me that you were only joking when you said 

you’d blow up the place?

◆ Have I got this straight? You did not think he would actually

carry out his threat?

Listening techniques Investigators should not be intent on listening for the end of an

answer only so that they can get to the next question. The

meaning and sense of the answers will be ignored and lost.

Careful attention to each response is what provides the basis for

the next appropriate question, not a checklist of questions.

The person being interviewed may be signaling a problem with the

area under discussion by not immediately responding to a question.

The investigator should be patient and let the person respond. T h e

u rge to complete a statement for the person with an assumption of

what the person was going to say should be suppressed.

Listen to the whole response for its substance, inferences,

suggestions, or implications that there is more to be said, or some

qualification to the answer. Answers that are really non-answers,

such as that’s about right, or you know how it is, are not helpful

because they are not definitive. Do not accept this type of

response. Press for more specificity. Some people may attempt

to avoid responding by blaming a faulty memory. Follow-up

questions that can stimulate responses are, Do you mean you’re

just not sure? and, But you remember SOMETHING about it,

don’t you?

Investigators should both listen and think intensely throughout the

interview, measuring what is being said with what is known from

a review of what is already known. Compare new information to

other statements made in the interview, and any other information

in the investigator’s possession. 

Observing techniques Questioning and listening are not the only communicative aspects

of the interview. Actions may strengthen the credibility of the

spoken word or contradict it. Body movement, gestures, and

other observable manifestations provide clues to truth and 

88 Dealing with Workplace Violence
Fact Finding/Investigating

Interview Te c h n i q u e s deception. The investigator should be alert to behavior changes

(c o n t i n u e d ) throughout the interview and assess the significance of those

changes. While no single behavior indicates truth or deception,

clusters of behavior patterns may be valuable clues to the truth of

what is being said. These patterns should prompt the investigator

to pursue a certain or broader line of questioning. 

Other Considerations Here are other fact finding/investigating issues that the agency

for the Agency planning group should address:

Planning Group

1. Agency policy should be formulated ahead of time regarding

such matters as no-shows, whether to allow tape recording of

the interviews, and whether to allow the presence of additional

persons during the interviews. Policy should be based on

sound legal analysis.

2. Keep in mind that the routine, administrative details can’t

be ignored. Prior to beginning the actual investigation, the

investigator should be given all administrative details, e.g.,

who gets the report and whom to contact regarding other

administrative matters such as the investigator’s pay, parking,

and overtime.

3. Consider giving the investigator the list of factors the Merit

Systems Protection Board will consider in making credibility

determinations if the investigation leads to a case before the

Board2. They are:

(1) The witness’ opportunity and capacity to observe the

event or act in question;

(2) The witness’ character;

(3) Any prior inconsistent statement by the witness;

(4) A witness’ bias, or lack of bias;

2 See Hillen v. Army, 35 MSPR 453 (1987).

A Guide forAgency Planners 89
Fact Finding/Investigating

Other Considerations (5) The contradiction of the witness’ version of events by 

for the Agency other evidence or its consistency with other evidence;

Planning Group (6) The inherent improbability of the witness’ version of 

(continued) events; and

(7) The witness’ demeanor.

4. Every step of the investigation should be objective, impartial,

and unbiased. 

5. The investigative report will contain:

◆ Statements of witnesses

◆ Documentary evidence

The investigative report generally does not include an analysis

of the report. 

6. Both the investigator and the person who prepares the analysis

of the report should be objective, impartial, and unbiased.

7. Consider developing a letter signed by the agency head or

high-level designated official authorizing the investigation 

and requiring employees to cooperate. (See, however, the

information on page 81 regarding warnings to the subjects 

of administrative investigations when it is necessary to 

require cooperation.)

8. Ensure that all appropriate agency personnel are aware of 

the requirements discussed on page 81 regarding warnings

when compelling statements from the subject of an

administrative investigation.

Case Study 13 provides practical 

examples of some of the issues 

discussed in this section.

90 Dealing with Workplace Violence
Threat Assessment

Introduction Threatened employees want to know what the agency is doing 

to protect them and what measures they should take to protect

themselves. Since it is impossible to know with any certainty

whether a threat is going to be carried out, the agency should

always treat threats in a serious manner and act as though the

person may carry out the threat. 

This section will provide a basic understanding of the threat

assessment process. It gives background information for the nonspecialist, not instructions on threat assessment techniques.

T h reat assessment As the case studies in Part II illustrate, many cases involving 

a s s i s t a n c e threatening behavior can be handled expeditiously and effectively

by a supervisor with the assistance of one or more members of the

agency’s incident response team. The security or law

enforcement representative on the agency’s team will ordinarily

assess risks, often in consultation with the Employee Assistance

Program and employee relations staff, and make

recommendations for appropriate strategies and security measures

to protect employees. However, it may be helpful for the

agency’s planning group to identify experts in threat assessment

ahead of time, in case a situation requires more expertise than

team members can provide. 

Gathering information It is also a good idea to work out ahead of time who will gather

which types of information on an individual who makes a threat.

Multiple sources of information need to be consulted to better

understand the person’s behavior.

In some cases, the agency’s incident response team can collect

current and reliable information (which would include an

investigative report) and then consult with a threat assessment

professional to develop options for managing the situation. In

other cases, the agency’s incident response team uses a threat

assessment professional to conduct the initial investigation, assess

the risks, and make recommendations for managing the situation. 

Threat assessment investigations differ from criminal or

administrative investigations in that the purpose of the threat

assessment investigation is to provide guidance on managing the

situation in a way that protects the employees.

A Guide forAgency Planners 91

PA RT III: SECTION 2
Threat Assessment

Threat Assessment Threat assessment is an evolving technical field. It is important

Resources to find a qualified professional to assist you if the need arises.

Several Federal agencies have experienced threat assessment

professionals within their organizations; some have threat

management units within their criminal investigative services. 

If your agency does not have access to such professionals, law

enforcement agencies (such as the Federal Protective Service,

Federal Bureau of Investigation, and state and local police) may

be able to assist you in identifying experts in threat assessment.

If your agency uses a threat assessment professional who is

outside the organization, you should ensure that the individual is

aware of all relevant Federal laws and regulations. For example,

as explained on page 109, Federal regulations in 5 CFR Part 339

prohibit ordering a psychological examination under most

circumstances and the threat assessment professional thus must

understand the limits of the inquiry. Another example is the

Privacy Act provisions of 5 USC 552a which include obligations

for guarding personal data.

92 Dealing with Workplace Violence

The remainder of this section consists of excerpts from a

research brief on the topic of threat assessment issued by the

U.S. Department of Justice’s National Institute of Justice.

Entitled Threat Assessment: An Approach To Prevent

Targeted Violence, written by Robert A. Fein, Ph.D., Bryan

Vossekuil, and Gwen A. Holden, it explains the functions of a

threat assessment program, including the investigation, risk

assessment, and case management components. 

This research brief can be especially helpful for an agency’s

planning group to gain an understanding of the process of

conducting threat assessments so that group members can

better identify experts in threat assessment before they are

actually needed and learn how they can coordinate efforts

with them when the need arises. 
Threat Assessment

Excerpts From:

Threat Assessment: An Approach To Prevent 

Targeted Violence3

by Robert A. Fein, Ph.D., Bryan Vossekuil, 

and Gwen A. Holden4

Traditional law enforcement activities aim at apprehending and

prosecuting perpetrators of violence after the commission of their

crimes. In most circumstances, the primary responsibility of law

enforcement professionals is to determine whether a crime has

been committed, conduct an investigation to identify and

apprehend the perpetrator, and gather evidence to assist prosecutors

in a criminal trial. However, when police officers are presented

with information about a possible future violent crime, their

responsibilities, authority, and investigative tools and approaches

are less clear. “Threat assessment” is the term used to describe the

set of investigative and operational techniques that can be used by

law enforcement professionals to identify, assess, and manage the

risks of targeted violence and its potential perpetrators. 

Individuals utter threats for many reasons, only some of which

involve intention or capacity to commit a violent act. However,

a person can present a grave threat without articulating it. The

distinction between making and posing a threat is important.

◆ Some persons who make threats ultimately pose threats.

◆ Many persons who make threats do not pose threats. 

◆ Some persons who pose threats never make threats.

Postponing action until a threat has been made can detract attention

from investigation of factors more relevant to the risk of violence. 

3 Series: NIJ Research in Action, Published: September 1995, NCJ 155000.

Disclaimer: Points of view in this document are those of the authors and do

not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Justice.

4 About the authors: Robert A. Fein, Ph.D., a Visiting Fellow at the National

Institute of Justice, is a Consultant Psychologist for the U.S. Secret Service;

Bryan Vossekuil is Assistant Special Agent in Charge, Intelligence Division,

U.S. Secret Service; and Gwen A. Holden serves as Executive Vice President

of the National Criminal Justice Association.

A Guide forAgency Planners 93
Threat Assessment

Data from two recent studies suggest that at least some

approachers — and attackers — of public officials/figures show

an interest in more than one target.5 U.S. Secret Service

experience indicates that a number of would-be Presidential

assassins, such as Arthur Bremer and John Hinckley, considered

several targets, and changed targets, before finally making an

attack. Data on relationship stalking murders and workplace

violence murders point to suicide, as well as homicide, as a

possible outcome.6 These examples suggest that, in some cases,

the perpetrator may ultimately become his or her own final target.

The threat of sanctions, such as a long prison sentence, may not

deter a person who desperately desires revenge or is prepared to

die to achieve his objective. Passage of enforceable laws that

define and prohibit behaviors that could presage violent attacks is

one important step in preventing such attacks. Forty-nine States

have passed anti-stalking laws in the past four years, and the

National Institute of Justice, together with the National Criminal

Justice Association, published a model anti-stalking law.

7

Additionally, authorities in some jurisdictions are reviewing

various threat and harassment laws to determine whether they

might apply to threat-of-violence situations. However, laws by

themselves are unlikely to prevent stalking, workplace, or public

figure-centered violence, unless law enforcement and security

professionals know how to identify, evaluate, and manage

persons at risk of committing these violent acts.

5 Dietz, P.E. and D.A. Martell, Mentally Disordered Offenders in Pursuit of

Celebrities and Politicians, National Institute of Justice, Washington, D.C.,

1989, 83-NI-AX-0005; Dietz, P.E., D.B. Matthews, D.A. Martell, T.M.

Stewart, D.R. Hrouda and J. Warren, Threatening and Otherwise Inappropriate

Letters to Members of the United States Congress, Journal of Forensic

Sciences, 36 (September 5, 1991):1445-1468; Dietz, P.E., D.B. Matthews, C.

Van Duyne, D.A. Martell, C.D.H. Parry, T.M. Stewart, J. Warren and J.D.

