Food Safety and Inspection Service 

Third Annual Report on Workplace 

Violence Prevention 

Fiscal Year 2001 
“ F r eed o m an d f ear ar e at w ar . Th e ad v an c e o f h u man 

f r eed o m, t h e g r eat ac h iev emen t o f o u r t ime an d t h e 

g r eat h o pe o f ev er y t ime, n o w d epen d s o n u s ... W e w il l 

no t f al t er an d w e w il l no t f ail ” 

-GEO RGE W . B USH 

On September 11th, 2001 our lives were profoundly altered by the terrorist 

attacks suffered at the hands of hate. ept, but those tears 

strengthened our commitment to the heroes that went before us and 

sacrificed their very lives in the name of freedom. 

Americans. ervice, forever bounded together in 

patriotism. 

The Third Annual Report on Workplace Violence Prevention is dedicated 

to the American spirit. e who have gone before us, not be 

forgotten. May we maintain the dignity and respect of their memory in 

solidarity and care for each other. 

Dedication 

The nation w

We honor all 

We honor those in s

May thos
In Remembrance 

Within the last year, a FSIS employee lost her life at what appears to be a case of 

domestic violence. The tragic events that took place that lead to the loss of life is an 

ominous reminder of the ramifications that domestic violence perpetuates. We at FSIS 

wish to remember her life and honor her memory. We must do all that we can to prevent 

all forms of violence against employees, customers, and family members. To do this we 

must make our attitude and treatment of domestic violence issues consistent with the 

Agency’s overall goal of preventing workplace violence. It is our goal to continue to 

learn from hard lessons and to reassess the Workplace Violence Prevention Program as 

we progress. As is in the past with our fallen coworkers, we rededicate our efforts to 

ensure that our bereavement is an opportunity for growth in respect to lost life. 

Additionally, within the last year a FSIS employee took his own life. It is important for 

us to remember this employee and empathize with the problems that become so 

burdensome that the depths of despair overcome the will to live. Agency employees who 

have experienced the tragic loss of coworkers and friends to suicide are not alone in their 

grief. The entire FSIS family grieves. We must continue to focus on the warning signs 

that warn us of despair in our employees. We must also carry that focus into action by 

taking practical steps to provide alternatives to such a final and irrevocable decision to 

end life. 

Suicide Prevention 

The Surgeon General’s Call to Action developed in a 1998 National conference on 

suicide prevention, introduced a blueprint for addressing suicide that incorporated 

‘Awareness, Intervention and Methodology’ as a framework for suicide prevention. 

(http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/calltoaction/calltoaction.htm) 

Warning signs for Suicide: Previous suicide attempts, mental disorders, alcohol and 

substance abuse disorders, family history of suicide, hopelessness, impulsive and/or 

aggressive tendencies, financial loss, depression, experience of recent loss/death in the 

family, direct / indirect statements with regard to suicide, giving away of prized 

possessions, physical illness, terminal illness, and isolation. 

Suicide prevention resources are available to employees, families and customers. These 

resources include the National Suicide Prevention Hotline Number, FSIS Workplace 

Violence Hotline Number, the Employee Assistant Program and the EAP Coordinator. 

For more information on suicide prevention, domestic violence, and other topics related 

to them, contact the Workplace Violence Prevention Assessment Team. There are many 

informational resources available that are updated often. Information is critical to 

understanding and prevention. 

3
Acknowledgements 

The efforts of the Milbank Memorial Fund (Attachment 1) and the Agency Task Force 

Report 2000 (Attachment 2) continue to impact on FSIS Workplace Violence Program 

improvements and future goals. Program enhancements and improvements, made in 

response to the Taskforce on Workplace Violence Prevention and the Milbank Memorial 

Fund recommendations are outlined in Attachment 3. 

We appreciate the efforts of all FSIS employees to do their part in preventing workplace 

violence. Many efforts are not as visible as those included in this report. At the heart of 

all Agency efforts is the power of each employee to be a force for change. We gratefully 

acknowledge those efforts, seen and unseen, to make the workplace more civilized and 

less disrupted by workplace violence. All things positive begin and end with each of our 

valuable employees. 

Introduction 

This report documents the Food Safety and Inspection Service workplace violence 

prevention effort that follows the Second Annual Workplace Violence Prevention Report. 

The most tragic terrorist act on United States soil took place on September 11, 2001 in 

New York, Washington, DC and Pennsylvania. The events surrounding the World Trade 

Centers and the Pentagon continue to echo within our hearts and minds. 

In September 2001, Deputy Administrator Ron Hicks sent a letter (Attachment 4) to all 

FSIS employees in which he relayed the following: 

“All of us are shocked over the tragic events of recent days in New York, Washington, 

and Pennsylvania. The horrific loss of life, the attack on our fellow Americans, and the 

impact on our way of life seems beyond understanding and acceptance.” 

“In staying safe, we hope that you remain aware what is happening around you and don’t 

lose sight of the everyday hazards of our work and life. It is easy to become preoccupied 

and distracted during traumatic times. We rely on the physical, mental, and spiritual 

health of our employees, and we stand ready to be of assistance should you need our 

help.” 

The relationship between domestic and foreign terrorist attacks to workplace violence is 

significant. Most of the casualties of these incidents, like those in Oklahoma City, were 

workers who came to their workplace like any other day, only to have violence invade 

and tragically alter it. The Deputy Administrator’s comments support the commitment to 

all Agency personnel and the programs that support personnel safety. One of many such 

programs that combat violence in the workplace is the Workplace Violence Prevention 

Program. 

4
Although, we can not always stop tragedy from taking place, we can utilize preventive 

methods that help to decrease potential dangers or volatile situations. We are all 

profoundly affected by the world events, but how can we as Agency employees make a 

difference? How can we contribute? One way is through awareness training. It is 

essential, in order to prevent potentially violent situations to learn how to recognize 

the warning signs. Employees should know how to recognize and report signals that 

may lead to acts of violence. Suspicious behavior, things that are clearly out of place, 

and intuition are things that should be reported to one’s supervisor, the Workplace 

Violence Prevention Program, and Technical Services Center, as appropriate. Once 

again, the overall effort begins and ends with the observations and actions of each of our 

valuable employees. 

June 21, 2001 marked the one-year anniversary of the San Leandro, California tragedy in 

which two FSIS Compliance Officers and a State of California investigator lost their lives 

in the line of duty. 

In response to the demand for program improvements, the Workplace Violence 

Prevention Program continues to make progress with regard to incident reporting, 

documentation management, training, and statistical measurement. 

During the FY 2001 reporting period, employees and customers used resources including: 

• The 24-hour toll-free pager number (1.888.894.6217) for the FSIS Workplace 

Violence Prevention Assessment Team. 

• Methods prescribed in FSIS Directives 4735.4 and 4735.7. 

• Telephone calls and Outlook email messages to the Workplace Violence Prevention 

Assessment Team 

• Supervisory and Chain-of-Command mechanisms of notification. 

The workplace violence incident statistics for fiscal year 2001 are components of a 

“systems approach” to assessing and managing the workplace violence prevention effort. 

This systems approach to the program is a key recommendation of the Milbank Memorial 

Fund report, as identified in Attachment 1. 

Workplace Violence Fiscal Year (FY) 2001 Incident case files are divided into two 

categories, Hotline Reported Cases and Non-Hotline Reported Cases. These files are 

maintained, monitored and updated by the Workplace Violence Prevention Assessment 

Team. Hotline Reported Cases are incidents reported by utilizing the FSIS Workplace 

Violence Prevention Program 24-hour hotline number (1.888.894.6217) or contacting the 

applicable prevention program analyst. Non-Hotline Reported Cases are incidents 

reported via correspondence and/or other sources. 

FY 2001 statistics for both Hotline and Non-Hotline Reported Cases totaled 252 

documented incidents, of which 93 incidents were threats from within the Agency. The 

remaining 169 incidents were threats from outside sources. 