Crowder, Threatening and Otherwise Inappropriate Letters to Hollywood

Celebrities, Journal of Forensic Sciences, 36 (January 1, 1991):185-209; and

Fein, R.A. and B. Vossekuil, The Secret Service Exceptional Case Study

Project: An Examination of Violence Against Public Officials and Public

Figures, National Institute of Justice, study in progress, 92-CX-0013.

6 For example, both Thomas McIlvane, in the Royal Oak, Michigan post

office attack, and Alan Winterbourne, in the Oxnard, California unemployment

office attack, killed themselves.

7 National Criminal Justice Association, Project to Develop a Model AntiStalking Code for States, National Institute of Justice, Washington, D.C., 1993.

94 Dealing with Workplace Violence
Threat Assessment

Fundamental Notwithstanding the growing importance of threat assessment for

Principles of law enforcement and security professionals, systematic thinking

Threat Assessment and guidance in this area have been lacking in many org a n i z a t i o n s .

Some law enforcement and security communities currently do not

have clearly articulated processes or procedures to steer their

actions when they are made aware of threat-of-violence subjects

and situations. Without guidelines for making threat assessments,

otherwise competent law enforcement professionals may be less

thoughtful and thorough than they might be in handling such

incidents. To fill the void, this report presents four fundamental

principles that underlie threat assessment investigation and

management. They are followed by a model and process for

conducting comprehensive threat assessment investigations.

(1) Violence is a process, as well as an act. Violent behavior

does not occur in a vacuum. Careful analysis of violent

incidents shows that violent acts often are the culmination 

of long-developing, identifiable trails of problems, conflicts,

disputes, and failures.

(2) Violence is the product of an interaction among three 

factors: The individual who takes violent action; stimulus or

triggering conditions that lead the subject to see violence as

an option, “way out,” or solution to problems or life situation;

and a setting that facilitates or permits the violence, or at least

does not stop it from occurring.

(3) Akey to investigation and resolution of threat assessment cases

is identification of the subject’s “attack-related” behaviors.

Perpetrators of targeted acts of violence engage in discrete

behaviors that precede and are linked to their attacks; they

c o n s i d e r, plan, and prepare before engaging in violent actions.

(4) Threatening situations are more likely to be successfully

investigated and managed if other agencies and systems —

both within and outside law enforcement or security

organizations — are recognized and used to help solve

problems presented by a given case. Examples of such

systems are those employed by prosecutors; courts; probation,

corrections, social service, and mental health agencies;

employee assistance programs; victim’s assistance programs;

and community groups.

A Guide forAgency Planners 95
Threat Assessment

Functions of a T h re a t The three major functions of a threat assessment program are:

Assessment Pro g r a m identification of a potential perpetrator, assessment of the risks of

violence posed by a given perpetrator at a given time, and

management of both the subject and the risks that he or she

presents to a given target.

Identifying the The process of identifying a potential perpetrator involves: (1)

Perpetrator defining criteria that could lead to a person becoming a subject of

a threat assessment investigation; (2) determining the areas within

the law enforcement or security organization that will be

responsible for receiving information about possible subjects and

conducting threat assessment investigations; (3) notifying those

individuals and organizations that might come in contact with —

or know of — potential subjects about the existence of a threat

assessment program; and (4) educating notified individuals and

organizations about the criteria for bringing a concern about

potential violence to the attention of investigators.

Assessing the Risks The second goal of a threat assessment program is to evaluate the

risks persons under suspicion may pose to particular targ e t s .

Risk assessment involves two primary functions: investigation

and evaluation.

Investigation The primary objective of a risk assessment investigation is to gather

information on a subject and on potential targets. Multiple sources

of information should be consulted to learn about a subject’s

b e h a v i o r, interests, and state of mind at various points in time.

◆ Personal interviews with the subject.

◆ Material created or possessed by the subject, including

journals and letters, and materials collected by the 

subject, such as books and magazines, that may relate 

to the investigation.

◆ Persons who know or have known the subject, including

family members, friends, coworkers, supervisors, neighbors,

landlords, law enforcement officers, social service or mental

health staff, and previous victims of unacceptable behavior

(including violence) committed by the subject.

96 Dealing with Workplace Violence
Threat Assessment

Assessing the Risks ◆ Record or archival information, including police, court,

(continued) probation, and correctional records; mental health and social

service records; and notes made by those aware of the

subject’s interest in a particular target, such as security

personnel, managers, victims, or colleagues.

Information about At the beginning of a threat assessment investigation, it is 

the subject important to secure detailed descriptions of the subject’s

behaviors and actions that prompted other persons to notice the

subject. The kinds of information useful for threat assessment

include data about overwhelmingly or unbearably stressful

experiences and the subject’s ability to cope at such times.

Behavioral data about the subject’s motives, intentions, and

capacities is critical; of particular importance is information 

about attack-related behaviors: 

◆ The subject has expressed interest in possible targets,

including particular, identifiable targets.

◆ The subject has communicated with or about potential targets.

◆ The subject has considered and/or attempted to harm self or others.

◆ The subject has secured or practiced with weapons. 

◆ The subject has followed or approached potential targets,

either with or without weapons, at events or occasions. 

Interviewing Whether to interview the subject of a threat assessment 

the subject investigation can be a key question; the decision depends on

several factors:

◆ The investigator’s need for information.

◆ The facts leading to initiation of investigation.

◆ The investigator’s legal standing in relation to the subject.

◆ The resources available to the investigator.

◆ The investigator’s training and experience in interviewing.

◆ The stage of the investigation.

◆ The investigator’s strategy for resolving the case.

A decision to interview a subject should be made on the basis of

case facts. Generally, when there has been face-to-face contact

between subject and target or the subject has communicated a threat

to the target, an interview is a good idea. An interview under such

A Guide forAgency Planners 97
Threat Assessment

Assessing the Risks circumstances may have several goals. It may signal that the

(continued) s u b j e c t ’s behavior has been noticed, permit the subject’s story to be

related to a third party, gather information that is the basis for

corroboration, and provide an opportunity for communicating that

the subject’s behavior is unwelcome, unacceptable, and must cease.

Any interview is a vehicle for gathering information about the

subject that can be used to assess the threat that a subject poses

and to manage that threat. Therefore, threat assessment

interviews are most productive if they are conducted respectfully

and professionally. The task of the investigator is twofold: To

gather information about the subject’s thinking, behavior patterns,

and activities regarding the target(s) and to encourage change in

the subject’s behavior. By showing an interest in the subject’s life

that is neither unduly friendly nor harsh, an investigator can

increase the likelihood of the interview’s success.

In some cases, however, an interview may intensify the subject’s

interest in the target or increase the risk of lethal behavior. For

example, a desperate and suicidal subject, self-perceived as

having been abandoned, who has been stalking a former partner,

may sense that time is running out and be prompted by an

interview to engage in more extreme behavior before “they put

me away.” In such a circumstance, the investigator may need to

expend additional resources, perhaps increasing security for the

target, arranging hospitalization or arrest of the subject, or

monitoring or surveilling the subject. Subject interviews,

therefore, should be considered and conducted within the context

of overall investigative strategy.

Information about A man who, over days and weeks, has been following a secretary 

the target whom he met once, but with whom he has no relationship,

appears to have picked out a potential target. An employee, fired

by a manager whom he blames for discriminating against him and

causing the breakup of his family, has told former coworkers that

he will “get even”; once again, a potential target appears to have

been selected. To prevent violence, the threat assessment

investigator requires information on the targeted individual.

Relevant questions about the target might include the following: 

◆ Are potential targets identifiable, or does it appear that the

subject, if considering violence, has not yet selected targets for

possible attack? 

98 Dealing with Workplace Violence
Threat Assessment

Assessing the Risks ◆ Is the potential target well known to the subject? Is the

(continued) subject acquainted with a targeted individual’s work and

personal lifestyle, patterns of living, daily comings and goings? 

◆ Is the potential target vulnerable to an attack? Does the

targeted individual have the resources to arrange for physical

security? What might change in the target’s lifestyle or living

arrangements that could make attack by the subject more

difficult or less likely, e.g., is the targeted individual planning

to move, spend more time at home, or take a new job?

◆ Is the target afraid of the subject? Is the targeted individual’s

degree of fear shared by family, friends, and/or colleagues? 

◆ How sophisticated or naive is the targeted individual about the

need for caution? How able is the individual to communicate

a clear and consistent I want no contact with you message to

the subject?

Evaluation A two-stage process is suggested to evaluate information gathered

about the subject and the potential target(s). In the first stage,

information is evaluated for evidence of conditions and behaviors

that would be consistent with an attack. The second stage of

evaluation seeks to determine whether the subject appears to be

moving toward or away from an attack. After analyzing the

available data, the threat assessor is left with these questions:

◆ Does it appear more or less likely that violent action will be

directed by the subject against the target(s)? What specific

information and reasoning lead to this conclusion? 

◆ How close is the subject to attempting an attack? What

thresholds, if any, have been crossed (e.g., has the subject

violated court orders, made a will, given away personal items,

expressed willingness to die or to be incarcerated)? 

◆ What might change in the subject’s life to increase or decrease

the risk of violence? What might change in the target’s

situation to increase or decrease the risk of violence?

A Guide forAgency Planners 99
Threat Assessment

Case Management The first component of threat assessment case management

involves developing a plan that moves the subject away from

regarding violence against the target as a viable option. Such a

plan is likely to draw on resources from systems within the threat

assessment unit’s parent organization, as well as those outside it.

The second component is plan implementation. The best

developed and supported case management plan will be of little

use in preventing violence if the plan is not implemented and

monitored. The plan must remain flexible to accommodate

changes in the subject’s life and circumstances. The final

management component is formal closing of the case.

Case management Once an evaluator determines that a given subject presents a risk 

development of violence to a targeted individual, the next task is to develop a

plan to manage the subject and the risk. The evaluator then

proceeds to identify those internal and external systems that may

be helpful in managing the problems presented by the subject. 

In certain situations, such as those in which the subject has been

stalking an identifiable target in a jurisdiction that has an

enforceable and effective anti-stalking law, the best way to

prevent violence and minimize harm to the targeted individual

may be to prosecute the case vigorously.

A good relationship between threat assessment investigators and

prosecutors can influence the priority assigned to the case and the

extent to which prosecutorial and judicial processes facilitate its

resolution. Such relationships also may affect the court’s disposition

of the case, including sentencing of a convicted off e n d e r.

Even conviction and imprisonment, however, do not guarantee

that the target will be safe from the subject. If the subject has

been unable or unwilling to let go of the idea of a relationship

with the target, or if the subject attributes the pains and

misfortunes of his or her life to the targeted individual, it may

make sense to consider strategies by which the subject is

encouraged to change the direction, or intensity, of his interest. 

A subject engaged in activities that bring success and satisfaction

is less likely to remain preoccupied with a failed relationship.

Family, friends, neighbors, or associates may play a role in

suggesting and supporting changes in the subject’s thinking and

behavior. In addition, mental health and social service staff may

be of great assistance in aiding the subject to formulate more

appropriate goals and develop skills and strengths that are likely

to result in life successes. 

100 Dealing with Workplace Violence
Threat Assessment

Case Management At least one aspect of a case management plan concerns the

(continued) target. If the subject is to be prohibited from contact with the

target, the target needs to understand what to do (i.e., whom to

call and how to contact the official handling the case) if the

subject initiates direct or indirect contact. 

Case management The most carefully crafted plan will have little effect if it remains

implementation in the investigator’s files and is not translated into action.

Although no procedures or techniques can guarantee that a subject

of comprehensive threat assessment will not attempt violent

action toward a target, two activities are known to help reduce the

risk of violence, and, in the instance of a bad outcome, assist the

threat assessment team in any post-incident review.

First, documentation of data and reasoning at every stage of a

threat assessment investigation is essential. Undocumented or

poorly documented information-gathering and analysis are suspect

in and of themselves, and they provide little foundation for review

or for efforts to learn from — and improve on — experience.

Without clear documentation, investigators are left with only their

recollections, which can be both partial and faulty and are subject

to criticism as retrospective reconstruction. A carefully and

comprehensively documented record may be criticized for

imperfect data-gathering or flawed analysis, but such a record 

also demonstrates both thoughtfulness and good faith — critical

questions in any post-incident review.

Second, consultation at every major stage of the threat assessment

process can be a significant case management tool. Consultants

may be members of the threat assessment unit or external experts.

To be effective, a consultant should be knowledgeable in areas

relevant to the case and be known and trusted by the investigators.

For example, in a case where a subject has a history of diagnosed

mental disorders and the primary investigator is unfamiliar with

mental health language and concepts used in the records, an expert in

psychology or psychiatry can provide invaluable insight and advice.

In addition to providing special expertise, consultants may notice

and ask about questions in a case that remain to be explored or

answered. Even proficient investigators are occasionally

vulnerable to “missing the forest for the trees.” A consultant,

such as a fellow threat assessment specialist who has not been

involved with the case, may offer a comment that can redirect or

sharpen an ongoing investigation. 

A Guide forAgency Planners 101
Threat Assessment

Case Management In the event of a bad outcome, use and documentation of

(continued) consultant expertise may demonstrate that the threat assessment

team sought additional perspectives and ideas and did not get

stuck with “tunnel vision.” 

Closing the case The final task of threat assessment case management is closing

the case. When a threat assessor determines that the subject has

moved far enough away from possible violent action toward the

target to no longer cause appreciable concern, the case can be

considered for closing. At this time, it may be important to ask: 

◆ What has changed in the subject’s life that appears to lessen

the likelihood that the subject is interested in or will attempt

violent action toward the target?

◆ Which components of the case management plan seemed to

affect the subject’s thinking or capacity to initiate violent

action, and to what extent?

◆ What life circumstances might occur that would again put the

subject at increased risk of contemplating, planning, or attempting

violent action toward the original target or other potential targets? 

◆ Are there supports in place (or that can be developed) that will

be known and available to the subject at a future time when

the subject is again at risk of moving toward violent behavior?

While social commentators and analysts may debate the myriad

reasons that lead to growing national concern about targeted

violence, law enforcement and security organizations are

increasingly being called on to examine individual situations and

make judgments and determinations about the risks of violence

that one person might present to an identifiable target. In cases

related to stalking behaviors, workplace violence, attacks on

public officials and figures, and other situations where targeted

violence is a possibility, comprehensive and carefully conducted

threat assessment investigations can safeguard potential targets,

deter potential attackers, and serve the public. 

102 Dealing with Workplace Violence
Threat Assessment

Case Management For further information about threat assessment, a new publication

(continued) entitled P rotective Intelligence and Threat A s s e s s m e n t

Investigations: A Guide for State and Local Law Enforcement

Officials will soon be available through the Department of Justice.

Case Study 7 provides practical

examples of some of the 

issues discussed in this section.

A Guide forAgency Planners 103
104 Dealing with Workplace Violence
Employee Relations

Considerations

Overview Having an understanding of the employee relations issues that

come into play in violent and potentially violent situations is

important for all members of an agency’s planning group. It helps

in coordinating an effective response, in determining whether

outside resources will be needed in certain situations, and in

ensuring that appropriate disciplinary actions are taken. 

In many agencies, the Employee Relations staff coordinate the

agency’s workplace violence program. One reason is that most

reported incidents will result in some type of disciplinary action.

Another reason is that, since the goal of the workplace violence

prevention effort is to deal effectively with problem behavior

early on, reporting incidents to the Employee Relations office can

result in swift disciplinary action which stops the unacceptable

behavior before it can escalate. When another office, such as the

Security Office, is responsible for coordinating the response

effort, immediate involvement of the Employee Relations staff is

usually necessary for an effective response. 

This section will discuss: 

◆ Administrative options available in removing potentially

dangerous employees from the worksite; 

◆ Taking appropriate disciplinary action based on violent,

threatening, harassing, and other disruptive behavior; 

◆ Responding to an employee who raises a medical

condition/disability as a defense against the misconduct; 

◆ Ordering and offering psychiatric examinations; 

◆ Assisting employees in applying for disability retirement; and 

◆ Information on appeals of disciplinary actions.

A Guide forAgency Planners 105

PA RT III: SECTION 3
Employee Relations Considerations

Administrative In situations where a disruption has occurred on the job, or where

Actions to Keep an there is a belief that the potential for violence exists, a supervisor

Employee Away may need to keep an employee away from the worksite to ensure

from the Worksite the safety of employees while conducting further investigation

and deciding on a course of action.

Immediate, short- ◆ Place employee on excused absence (commonly known as

term actions administrative leave). Placing the employee in a paid, nonduty status is an immediate, temporary solution to the problem

of an employee who should be kept away from the worksite. 

Some employees who are placed on excused absence consider

this measure to be punitive. However, relevant statute and

case law have indicated that as long as the employee continues

receiving pay and benefits just as if he or she were in a duty

status, placing the employee in an excused absence status does

not require the use of adverse action procedures set forth in

5 USC Chapter 75. 

Agencies should monitor the situation and move toward

longer-term actions (as discussed below) when it is necessary,

appropriate, or prudent to do so. Depending on the

circumstances, it may also be a good idea to offer the

employee the option to work at home while on excused leave.

◆ Detail employee to another position. This can be an

effective way of getting an employee away from the worksite

where he or she is causing other employees at the worksite to

be disturbed. However, this action will be useful only if there

is another position where the employee can work safely and

without disrupting other workers.

Longer-term actions Supervisors are sometimes faced with a situation where there is

insufficient information available to determine if an employee

poses a safety risk, has actually committed a crime, or has a

medical condition which might make disciplinary action

inappropriate. To take an employee out of a paid duty status, an

agency must use adverse action procedures, which require a 

30-day paid status during the advance notice of the adverse

action. Included below are the two types of actions which place

an employee in non-duty status.

106 Dealing with Workplace Violence
Employee Relations Considerations

Administrative ◆ Indefinite suspension. An indefinite suspension is an adverse

Actions to Keep an action that takes an employee off-duty until the completion of

Employee Away some ongoing inquiry, such as an agency investigation into

from the Worksite allegations of misconduct. Agencies usually propose indefinite

(continued) suspensions when they will need more than 30 days to await

the results of an investigation, await the completion of a

criminal proceeding, or make a determination on the

employee’s medical condition. Indefinite suspensions are 

5 CFR Part 752 adverse actions requiring a 30-day notice 

period with pay. This means that 30 days after an indefinite

suspension is proposed, the employee will no longer be in a

pay status until the completion of the investigation, completion

of the criminal proceeding, or determination of the employee’s

medical condition. 

◆ Indefinite enforced leave. The procedure for indefinite

enforced leave is the same as for an indefinite suspension —

Part 752 adverse action procedures. It involves making the

employee use his or her own sick or annual leave (after the 30-

day notice period with pay) pending the outcome of an inquiry.

Disciplinary Actions Where the supervisor possesses the relevant information regarding

violent, harassing, threatening, and other disruptive behavior, the

supervisor must determine the appropriate disciplinary action. T h e

selection of an appropriate charge and related penalty should be

discussed with the Employee Relations staff and the Office of

General Counsel where appropriate. Some disciplinary actions are:

◆ Reprimand, warning, short suspension, and alternative

discipline. These lesser disciplinary actions can be used in

cases where the misconduct is not serious and progressive

discipline may correct the problem behavior. They are an

excellent means of dealing with problem behavior early on.

These lesser disciplinary actions involve considerably fewer

procedures than the adverse actions listed below.

◆ Removal, reduction-in grade, and suspension for m o re than

14 days. Law and regulations8 provide that an agency may

take an adverse action against an employee only for such cause as

will promote the efficiency of the service. A Federal employee

8 5 USC 7513(a) and 7701(c)(1)(B) and 5 CFR Part 752.

A Guide forAgency Planners 107
Employee Relations Considerations

Disciplinary Actions against whom an adverse action is proposed is entitled to a 30-day

(continued) advance written notice. A seven-day notice period instead of the

usual 30 days is permitted “when the agency has reasonable cause

to believe that the employee has committed a crime for which a

sentence of imprisonment may be imposed.”9

In either case, the agency must give the reasons for the proposed

action in the written notice and provide the employee an

opportunity to respond. The agency must consider the employee’s

response and notify the employee when a decision has been made.

If the agency’s final decision is to take the proposed action, the

employee must be advised of the appeal rights to which he or she

is entitled and the time limits that apply to those appeal rights. 

Disabilities as a The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has

Defense Against issued important guidance that specifically addresses potentially

Alleged Misconduct violent misconduct by employees with disabilities. Although this

guidance deals specifically with psychiatric disabilities, it applies

generally to other disabling medical conditions. It advises that an

agency may discipline an employee with a disability who has

violated a rule (written or unwritten) that is job-related and

consistent with business necessity, even if the misconduct is the

result of the disability, as long as the agency would impose the

same discipline on an employee without a disability. T h e

guidance specifically states that nothing in the Rehabilitation Act

prevents an employer from maintaining a workplace free of

violence or threats of violence. 

The guidance specifically states that reasonable accommodation is

always prospective. Thus, an agency is never required to excuse 

past misconduct as a reasonable accommodation. A r e a s o n a b l e

accommodation is a change to the workplace that helps an employee

9 5 USC 7513(b).

108 Dealing with Workplace Violence

“... reasonable accommodation is always

prospective. Thus, an agency is never

required to excuse past misconduct as a

reasonable accommodation.”
Employee Relations Considerations

Disabilities as a perform his or her job and may be required, along with discipline,

Defense Against when the discipline is less than removal. 