5
Hotline and non-hotline reported cases are assigned Case Control Numbers (CCN) and 

tracked in the Workplace Violence Prevention database. FY 2001 revealed a substantial 

increase of hotline reported cases totaling 161 as compared to FY 2000 with 82 cases 

reported. Documented hotline usage of the Workplace Violence Prevention Program by 

Agency employees and outside sources increased by 96% in FY 2001. During this same 

period, 91 non-hotline reported cases were reported. 

Comparison of Workplace Violence Hotline Reported Incidents by District 

Alameda

Albany 

Atlanta 

Boulder 

Chicago

Dallas

Des Moines

Greenbelt

Jackson

Lawrence 

Madison

Minneapolis

Philadelphia 

Pickerington 

Raleigh

Salem 

Springdale

2000 2001

2 22 

14 22 

6 10 

5 7 

0 7 

2 7 

6 8 

8 11 

0 14 

4 6 

3 4 

0 6 

2 8 

3 4 

7 10 

6 5 

9 10 

Origin of Workplace Violence 

Hotline Reported Incidents – FY 2001 

• 72 of 161 incidents reported were allegedly instigated by Agency personnel; 6 were a 

result of FSIS Directive 4735.7 usage and 13 entailed OIG involvement and/or 

referral. 

• 89 of 161 reported incidents were allegedly instigated by outside sources. 

• Overall workplace violence hotline reported incidents resulted in increased 

prevention program usage, of which 55 % were a result of FSIS Directive 4735.4 

usage, 33% were reports received from within the Agency, 8% entailed OIG 

involvement and 4% were a result of FSIS Directive 4735.7 usage. 

6
Dispositions - Workplace Violence Hotline Reported Incidents Allegedly 

 Instigated by Agency Personnel 

Of the 72 hotline reported incidents of workplace violence allegedly instigated by 

Agency personnel 9 resulted in dismissals or resignations; 5 in suspension; 7 in 

counseling referrals; 19 in either verbal instruction and/or letters of instructions, VDIP, 

Last Chance Agreements and reassignments; 10 required no further action; and 22 are 

being monitored and pending dispositions. 

Dispositions - Workplace Violence Hotline Reported Incidents Allegedly 

Instigated by Outside Sources 

Of the 89 reported incidents from outside sources 5 resulted in employee dismissals; 20 

in corrective actions and improved communications based on the Agency personnel and 

outside sources to resolve disputes respectively; 18 in Letters of Assurance from plant 

management; 4 involved temporary withdrawal of inspection; 7 in Law Enforcement 

and/or criminal intervention; 18 required no further action; and 17 are being monitored 

and pending dispositions. 

Comparison of Workplace Violence Non-Hotline Reported Incidents by District 

2000 2001 

Alameda 

Albany 

Atlanta 

Boulder 

Chicago 

Dallas 

Des Moines 

Greenbelt 

Jackson 

Lawrence 

Madison 

Minneapolis 

Philadelphia 

Pickerington 

Raleigh 

Salem 

Springdale 

6 7 

3 3 

13 10 

6 2 

5 2 

1 2 

17 8 

1 4 

13 15 

13 4 

4 4 

2 0 

7 6 

2 4 

26 9 

5 0 

13 11 

7
Origin of Alleged Workplace Violence Non-Hotline Reported Incidents 

• 11 of 91 reported incidents were allegedly instigated by Agency personnel. 

• 80 of 91 reported incidents were allegedly instigated by outside sources. 

• Overall, workplace violence non-hotline reported cases reflected: 81% were a result 

of 4735.4 directive usage, 12% were reports received from within the Agency and 

7% entailed OIG involvement. 

Dispositions - Workplace Violence Non-Hotline Reported Incidents Allegedly 

Instigated by Agency Personnel – FY 2001 

Of the 11 non-hotline reported incidents of workplace violence allegedly instigated by 

Agency personnel 2 resulted in corrective action; 1 resulted in no further action; and 8 are 

being monitored and pending dispositions. 

Dispositions – Workplace Violence Non-Hotline Reported Incidents Allegedly 

Instigated by Outside Sources – FY 2001 

Of the 80 reported incidents by outside sources 8 resulted in plant employee dismissals; 

34 resulted in improved communications based on Agency personnel and outside sources 

to resolve disputes respectively; 27 in corrective action of which 9 cases involved Letter's 

of Assurance from the plant and 12 involved plant instruction to their employees; and 11 

are pending dispositions. 