Alleged Misconduct 

(continued) For a detailed discussion of all these points, see EEOC Enforc e m e n t

Guidance on the Americans with Disabilities Act and Psychiatric

Disabilities, EEOC number 915.002, 3-25-97. The guidance is

available on the Internet at http\\www. e e o c . g o v, or a copy can be

obtained by calling the EEOC Publications Office at (800) 669-

3362. Interpretation of the Rehabilitation Act is complex and

changing, and any specific questions should be discussed with 

your Office of General Counsel.

Ordering and Supervisors should gain a better understanding of their rights (and

Offering Psychiatric limitations) regarding psychiatric examinations for employees.

Examinations There are some absolute prohibitions in Federal personnel

regulations regarding what medical information a supervisor can

demand from an employee and every supervisor should learn

what can be ordered and what can be offered. Discuss specific

questions with your Office of General Counsel. However, below

is some basic information on psychiatric examinations.

Ordering a psychiatric examination. Under 5 CFR Part 339, an

agency may order a psychiatric examination, or psychological

assessment, under very rare circumstances.10 The only time an

employee can be ordered to undergo a psychiatric examination is:

◆ If he or she occupies a position requiring specific medical

standards and the results of a current general medical exam

which the agency has the authority to order show no physical

basis to explain actions or behavior which may affect the safe

and efficient performance of the individual or others, or 

◆ If a psychiatric examination is specifically required by medical

standards or a medical evaluation program.

10 5 CFR 339.301 and 302.

A Guide forAgency Planners 109

“...an agency may order a psychiatric

examination, or psychological assessment, 

under very rare circumstances.”
Employee Relations Considerations

Ordering and Offering a psychiatric examination. Under 5 CFR Part 339, an

Offering Psychiatric agency may offer a psychiatric evaluation or psychological

Examinations assessment (or it may ask the employee to submit medical

(continued) documentation) in any situation where it is in the interest of the

Government to obtain information relevant to an individual’s

ability to perform safely and efficiently, or when the employee

has requested, for medical reasons relating to a psychiatric

condition, a change in duty status, working conditions, or any

other benefit or reasonable accommodation. If the employee

decides not to be examined or to submit medical documentation,

the agency should act on the basis of the information available. 

Disability Retire m e n t Supervisors should also gain a better understanding of their rights,

and limitations, regarding assisting employees with disability

retirement applications. The restrictions on filing a disability

retirement on behalf of an employee are rigorous, so supervisors

should understand their role in encouraging and assisting

employees who wish to seek disability retirement. Below is some

basic information on disability retirement. 

Employees with medical disabilities may be eligible for disability

retirement if their medical condition warrants it and if they have

the requisite years of Federal service to qualify. In considering

applications for disability retirement from employees, the Office

of Personnel Management (OPM) focuses on the extent of the

employee’s incapacitation and ability to perform his or her

assigned duties. OPM makes every effort to expedite any

applications where the employee’s illness is in an advanced stage. 

It is important to note that OPM’s regulations11 specifically

provide that an individual’s application for disability retirement

does not stop or stay an agency’s taking and effecting an adverse

action. An agency should continue to process an adverse action,

even while informing the employee of his or her ability to file an

application for disability retirement, or informing family members

that they can apply on behalf of the employee.

Assisting employees The agency can and should counsel the employee any time it 

in applying for believes that a medical condition is causing a service deficiency 

disability re t i rement and the employee is otherwise eligible for disability retirement.

11 5 CFR 831.501(d).

110 Dealing with Workplace Violence
Employee Relations Considerations

Disability Retire m e n t This does not mean that the agency has a specific number of

(continued) documents in hand to show that the employee is medically

incapacitated. It only means that the option of disability

retirement be given to the employee to consider.

The agency cannot force the employee to file an application for

disability retirement, despite its belief that it is in his or her best

interests. If the agency believes that the employee does not

understand the consequences of his or her choice not to do so, the next

paragraph explains agency-filed applications for disability retirement.

Agency-filed The conditions for filing an application for disability retirement 

applications for on behalf of an employee are strictly limited. The Office of 

disability retirement Personnel Management has set out five conditions that must be met

before an agency can file on an employee’s behalf.1 2 If the following

five conditions are met, the agency must file on the employee’s behalf.

◆ The agency has issued a decision to remove the employee;

◆ The agency concludes, after review of medical documentation,

that the cause of the unacceptable performance, conduct, or

leave problems is due to the disease or injury;

◆ The employee is institutionalized, or based on the agency’s

review of medical and other information, it concludes that the

employee is incapable of making a decision to file on his or

her own behalf;

◆ The employee has no representative or guardian with the

authority to file on his or her behalf; and

◆ The employee has no immediate family member (spouse, parent,

or adult child) who is willing to file on the employee’s behalf. 

Appeals of a Once a disciplinary action is taken by an agency, the employee

Disciplinary Action involved has options regarding his or her appeal (or challenge) to

the agency’s final decision. The various avenues of redress that

may be available to an employee include the agency’s

administrative or negotiated grievance system, the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission or the Merit Systems

Protection Board. Employees covered by a bargaining unit often

turn to the union for guidance on their appeal rights.

12 5 CFR part 831.1201-1206 (covering CSRS employees). For FERS

employees, see 5 CFR 844.202.

A Guide forAgency Planners 111
Employee Relations Considerations

Appeals of a Numerous holdings by third parties uphold agencies’ rights to

Disciplinary Action discipline employees who have threatened, intimidated, or

(continued) physically injured their supervisors or coworkers, or otherwise

caused a disruption in the workplace. However, since case law

relating to disciplinary actions is constantly evolving, agency

officials should always consult their employee/labor relations

specialists and Office of the General Counsel when considering

disciplinary actions. 

Case Studies 6, 8, 13, and 15 provide 

practical examples of some of 

the issues discussed in this section.

112 Dealing with Workplace Violence
Employee Assistance

Program

Considerations

Introduction Employee Assistance Program (EAP) participation can be

important to the success of an agency’s workplace violence

program. The EAP’s role generally begins with participation on

the agency planning group where decisions are made about the

role the EAP will play in the workplace violence program. EAPs

usually play an active role in early prevention efforts, sometimes

participate on the incident response team, and generally assist with

o rganizational recovery after an incident of workplace violence has

occurred. This section will provide an overview of the EAP a n d

then discuss considerations specific to workplace violence.

Overview of the Every Federal agency has an EAP which provides short-term

Employee Assistance counseling and referral services to its employees at no cost.

P ro g r a m These programs are staffed by professional counselors who are

available to discuss problems that can adversely affect job

performance, conduct, and reliability. EAPs are required to help

employees deal with alcoholism or drug abuse problems and most

programs also help employees with other problems such as marital

or financial problems. EAP counselors often refer employees to

other professional services and resources within the community for

further information, assistance, or long-term counseling. 

EAPs differ from agency to agency in their structure and scope of

services. Some are in-house programs, staffed by employees of

the agency. Others are contracted out or are operated through an

interagency agreement with the Department of Health and Human

Services’ (DHHS) Division of Federal Occupational Health.

Among contracted programs, services differ, depending on the

terms of the contract and the relationship between the agency and

the contractor.

Confidentiality is an important issue for EAPs. Employees who 

seek EAP services are afforded considerable privacy by laws, 

A Guide forAgency Planners 113

PA RT III: SECTION 4
Employee Assistance Program Considerations

Overview of the policies, and the professional ethics of Employee Assistance

Employee Assistance Program (EAP) professionals. It is common practice for EAPs to 

Program (continued) inform employees in writing about the limits of confidentiality on

their first visit.

Agency planning group members should familiarize themselves

with the structure, scope, and special considerations of their

agency’s own EAP. As the planning group explores the range of

services provided, it may identify needs for expanding the

program’s existing array of services. EAP professionals should

advise the agency planning group on the relevant laws, policies,

and professional ethical constraints under which they operate,

including the Privacy Act provisions of 5 USC 552a and the

DHHS Alcohol and Drug Patient Confidentiality Regulation

provisions of 42 CFR Part 2. This will allow cooperative

arrangements to be worked out for an appropriate EAP role. 

The Employee E A P s t a ff members generally assist in policy and strategy

Assistance Pro g r a m ’s development and help determine the EAP’s role on the agency’s

Role in Dealing with workplace violence incident response team. EAPs bring a special

Workplace Vi o l e n c e expertise to the planning process. They are in an optimal position to

assist with many of the activities conducted by the planning group.

Role in early ◆ Promotion of the EAP. The effectiveness of a workplace 

prevention efforts violence program is greatly enhanced in an organization with

an active, well-known EAP presence. Agencies with active

programs promote the EAP by issuing periodic statements

from top management endorsing the program and reminding

employees of the services offered by the EAP, having

counselors attend staff meetings to familiarize agency

employees with the counselors, and having counselors give

special briefings and seminars for managers, employees, and

union stewards.

◆ Information dissemination. EAPs often provide booklets,

pamphlets, and lending libraries of books and videos about

such topics as domestic violence, stress reduction, and dealing

with angry customers.

114 Dealing with Workplace Violence
Employee Assistance Program Considerations

The Employee ◆ Early involvement in organizational change. When 

Assistance Program’s an agency is facing reorganization, restructuring, or other

Role in Dealing with o rganizational change which may have a negative eff e ct

Workplace Violence on employees, the Employee Assistance Program can

( c o n t i n u e d ) help to, through individual or group sessions, keep information

flowing, keep feelings under control, prevent potential

outbursts, provide constructive outlets for feelings, and help

employees plan for the future.

◆ Employee and supervisory training. Much of the employee

training described in Part I, Section 3 is conducted by EAP

staff. For example, counselors can train employees on such

topics as dealing with angry coworkers and customers, 

conflict resolution, and communications skills. Since EAP

staff understand how important it is that supervisors (and

coworkers) not diagnose an employee’s problem, they are in

an excellent position to explain the delicate balance between

identifying problem behavior early on and labeling an

individual as potentially violent. EAP counselors can train

supervisors to deal with problems as soon as they surface

without diagnosing the employee’s problem. 

Participation on an Since every reported incident of workplace violence is different, 

incident response team and every agency is structured differently, EAP participation on

an incident response team will depend on many factors. Issues

need to be clarified ahead of time to avoid misunderstanding and

conflict. Team members need to understand that if a case is being

discussed and the counselor says, Sorry, I can’t help you with this

one, they should neither expect an explanation nor assume that the

A Guide forAgency Planners 115

“Since EAP staff understand how important

it is that supervisors (and coworkers) not

diagnose an employee’s problem, they are in

an excellent position to explain the delicate

balance between identifying problem

behavior early on and labeling an

individual as potentially violent.”
Employee Assistance Program Considerations

The Employee counselor is being uncooperative. Advance planning can help to 

Assistance Program’s identify ways of coping with these types of issues. For example, 

Role in Dealing with if the EAP is large enough, different staff members may play 

Workplace Violence different roles. Or the staff may be able to identify other 

(continued) professionals who can be brought in to ensure that all needs are

addressed. Working with other members of planning group and

the incident response team in advance can clarify the EAP’s role

when an incident arises. 

Consultation with supervisor when incident is reported.

Depending on the type of incident reported, it is often important

for a counselor, along with an employee relations specialist and

security officer, to be part of the incident response team that

consults with the manager. In some situations, such as potential

suicides, the EAP can play a major role. In other situations, such

as dealing with an employee who frightens coworkers, but who

has not actually done or said anything warranting discipline, the

EAP can assist other team members in working with the

supervisor to plan an effective response. 

Response/Intervention. The counselor can help with conflict

resolution in situations that are reported early enough for such an

intervention. The counselor can work with the victim, giving

advice and guidance, or with the perpetrator, helping to diffuse

the anger/hostility that could lead to violence. The counselor can

help clarify options and procedures for situations in which

substance abuse or mental illness seems to be a factor. For

example, states differ in their laws regarding civil commitment for

psychiatric treatment. The counselor can explain to other team

members the EAP role in such a situation, and can coordinate

with other community resources to develop contingency plans for

various emergency situations. These and other examples are

illustrated in the case studies in Part II. 

Follow-up to a Many EAPs are prepared to respond promptly to a variety of 

violent incident needs that may exist after a violent incident. Prompt individual

interventions with employees who have had particularly stressful

experiences are sometimes necessary. Debriefing sessions for

groups are often conducted two or three days after the incident.

The EAP can also act as consultants to management in helping the

organization to recover.

116 Dealing with Workplace Violence
Employee Assistance Program Considerations

The Employee Individual interventions. Though most employees will need 

Assistance Program’s only brief intervention, provision should be made for the few who

Role in Dealing with may need longer-term professional assistance. Strategies for 

Workplace Violence identifying these employees and guiding them as smoothly as 

(continued) possible from emergency-centered interventions to more extensive

mental health care should be included in the planning.

The EAP may approach these responsibilities in different ways,

depending on the size and experience of its staff. In some cases,

internal EAP resources may be sufficient, but in others, additional

s t a ffing will be necessary. EAP s t a ff who do not have expertise in

traumatic incident counseling may wish to develop in-house expertise

or keep close at hand the phone numbers of resources to contact

should an incident occur. Potential sources of additional help, for

example, private contractors, community mental health resources,

university or medical school programs, might be explored. 

Critical Incident Stress Debriefings (CISD). Many EAPs have

been trained to participate on CISD teams. See discussion of the

CISD process on page 136.

Acting as consultants to management. Since management bears

the brunt of responsibility after a violent incident, and can find itself

dealing with unfamiliar challenges under high stress, the EAP can be

very helpful in facilitating an optimal response. It can provide

managers with information on traumatic events and can assist them

in analyzing the situation and developing strategies for the

o rg a n i z a t i o n ’s recovery. An effective EAP needs to be familiar not

only with post-disaster mental health care, but also with

management practices that facilitate recovery and with other

resources which may need to be mobilized.

In thinking about an org a n i z a t i o n ’s recovery, there is a temptation to

focus narrowly on care-giving responses such as debriefings and

counseling discussed above. Essential as these services are, they are

only part of the picture. The way the manager conveys information,

schedules responsibilities, sets priorities, and monitors employee

performance after a violent incident can play a vital role in helping or

hindering recovery. Some EAPs are trained to provide this type of

consultation. Agencies will find A M a n a g e r’s Handbook: Handling

Traumatic Events helpful in this regard. (See Part III, Section 6 for

further information on organizational recovery and page 145 for

information on obtaining a copy of the M a n a g e r’s Handbook.) 

A Guide forAgency Planners 117
Employee Assistance Program Considerations

Other EAP

Considerations for

the Agency 

Planning Group 

Should the EAP take Most agencies do not use the EAP as the office responsible for 

the incident report? taking incident reports on workplace violence. Agencies give the

following reasons: Because confidentiality requirements prohibit

EAP counselors from disclosing information, putting a counselor

in the position of informing the other members of the intervention

team about the report could lead to serious misunderstandings

among agency employees and harm the credibility of the EAP. It

sometimes takes years to build the EAP into a viable program

trusted by employees to keep any contacts confidential and the

dual role could diminish this viability.

In addition, the incident reports could get confused with EAP

records covered by the agency’s internal system of records for its

EAP under the Privacy Act. Records that are filed and retrieved

by name or other personal identifier are subject to the Privacy Act

provisions of 5 USC 552a. Since each agency’s system of records

is different, it is a good idea to check with the agency’s Privacy

Act Officer regarding the systems notice for the agency’s

Employee Assistance Program. The systems notice covers who

can gain access to the records and how amendments are made to

the records.

Many times the EAP counselor will be the person who first hears

about an incident involving threatening behavior, even though the

agency’s reporting system provides for another office to take

incident reports. Managers and employees often feel comfortable

telling the counselor about a situation that frightens them. The

agency’s planning group should decide ahead of time which types

of reports the counselors should handle alone and which types

should be reported to the other team members, always making

sure that each member of the team understands the confidentiality

requirements of the EAP.

Should the EAP be Agencies who have had experience with the EAP being the first 

first intervenor? intervenor in workplace violence situations report that they do not

recommend this approach for the following reasons: 

118 Dealing with Workplace Violence
Employee Assistance Program Considerations

Other EAP (1) Issues of confidentiality cause numerous conflicts for the 

Considerations for counselors, and

the Agency 

Planning Group (2) It could lead to a perception of treating perpetrators of 

(continued) workplace violence as victims needing counseling rather than

as perpetrators needing discipline. 

Therefore, the agency planning group should ensure that

procedures developed ahead of time allow for flexibility and do

not require counselors to be the first intervenors in situations

where this would be inappropriate.

Should the Organizations with experience in offering psychological or 

EAP perform psychiatric examinations usually recommend that these not be 

psychological exams? performed by the EAP staff. The process of conducting these

examinations is not only time-consuming and highly specialized,

but it also fits poorly with other EAP responsibilities. Thus, most

agencies find it preferable, if offering such an examination, to

have it done by an “outsider” such as an external contractor.

Some agencies have professional mental health staffs in addition

to the EAP and utilize them for this type of evaluation. The EAP

can then take the role of teacher and facilitator, helping everyone

involved to understand the report of the examination and put its

recommendations into practice.

Case Studies 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, 12, 14, and 16 

provide practical examples of some of 

the issues discussed in this section.

A Guide forAgency Planners 119
120 Dealing with Workplace Violence
Workplace Security 

Introduction Law enforcement and security officers should be involved in all

stages of the planning process in an effective workplace violence

prevention program. They can play an active role in prevention,

intervention, and response to threatening situations, in addition 

to their traditional role of responding to actual incidents of

physical violence. This section will provide general ideas and

considerations that can help the agency planning group gain an

understanding of some of the law enforcement/security issues

such as jurisdiction. It is also intended to help those Federal

offices that do not have in-house security or law enforcement

identify the appropriate organizations that can assist them.

Security Planning Depending on the agency, location of the office, and the type of

incident or situation, jurisdiction may vary. The agency’s own

law enforcement organization, the Federal Protective Service

(FPS), or Federal, state, or local law enforcement, or a

combination of these, may have jurisdiction. There also may be

gaps in law enforcement coverage when issues of workplace

violence arise. These gaps can be closed if the agency planning

group (which would include any in-house security organization)

works with the various law enforcement organizations in setting

up workplace violence programs. The following are some

suggestions for involving law enforcement in agency efforts to

prevent workplace violence.

Jurisdiction The agency planning group should identify which Federal or local

law enforcement agency or agencies have responsibility for its

worksite. For example, the FPS is the primary law enforcement

service for responding to incidents in Federal facilities under the

charge and control of the General Services Administration (GSA)

as an owned or leased facility. FPS typically locates its offices in

areas where there is a high concentration of Federal employees

and is capable of providing timely responses to GSA owned or

leased facilities in these areas. For immediate responses to GSA

owned or leased facilities in rural areas and/or areas with a 

small Federal presence, law enforcement officials from local

jurisdictions should be contacted. 

A Guide forAgency Planners 121

PART III: SECTION 5
Workplace Security

Security Planning Some agencies have in-house security and/or law enforcement

(continued) organizations. Others have contracts with private security firms.

It is not always clear who has jurisdiction, and who should be

contacted when the need arises. 

Sometimes meeting with the local police chief, county sheriff, or

state police is necessary to establish a plan or procedure regarding

law enforcement response in the event of potential violence or

hostile incidents. Sometimes new building agreements will be

necessary or contracts will have to be modified. In remote

locations, arrangements can be made for local police to handle

certain situations until the appropriate Federal law enforcement

officials arrive.

Liaison with law The agency planning group, and later the incident response team, 

enforcement agencies should maintain open and continuous liaison with those law

enforcement agencies responsible for their worksite. This would

entail having periodic meetings to discuss the agency’s concerns.

Without these contacts, lines of communication can break down

and misunderstandings could arise. It is during these contacts that

the agency can obtain the names and telephone numbers of law

enforcement personnel to be called upon should the need arise.

Planning groups in agencies that already have established liaisons

should work through these established liaisons to avoid confusion.

Law Enforcement During the planning phase, law enforcement/security officers can:

and Security 

Assistance ◆ Identify types of situations they can address and when and

how they should be notified of an incident;

◆ Indicate whether their officers have arrest authority;

◆ Identify their jurisdictional restrictions and alternative law

enforcement agencies that may be able to provide assistance;

122 Dealing with Workplace Violence

Know in advance which Federal or local law

enforcement agency or agencies have

jurisdiction over your worksite. Involve them

early in the planning process. 
Workplace Security

Law Enforcement ◆ Identify threat assessment professionals who can assist the

and Security agency in its efforts to protect threatened employees;

Assistance (continued)

◆ Advise on what evidence is necessary and how it can be

collected or recorded, so that law enforcement can assess the

information and decide what action to take, if appropriate;

◆ Explain anti-stalking laws applicable in the agency’s

jurisdiction and how and when to obtain restraining orders; 

◆ Suggest security measures to be taken for specific situations,

such as in cases where Employee Assistance Program counselors

or other mental health professionals warn the agency that an

individual has made a threat against an agency employee; and

◆ Arrange for supervisor/employee briefings or training on

specific workplace violence issues such as:

➤ Personal safety and security measures;

➤ Types of incidents to report to law enforcement/security;

➤ Types of measures law enforcement/security may take to

protect employees during a violent incident, e.g.,

explanations of what it means to “secure the area,” “secure

the perimeter,” and “preserve evidence”;

➤ Suggestions on how to react to an armed attacker;

➤ Suggestions for dealing with angry customers or clients;

➤ Suspicious packages;

➤ Bomb threats;

➤ Hostage situations; and

➤ Telephone harassment and threats.

When potentially violent situations arise, law enforcement/ 

security officers can work with the incident response team to:

◆ Provide an assessment of the information available to determine

whether law enforcement intervention is immediately necessary;

for example, whether a criminal investigation is appropriate and

whether a threat assessment professional should be consulted;

◆ Identify what plan of action they deem appropriate; and

◆ Determine who will gather what types of evidence.