* Several cases were precipitated by misunderstandings with regard to supervisory chain 

of command (Agency and customers, and poor ‘initial’ conflict resolutions). 

Communication efforts to obtain better understanding of Agency regulatory process and 

customer concerns provided a level at which discrepancies could be resolved quickly and 

efficiently. 

8
Workplace Violence Case Incident Graphs - FY 2001 (See Attachment 5) 

1. Case Category Descriptions 

2. Threat to Life Case Categories 

3. Agency / Outside Source Comparison 

4. Imminent / Developmental Case Comparison 

5. Reported Cases as Compared by District 

6. Reported Cases as Compared by State 

7. Gender Comparison of Subject 

8. Gender Comparison of Victim 

No reference or conclusions should be made concerning the Districts 

showing an increase in cases. There may be other Districts with as many 

cases that had not communicated with the Workplace Violence Program. 

Any questions concerning this report can be directed to John Campbell – 

202.690.1999 

9
Fiscal Year 2001, 2000 and 1999 Comparison 

When comparing the Workplace Violence Reported Incidents of FY 2001, FY 2000, and 

FY 1999 the following factors must be taken into consideration. Ongoing training and 

awareness initiatives may account for increased reporting of documented incidents. 

Additionally senior managers have announced that managers/supervisors will be held 

accountable if workplace violence issues are not addressed. It is expected that continuing 

program implementation will result in increased reliability and detailed data tracking. 

0 50 100 150 200 

Total Incidents 

FY1999 

FY2000 

FY2001 

Fiscal Year 

Workplace Violence Hotline Reported 

Cases FY1999, FY2000, FY2001 

Comparison 

FY2001 (161) 

FY2000 (82) 

FY1999 (62) 

FY 2001 (161) Hotline Cases 

FY 2000 (82) Hotline Cases 

FY 1999 (62) Hotline Cases 

10
Accomplishments FY 2001 

This past year there have been significant accomplishments in relation to the Workplace 

Violence Prevention initiative. 

• Improved awareness of the Workplace Violence Prevention 24-hour Hotline response 

phone number (1.888.894.6217) and utilization by Agency personnel and outside 

sources. 

• An FSIS Workplace Violence Prevention Policy Statement, FSIS Notice 04-01 was 

distributed to all employees. (Attachment 6) 

• An FSIS Firearms policy FSIS Notice 13-01 was distributed to all employees. 

(Attachment 7). 

• The completion of FSIS Directive 4735.4 Revision 2 (Draft), providing clarity in the 

reporting process concerning incidents of Threats, Harassment or Intimidation from 

outside sources. (To be distributed) 

• Workplace Violence Prevention video development for Work Unit Meeting 

presentation available to all FSIS Employees. 

• Workplace Violence Prevention emphasis letter was distributed to All Field 

Supervisors. (Attachment 8) 

• Workplace Violence Prevention program development letter (Draft) to All FSIS 

Employees. (To be distributed) 

• Workplace Violence Prevention constituent letter. (Attachment 9) 

• Completion of the USDA Workplace Violence Prevention (closed caption) video. 

• Development with regard to the FSIS Next Step video for FSIS Work Unit Meetings 

to be utilized by Field Operations. 

• Workplace Violence incident database upgrade and cross references to provide better 

measurement and accountability with regard to workplace violence, Subjects (i.e. 

Subjects), Victims, Descriptions, Establishments, States, and District Management 

Case Incidents. The upgrade of database also added three new descriptive categories 

to incidents of violence to include: Domestic Violence, Stalking and Vandalism. 

• Shared information and continued joint effort with respective authorities such as 

Compliance (Enforcement), OIG and Local, State and Federal Law Enforcement. 

• A presentation and discussion with Compliance regarding workplace violence 

incident reporting. 

• Three Workplace Violence Prevention Analysts were hired in FY 2001 to staff the 

Workplace Violence Prevention Program. 

• Listening Sessions were held throughout the country in which workplace violence 

concerns were heard and program initiatives discussed. Feedback gathered during the 

sessions will continue to assist future program objectives and developments. 