A Guide forAgency Planners 123
Workplace Security

Physical Security Many Federal agencies have numerous security measures in

Measures place that can reduce the risk of workplace violence. These

include closed circuit cameras, silent alarms, metal detectors, twoway mirrors, electronic access systems, barriers to prevent cars 

from driving too close to the building, emergency internal code

words, extra lighting in the parking lots, and escorts to and from

parking lots after dark. Planning groups should review security

measures and procedures and make recommendations for

modifications and improvements as necessary. 

The U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Marshals Service, has issued

a publication containing recommendations for increasing security

in Federal facilities. Entitled Vulnerability Assessment of Federal

F a c i l i t i e s, it can be obtained by contacting the U.S. Government

Printing Office, Superintendent of Documents, Mail Stop: SSOP,

Washington, DC 20402-9328 (Publication # 027-000-01362-7).

The information in the following section regarding physical

security has been provided by the General Services

Administration’s (GSA) Federal Protective Service.

Physical Security in There are more than 900,000 employees working in 

GSA Owned or approximately 6,800 GSA owned or leased Federal buildings.

Leased Buildings GSA is the agency responsible for ensuring the safety and security

of people while on Federal property that is owned or leased by

GSA. This section contains recommendations and requirements

for agencies in GSA controlled or leased space. 

Regulations Federal Property Management Regulations 41 CFR Part 101-20

and Executive Order 12656 specifically require GSA to provide

standard protection services by coordinating a comprehensive

Occupant Emergency Program, which is a short-term emergency

response program establishing procedures for safeguarding lives

and property during emergencies.

124 Dealing with Workplace Violence

If your agency is not in GSA owned or leased buildings, 

you can obtain the same type of assistance from the law

enforcement or security organization that has jurisdiction 

over your worksite. 
Workplace Security

Physical Security in

GSA Owned or

Leased Buildings

(continued)

G S A designated official Each GSA owned or leased facility has a designated official, who

is the highest ranking official of the primary occupant agency of a

Federal facility, or alternatively, a designee selected by mutual

agreement of occupant agency officials. The designated official is

responsible for developing, implementing, and maintaining an

Occupant Emergency Plan, which consists of procedures

developed to protect life and property in a specific Federally

occupied space under stipulated emergency conditions. The

designated official’s responsibilities include establishing, staffing,

and training an Occupant Emergency Organization, comprised of

agency employees who have been designated to perform the

requirements established by the Occupant Emergency Plan. 

According to the regulations, the GSA must assist in the

establishment and maintenance of such plans and organizations.

All agencies occupying a facility must fully cooperate with the

designated official in the implementation of the emergency plans

and the staffing of the emergency organization. GSA must

provide emergency program policy guidance, review plans and

organizations annually, assist in training of personnel, and

otherwise ensure proper administration of Occupant Emergency

Programs. In leased space, GSA will solicit the assistance of the

lessor in the establishment and implementation of plans.

According to the regulations, decisions to activate the Occupant

Emergency Organization shall be made by the designated official,

or by the designated alternate official. Decisions to activate shall

be based upon the best available information, including an

understanding of local tensions, the sensitivity of target agencies, 

and previous experience with similar situations. Advice shall be 

solicited, when possible, from the GSA buildings manager, from 

the appropriate Federal Protective Service official, and from

Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies.

A Guide forAgency Planners 125
Workplace Security

Physical Security A major goal of the GSA’s Federal Protective Service is to

Survey provide better protection for Federal employees and visitors by 

pinpointing high-risk areas in Federal buildings where potential

problems or emergency situations might occur. This is accomplished

through a “Physical Security Survey” conducted by a certified GSA

physical security specialist. The survey is a comprehensive, detailed,

technical on-site inspection and analysis of the current security and

physical protection conditions.

If your agency does not have up-to-date security procedures in

place, the head of your agency may want to ask a regional GSA

Federal Protective Service office or your agency’s security office

to conduct a physical security survey to ensure that employees are

working in a safe and secure environment. There is a listing of

Federal Protective Service offices at the end of this section on

page 131.

The following are some examples provided by the FPS of ways to

improve security in your office and/or building.

◆ Post a security guard at the main building entrance or at

entrances to specific offices. 

◆ Install a metal detector or CCTV (closed-circuit television)

camera or other device to monitor people coming in all

building entrances.

◆ Issue all employees photo identification cards and assign

temporary passes to visitors, who should be required to sign 

in and out of the building. Under certain conditions, contract

guards should be required to call Federal offices to confirm an

appointment and/or to request an escort for all visitors —

customers, relatives, or friends.

◆ Brief employees on steps to take if a threatening or violent

incident occurs. Establish code words to alert coworkers and

supervisors that immediate help is needed.

◆ Install silent, concealed alarms at reception desks.

The following are some examples provided by the FPS of ways to

improve security in “front-line” offices that serve the public.

126 Dealing with Workplace Violence
Workplace Security

Physical Security ◆ Ensure that officers (or guards) should have a clear view of the

Survey customer service area at all times.

(continued) 

◆ Arrange office furniture and partitions so that front-line

employees in daily contact with the public are surrounded by

“natural” barriers (desks, countertops, partitions) to separate

employees from customers and visitors.

◆ Provide an under-the-counter duress alarm system to signal a

supervisor or security officer if a customer becomes

threatening or violent.

◆ Establish an area in the office for employees and/or customers to

escape to if they are confronted with violent or threatening people.

◆ Provide an access-control combination lock on access doors.

◆ Mount closed circuit television cameras for monitoring customer

service activity from a central security office for the building.

More examples of measures agencies can take to improve security

for its employees can be found in the publications by the Federal

Protective Service, National Institute for Occupational Safety and

Health, and Occupational Safety and Health Administration that

are listed in Part IV.

Computer Security Agency planning groups should address ways to safeguard

computer systems. There have been cases where employees have

sabotaged computer equipment, computer systems, and computer

records. Therefore, whenever a threat of sabotage is suspected,

procedures should be initiated to prevent the person from having

access to the facility’s computer system. 

It is important to act quickly whenever there is reason to believe

that an employee or ex-employee may commit such an act. It is

standard practice to collect IDs, building passes, keys, and

parking passes when employees leave their jobs. Often, however,

no one thinks to block access to computer systems or networks.

A Guide forAgency Planners 127
Workplace Security

Computer Security Some agencies, when terminating employees, bar them from the 

(continued) premises and eradicate their passwords to computer systems that

are accessible from outside the premises. 

This type of access information is sometimes difficult to

determine; often, it is not readily available in one central place.

For example, information technology administrators may know

who has access to various computer systems, and the facilities

manager may know who has access to the computer systems that

control the building’s heating, air-conditioning, and other support

functions for the facility. The agency planning group, as part of

the response plan, should talk to the information/computer security

o fficer or computer system administrators to determine the

vulnerability of the computer networks and the procedures that

need to be implemented to lock individuals out of these systems.

Examples of The following pages contain examples of handouts developed 

Handouts by the Federal Protective Service (FPS) that can be used by or

adapted for your agency. FPS regional offices, listed on page

131, may be contacted for additional brochures and literature on

office safety and security.

128 Dealing with Workplace Violence

“The agency planning group, as part 

of the response plan, should talk to the

information/computer security officer or

computer system administrators to determine

the vulnerability of the computer networks and

the pro c e d u res that need to be implemented to

lock individuals out of these systems.”
Workplace Security

Examples of Useful Handouts for Employees 

The attached desk card summarizes the actions you should (or should not) take in a hostile or

threatening situation. Print out and detach the card, tear or cut along the dotted lines, fold the card

into a “tent,” and tape the ends together underneath so that the card will stand up on your desk with

the text facing you. Review the card often. That way, if you are confronted by an angry, hostile, or

threatening customer or coworker, you will know what you should do. Everyone in your office,

including supervisors and managers, should follow these same procedures. You can make copies of

this card so that everyone has his or her own card.

Coping With Threats and Violence

For an angry or hostile customer or coworker

◆ Stay calm. Listen attentively.

◆ Maintain eye contact.

◆ Be courteous. Be patient.

◆ Keep the situation in your control.

For a person shouting, swearing, and threatening

◆ Signal a coworker, or supervisor, that you need help. 

(Use a duress alarm system or prearranged code words.)

◆ Do not make any calls yourself.

◆ Have someone call the FPS, contract guard, or local police.

For someone threatening you with a gun, knife, or other weapon

◆ Stay calm. Quietly signal for help. 

(Use a duress alarm or code words.)

◆ Maintain eye contact.

◆ Stall for time.

◆ Keep talking — but follow instructions from the person who has the weapon.

◆ Don’t risk harm to yourself or others.

◆ Never try to grab a weapon.

◆ Watch for a safe chance to escape to a safe area.

Federal Protective Service 

U.S. General Services Administration

A Guide forAgency Planners 129
Workplace Security

Handy Reference Card

Everyone in your office, including supervisors and managers, should follow these same procedures.

Make copies of the card if you need to so everyone will have his or her own card.

Telephone Threats

◆ Keep calm. Keep talking.

◆ Don’t hang up.

◆ Signal a coworker to get on an extension.

◆ Ask the caller to repeat the message and write it down.

◆ Repeat questions, if necessary.

◆ For a bomb threat, ask where the bomb is and when it is set to go off.

◆ Listen for background noises and write down a description.

◆ Write down whether it’s a man or a woman; pitch of voice, accent; anything else you hear.

◆ Try to get the person’s name, exact location, telephone number.

◆ Signal a coworker to immediately call the FPS, a contract guard, or the local police.

◆ Notify your immediate supervisor.

Federal Protective Service 

U.S. General Services Administration

Emergency Phone Numbers

Carefully tear out the “Emergency Phone Numbers” card at the dotted lines. Write in all the

emergency numbers for your building. Tape this card on your desk by your phone or somewhere

else close to your phone for handy reference. (Copies of this card also can be made.)

Federal Protective Service________________________________

Building Security_______________________________________

Police/Sheriff__________________________________________

Fire Department________________________________________

Ambulance___________________________________________

Health Unit___________________________________________

Federal Protective Service 

U.S. General Services Administration

130 Dealing with Workplace Violence
Workplace Security

Federal Protective Service Offices

For more information on coping with threats and violence in Federal Offices, other crime prevention,

security surveys, and protection assistance, write or call your nearest Federal Protective Service,

Public Buildings Service, U.S. General Services Administration at one of these regional addresses.

Washington, DC Metropolitan Area: Southeast Federal Center, 3rd & M Streets S.E.,

Washington, DC 20407-0001, (202) 690-9632

Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island: 10 Causeway

Street, Room 108, Boston, MA 02222-1098, (617) 565-5776

New York, New Jersey, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands: 26 Federal Plaza, New York, NY

10278-0013, (212) 264-4255

Delaware, Maryland and Virginia (except Washington DC Metropolitan area), Pennsylvania,

West Virginia: 100 Penn Square East, Philadelphia, PA 19107-3396, (215) 656-6043

Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina,

Tennessee: 401 West Peachtree Street, NW, Atlanta, GA 30365-2550, (404) 331-5132

Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin: 230 South Dearborn Street, Chicago,

IL 60604-1503, (312) 353-1496

Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska: 1500 Bannister Road, Kansas City, MO 64131-3088, 

(816) 926-7025

Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas: 819 Taylor Street, Fort Worth, TX,

76102-6105, (817) 334-3559

Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming: Building 41, Denver

Federal Center, Denver, CO 80225-0546, (303) 236-5869

Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, Guam, U.S. Trust Territory of the Pacific: 450 Golden

Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102-3400, (415) 522-3440

Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Wa s h i n g t o n : 400 15th Street, SW, Auburn, WA 98001-6599, (206) 931-7529

Crime Prevention Program: 18th & F St. NW, Washington, DC 20405-0002, (202) 501-0907

Case Studies 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 13 provide practical 

examples of some of the issues discussed in this section.

A Guide forAgency Planners 131
132 Dealing with Workplace Violence
Organizational

Recovery After

An Incident

Introduction Despite the best-laid plans of any Federal agency, violence in the

workplace can and does happen. Just as agencies develop policies

and procedures designed to head off these occurrences, agencies

must be equally prepared to deal with the aftermath of such

incidents. Quite often management’s focus will be on getting the

operational side of the office back in working order. However,

just as important as getting the office back on-line is attending to

the impact such incidents can have on office personnel. This

section will provide information designed to assist management

with helping an organization to recover after an incident of

workplace violence.

Management Steps Listed below are several initial steps management can take when

to Help an an incident of workplace violence occurs.

Organization Recover

Ensure a management Managers need to spend ample time with their employees, in 

presence in the worksite or wherever they may be. Employees need to be 

the worksite reassured of their concern, and they need to be able to ask

questions. Senior management should ensure that immediate

supervisors are supported in this role, relieved of unnecessary

duties, and not pulled away from their subordinates to write

lengthy reports or prepare elaborate briefings.

Share information Employees will have many questions, and they need the 

with employees answers — often more than once — if they are to resolve the

experience for themselves. Information will develop over time,

so information strategies need to be simple and fluid. A notice

board at the elevator, or a recorded message on a “hotline”

number may suffice for the basics, and a user-friendly system for

individual questions needs to be established.

A Guide forAgency Planners 133

PART III: SECTION 6
Organizational Recovery After an Incident

Management Steps to 

Help an Organization 

Recover (continued)

Include union Union representatives can help in reassuring employees after an 

leadership incident and in getting information to employees.

Bring in crisis Before an incident ever occurs, the planning group should identify

response professionals trained mental health professionals in the agency’s Employee

Assistance Program or the community who would be available to

respond in the event of an incident. When an incident occurs,

involve these emergency mental health consultants as soon as

possible. They will generally meet with management first,

working down the chain, and then with line employees. Based on

what the consultants learn, they will offer services such as

debriefings and defusings (see discussion of these processes later

in the section) and informal counseling, perhaps in the work area.

Support The formal debriefing doesn’t end the recovery process. Provide 

informal debriefing opportunities for employees to talk informally with one another when

they feel a need to discuss the experience. Acomfortable break area

and flexibility about break times may be all that is needed.

Support care-giving Keep work groups together as much as possible, and try not to 

within work groups isolate employees from their normal support groups at work.

Show respect and support for employees’ efforts to care for 

one another.

Handle critical sites Initially, the site of a violent incident will be secured as a crime 

with care scene. After the authorities are finished with it, management

needs to be sensitive to a number of issues. It is helpful if

employees don’t have to come back to work and face painful

reminders such as blood stains or broken furniture. But on the

other hand, the area should not be so “sanitized” that it gives the

appearance that management is pretending nothing happened. If

someone has died, that person’s work area will be a focus of

grieving, and it needs to be respected as such. 

Buffer those affected Effective coordination with the media and timely dissemination of

f rom post-event stre s s e s information can help reduce media pressure on those who are the

most vulnerable. Assistance with benefits and other administrative

issues can reduce the burden on victims and families.

134 Dealing with Workplace Violence
Organizational Recovery After an Incident

Management Steps to 

Help an Organization 

Recover (continued)

Help employees face Returning soon, if only briefly, to a feared site can help prevent 

feared places lasting effects such as phobic responses. Having a friend or loved

or activities one along, or being supported by close work associates, may

make the first step much easier.

Remember the healing Getting back to work can be reassuring, and a sense of having a 

value of work mission to perform can help the group recover its morale. But the

return to work must be managed in a way that conveys appropriate

respect for the deceased, the injured, and the traumatized.

For further suggestions about organizational recovery, see A

Manager’s Handbook: Handling Traumatic Events (ordering

information is on page 145.)

The Critical Formal crisis intervention processes for victims of critical

Incident Stress incidents, such as workplace violence, have been used and

Management Process recommended by mental health professionals for years. One

such process, Critical Incident Stress Management, has been

pioneered by Dr. Jeffrey Mitchell of the University of Maryland

at Baltimore County. 1 3

13 This information is adapted from the following documents: Everly, G. &

Mitchell, J. (1995) Critical Incident Stress Debriefing: An Operations Manual

for the Prevention of Traumatic Stress Among Emergency Services and

Disaster Workers, Ellicott City, Maryland: Chevron Publishing Corporation.

Mitchell, Jeffrey T. (1995) Essentials of Critical Incident Stress Management.

In G. Everly (Ed.) Innovations in Disaster and Trauma Psychology, Volume

One: Applications in Emergency Services and Disaster Response, Ellicott City,

Maryland: Chevron Publishing Corporation, 79-81.

A Guide forAgency Planners 135

Keep in mind that none of the information provided in this

section should take the place of specialized training in the field.
Organizational Recovery After an Incident

The Critical Incident

Stress Management

Process (continued)

Purpose Critical Incident Stress Management (CISM) represents an

integrated system of services and procedures whose purpose is to

achieve several goals:

◆ Prevention of traumatic stress,

◆ Mitigation of traumatic stress,

◆ Intervention to assist in recovery from traumatic stress,

◆ Acceleration of recovery whenever possible,

◆ Restoration to function, and

◆ Maintenance of worker health and welfare.

The CISM team A CISM team, generally comprised of mental health

professionals and trained peer support personnel, provides a

variety of services including:

◆ Defusings,

◆ Demobilizations after a disaster,

◆ Debriefings,

◆ Informal discussions,

◆ Significant other support services,

◆ Individual consults (one-on-one), and

◆ Follow-up services. 

For the purposes of this discussion, the focus will be on two of the

more commonly used CISM services: debriefings and defusings.

Critical Incident The impact of a critical incident on an individual’s life appears

Stress Debriefing to be mitigated, to some degree, by the availability of resources

that may intervene at various stages following the incident. 

136 Dealing with Workplace Violence
Organizational Recovery After an Incident

The Critical Incident The Critical Incident Stress Debriefing (CISD) is a model

Stress Debriefing designed to yield just such a result. The CISD model assists

(continued) the victims of critical incidents with their recovery process. 

The model incorporates seven phases: 

(1) Introductory Phase, 

(2) Fact Phase, 

(3) Thought Phase, 

(4) Reaction Phase, 

(5) Symptom Phase, 

(6) Teaching Phase, and 

(7) Re-entry Phase.

Debriefings are group meetings that are designed to give

participants an opportunity to discuss their thoughts and feelings

about a distressing event in a controlled and rational manner, and

to help them understand that they are not alone in their reactions

to the incident. It is recommended that a formal debriefing be

held within 24 to 72 hours after an incident. Depending on the

number of participants and the severity of the incident,

debriefings generally last anywhere from one to three hours.

Debriefing teams represent a partnership between mental health

professionals and peer support personnel. Mental health

professionals serving on a Critical Incident Stress Debriefing team

possess at least a master’s degree in psychology, social work, 

A Guide forAgency Planners 137

Given the time recommendations for debriefings and

defusings, Critical Incident Stress Management (CISM)

providers are reminded that CISM interventions should not

interfere with the priorities of criminal investigations. In

those cases where criminal proceedings are likely to result

from the critical incident, it is important to coordinate CISM

interventions with the appropriate prosecutory authority.
Organizational Recovery After an Incident

Critical Incident psychiatric nursing, psychiatry, or mental health counseling. Peer

Stress Debriefing support personnel are trained and prepared to work with mental

(continued) health professionals in preventing and mitigating the negative

impact of acute stress on their fellow workers. All team members

receive training in crisis intervention, stress, post-traumatic stress

disorder, and the debriefing process.

The following is a brief description of each phase of the

debriefing model: 

Introductory Phase During this first phase the leader and team members introduce

themselves to the participants. The leader describes how a

debriefing works and lists the ground rules for the debriefing.

The rules are as follows: 

◆ No one is compelled to talk but participation is 

strongly encouraged,

◆ No notes or recordings of any kind are taken during 

the debriefing,

◆ Strict confidentiality is maintained, and 

◆ The debriefing is not intended to be therapy.

It is important to convey to participants that their chances for a

successful debriefing increase when participants are made fully

aware of what to expect during the process.

Fact Phase The fact phase begins with the team leader asking participants to

identify themselves and briefly mention their degree of

involvement with the incident. For example, participants may

relate their role in the incident, how they were informed of the

incident, where they were when they received this news, and so

forth. Participants may begin relating their first reactions to the

incident. This type of information lays the groundwork for the

remaining phases of the process.

Thought Phase Participants are asked what their first thoughts were concerning

the incident. The thought phase begins to personalize the

experience for the participants. This is the first phase in which

some participants may exhibit some reluctance to share.

138 Dealing with Workplace Violence
Organizational Recovery After an Incident

Critical Incident

Stress Debriefing

(continued)

Reaction Phase Participants are asked to discuss “what was the worst part of the

event for them, personally.” This phase generally causes

participants to begin exploring some of their deeper, personal

responses to the event. Depending on the intensity of the event

and the number of participants, this segment may last thirty

minutes to one hour.

Symptom Phase Participants are asked to describe the signs and symptoms of any

distress they experienced, such as feeling nauseated, sweating

palms, or having difficulty making decisions. Usually three

occurrences of signs and symptoms are discussed: 

(1) Those that appeared at the time of the incident, 

(2) Those that arose during the next few days, and 

(3) Those that they are still experiencing at the time 

of the debriefing.

Teaching Phase During the teaching phase the leader and team members share

information regarding the relationship between the critical

incident and the subsequent cognitive, emotional, behavioral, and

physiological reactions that others involved in such events have

experienced. Participants are provided with a handout entitled

“Critical Stress Information Sheet.” During this phase,

participants may ask new questions or bring up information that

was not discussed earlier.

Re-entry Phase This phase signals the end of the debriefing. Participants are

encouraged to ask questions and explore other issues associated

with the incident that may have not surfaced earlier. Team

members are asked to provide some summary remarks, and the

team leader makes a few additional statements in an effort to

bring closure to the debriefing. A crucial message emanating

from the debriefing is that the participants’ reactions are normal

responses to an abnormal event. 

Is a Debriefing The decision about whether or not a formal debriefing is 

Warranted? warranted generally rests with management personnel following

A Guide forAgency Planners 139
Organizational Recovery After an Incident

Critical Incident consultation with mental health consultants. Though not allStress Debriefing inclusive, some examples of important questions to explore when

(continued) assessing the need for a debriefing are these:

◆ What is the nature of the incident?

◆ Is the event of sufficient magnitude as to cause significant

emotional distress among those involved?

◆ How many individuals are affected by the incident?

◆ What signs and symptoms of distress are being displayed by

the witnesses to the incident?

◆ Are the signs and symptoms growing worse as time passes?

◆ Are any of the following key indicators of a need for a

debriefing present: behavior change; regression; continued

symptoms; intensifying symptoms, new symptoms arising, or

group symptoms present?

In some instances, as these and other questions are explored, it may

be determined that a formal debriefing is not warranted. Or, perhaps

there may be a decision to briefly meet with the group(s) that have

been affected by the incidents to further assess the need for a formal

debriefing. Under these circumstances, a critical incident stress

defusing may be appropriate. This process will be discussed next.

Critical Incident Other than the critical incident stress debriefing, the defusing is

Stress Defusing one of the most frequently used Critical Incident Stress

Management (CISM) techniques. Defusings are, in essence, short

debriefings. Defusings generally last less than one hour and

provide CISM team members with an immediate opportunity to

ask a wide range of questions about the critical incident. As in

the debriefing, participants are not required to talk during the

defusing. It is recommended that defusings be conducted within

the first eight hours of the resolution of a traumatic event.

Three phases The critical incident stress defusing consists of three phases.

Introduction. Here the CISM team members introduce

themselves, describe the defusing process, set forth the guidelines,

and encourage participation.

Exploration. In this segment, team members ask the participants 

to describe their experience of the critical incident. During this 

time, the group is permitted to talk freely while the team members

140 Dealing with Workplace Violence
Organizational Recovery After an Incident

Critical Incident monitor the participants’ comments. As the group discusses their

Stress Defusing experiences, the team members can also ask appropriate questions

(continued) in an effort to learn more about the most important parts of the

critical incident. As the discussion begins to fall off, the

discussion moves to the third and final phase.

Information. During this phase, team members provide

participants with information designed to help them cope during

the next few days until the distress resolves on its own or until the

team can organize a formal debriefing, if one is deemed

necessary. This information consists of suggestions regarding

rest, diet, and exercise as well as other stress control strategies.

Outcomes The critical incident stress defusing will generally result in one 

of two outcomes. First, it may eliminate the need for a formal

debriefing. Participants receive valuable coping information during

defusing that, if attended to, can go a long way in mitigating the

impact of the critical incident and in accelerating their recovery. 

In addition, participants come away from a defusing with more

information about the incident than they started with and, again,

this has proven to be beneficial to the recovery process. 

The second possible outcome of a defusing can be to enhance a

subsequent formal debriefing. Participants who have attended a

defusing will generally have a good idea of what to expect in a

debriefing and, hopefully, will have realized the benefit of

participating in such a group process. In addition, the team that

conducts the defusing will often be part of the larger team that

conducts the debriefing. Thus this Critical Incident Stress

Management (CISM) team will have more information about the

incident and the involved parties prior to the debriefing. The

team will also have a better understanding of the impact of the

event on many of the participants. 

Conclusion As mentioned earlier, both critical incident stress debriefing and

defusing are among the two most utilized processes under the

CISM umbrella. Neither model should be employed by anyone

other than trained mental health professionals and other trained

CISM team personnel. It should also be emphasized that the

CISM process is but one crisis intervention model among others

available to Federal agencies. 

Case Study 1 provides practical examples of

some of the issues discussed in this section.

A Guide forAgency Planners 141
142 Dealing with Workplace Violence
PART IV

Resources

A Guide forAgency Planners 143
144 Dealing with Workplace Violence
Resources

Federal Government ◆ Office of Personnel Management (OPM)

Agencies Employee Relations and Health Services Center

1900 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20415

(202) 606-2920

OPM’s Employee Relations and Health Services Center

provides advice and assistance to Federal agencies on issues

relating to employee relations and Employee Assistance

Program policy, including workplace violence, traumatic

incidents, reasonable accommodation, and discipline. OPM

publications include:

➤ A Manager’s Handbook: Handling Traumatic Events is

available through the OPM rider system.

➤ Significant Cases, a bi-monthly summary of important

decisions of the courts, the U.S. Merit Systems Protection

Board, and the Federal Labor Relations Authority is

available through the OPM rider system.

➤ New Developments in Employee and Labor Relations, a

bi-monthly publication that highlights current case law,

issues, and events in employee and labor relations, is

available through the OPM rider system.

➤ Alternative Dispute Resolution: A Resource Guide is

available by calling the phone number listed above.

◆ D e p a rtment of Health and Human Services (DHHS)

Centers For Disease Control and Pre v e n t i o n

National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health (NIOSH)

Robert A. Taft Laboratories

4676 Columbia Parkway

Cincinnati, OH 45226-1998

(800) 356-4674

NIOSH has issued a publication on workplace violence,

Violence in the Workplace: Risk Factors and Prevention 

A Guide forAgency Planners 145

PART IV
Resources

Federal Government S t r a t e g i e s, NIOSH Current Intelligence Bulletin No. 57

Agencies (continued) (Publication Number 96-100), June 1996. To obtain a copy, 

call the toll free number or access the Internet at 

h t t p : / / w w w. c d c . g o v / n i o s h / h o m i c i d e . h t m l .

Callers may also use the toll free number to find a directory of

topics of publications and databases which may be ordered.

Recorded summaries that provide overviews and relevant

statistics about selected topics are also available. Use the

automated fax information service to receive documents

within 15 minutes. Technical information specialists may also

be reached on this number from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m..

Eastern time, Monday through Friday. Callers may also learn

about NIOSH training resources or request a NIOSH

workplace health hazard evaluation. Access the Internet at

h t t p : / / w w w. c d c . g o v / n i o s h / h o m e p a g e . h t m l.

◆ Department of Justice

National Institute of Justice

National Criminal Justice Reference Service

Bureau of Justice Assistance Clearinghouse (BJAC)

P.O. Box 6000

Rockville, MD 20849-6000

(800) 851-3420

Calling the toll free number offers several information options

including a fax-on-demand service for documents, being able

to speak with a specialist, or learning about how to access an

electronic newsletter through their web and email address.

The caller can also learn about their Research and Information

Center located in Rockville, Maryland. BJAC also has a

catalog of National Institute of Justice documents. Many of

the documents included in the catalog pertain to workplace

violence, for example, Violence and Theft in the Workplace,

The Cycle of Violence, Psychoactive Substances and Violence,

and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design in

Parking Facilities. Access the Internet at

h t t p : / / w w w. n c j r s . o r g .

146 Dealing with Workplace Violence
Resources

Federal Government ◆ Department of Labor

Agencies (continued) ➤ Occupational Safety and Health Administration

(OSHA)

200 Constitution Avenue, NW, Room N3107

Washington, DC 20210

General information: (202) 219-8031 

Publications: (202) 219-4667

OSHA’s most recent publication on workplace violence is

Guidelines for Preventing Workplace Violence for Health

Care and Social Service Workers, U.S. Department of

Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration,

(OSHA 3148), 1996. Copies can be obtained from the

Government Printing Office by calling (202) 512-1800 or

access the Internet at http://www.osha.gov/oshpubs/.

Contact OSHA’s Office of Federal Agency Programs at

(202) 219-9329 to obtain information on OSHA recordkeeping and reporting requirements for Federal agencies

(OSHA Instruction FAP 1.3).

➤ Women’s Bureau 

200 Constitution Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20210

(202) 219-6665

The Women’s Bureau has issued Domestic Violence: A

Workplace Issue, October 1996, Document Number 96-3. 

Non-Government The following list is not exhaustive of the organizations available,

Organizations nor does the list constitute an endorsement by the U.S. Office of

Personnel Management.

◆ American Psychiatric Association (APA)

Division of Public Affairs

1400 K Street, NW

Washington, DC 20005

The A PA publishes a free fact sheet, Violence and Mental Illness,

Document Number 6109. To obtain a copy, call the A PA’s fast

fax automatic document retrieval service at (888) 267-5400 or

access the Internet at h t t p : / / w w w.psych.org/ (listed under

Resources for the General Public, Fact Sheet Series).

A Guide forAgency Planners 147
Resources

Non-Government ◆ American Psychological Association (APA)

Organizations 1200 17th Street, NW

(continued) Washington, DC 20036

(202) 955-7600

Information on violence is available on APA’s website at

http://www.apa.org/.

◆ International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP)

515 North Washington Street

Alexandria, VA 22314-2357

The IACP has published a booklet Combating Workplace

Violence: Guidelines for Employers and Law Enforcement. To

obtain a copy, write to the IACP at the address above or

access the Internet at

h t t p : / / a m d a h l . c o m / e x t / i a c p / p s l c l . t o c l h t m l .

◆ International Critical Incident Stress Foundation

10176 Baltimore National Pike, Unit 201

Ellicott City, MD 21042

(410) 750-9600

The International Critical Incident Stress Foundation provides

information and training on critical incident stress management.

◆ National Crime Prevention Council (NCPC)

1700 K Street, NW, Suite 618

Washington, DC 20006

(202) 466-6272

NCPC provides information on the prevention of crime 

and violence. 

◆ National Domestic Violence Hotline

(800) 799-SAFE or (800) 787-3224 (TTY)

This nationwide hotline offers crisis intervention, problem-solving

skills, information, and referral to service agency providers.

148 Dealing with Workplace Violence
Resources

Non-Government ◆ National Organization for Victim Assistance (NOVA) 

Organizations 1757 Park Road, NW

(continued) Washington, DC 20010

(202) TRY-NOVA

NOVA refers callers to local victim assistance organizations.

◆ National Victims’ Center

P.O. Box 588

Arlington, VA 22216

(800) FYI-CALL

The National Victims’ Center provides information and

referrals to local victim assistance organizations. 

Computer Systems ◆ PAVNET

Partnership Against Violence Network (PAVNET), accessible

through the Internet at http://www.pavnet.org, is a

clearinghouse with over 500 entries on violence. Information

in PAVNET includes: funding grants, research projects, grassroots efforts to address violence, and curriculum development.

Government and non-government organizations addressing the

subject of violence are listed. 

A Guide forAgency Planners 149