• Workplace Violence Prevention Program and Hotline number brochure was 

distributed to all employees. 

11
• Articles have been published in The Beacon identifying issues that have been 

recognized as concerns by the program managers. Included in an article were cutout 

telephone information cards for employees. 

• Workplace Violence Prevention Training conducted at various locations incorporated 

a 1-4 hour presentation in which detailed information was provided regarding 

workplace violence, the warning signs and how to report potential situations. 

• Presentations were made to various groups including State governments, industry, 

other Federal agencies, and private groups concerning the prevention program. 

• A wallet/purse/planner information card was developed identifying FSIS workplace 

violence points of contact and other assistance resources. This information will assist 

employees on obtaining guidance and assistance for situations at the lowest possible 

level of concern in an effort to improve proactive prevention of problems. 

Workplace Violence Prevention OutreachTraining 

FY 2001 Sampling of Customers 

FDA Employees 

Georgia State Directors 

National Turkey Federation 

Rhode Island Department of Agriculture and Markets 

New York State Managers 

New York State Supervisors Training 

New York State Sheriff Officials 

Passport Agency 

Raleigh District Office/ Listening Sessions 

Pinkerington District Office/ Listening Sessions 

Minneapolis District Office/ Listening Sessions 

Lawrence District Office/ Listening Sessions 

Atlanta District Office/ Listening Sessions 

Dallas District Office/ Listening Sessions 

ADR Human Resource Managers and Diversity Training 

Boulder District Office/ Listening Sessions 

Albany District Office/ Listening Sessions 

Philadelphia District Office/ Listening Sessions 

Technical Service Center 

Western, Midwestern, and Eastern Laboratories (Alameda, St Louis, Athens)

Des Moines District Office/ Listening Sessions 

Video Presentations with NJC to discuss Workplace Violence Prevention Video and 

Distribution

All 17 District Officers, Circuit Supervisors, and Union Representatives 

U.S. State Department Senior Managers 

North Carolina State Directors 

Texas State Health Department 

South Carolina State Agriculture Division Managers 

Health and Human Services Senior Managers 

U.S. Department of Education 

Office of Personnel Management 

12
Workplace Violence Prevention OutreachTraining 

FY 2001 Sampling of Customers (continue) 

Minnesota Department of Agriculture 

National Association of State Meats, Food Directors 

International Dairy Food Association 

Northeast Food and Drug Officials Association 

Radnor, PA, Town Supervisors 

North Eastern Food and Drug Officials Association 

National Association, State Meat Food Division Eastern Region 

School Systems in Maryland and New York 

Overall fiscal year 2001, the Workplace Violence Staff has provided training to a total 

of 3,547 Agency Personnel and non Agency Personnel (i.e. industry, constituents, 

Local, State, and Federal Agencies). 

Feedback from Training Evaluation Forms 

Responses from training session evaluation forms completed by course participants 

provided the following information: 

Questions and Evaluation Responses: 

1. The objectives of the Workplace Violence Prevention Course were clearly presented. 

67% of attendees Strongly Agree, 29% Agree, and 4% Somewhat Agree 

2. The Workplace Violence Prevention Course provided very useful information. 

64% of attendees Strongly Agree, 33% Agree, and 3% Somewhat Agree 

3. I am satisfied with what I learned as a result of attending the Workplace Violence 

Prevention Course. 

64% of attendees Strongly Agree, 30% Agree, and 6% Somewhat Agree 

13
Issues of Concern 

• In Fiscal Year (FY) 2001, there have been several serious domestic violence incidents 

related with the workplace. These incidents involved not only serious physical abuse, 

but also overwhelming emotional mistreatment placed on the victim. Not only does 

abuse effect the well being of the victim and family, but also coworker and program 

effectiveness. FSIS considers domestic violence prevention vital in the maintenance 

of employee safety and health. Empathy and a willingness to help if asked for help 

should be a primary concern for all FSIS managers and supervisors. While the 

sensitivity of this matter is not an easy one to deal with, it is not an option to ignore 

an employee’s signals for help. We should make sure that we keep resources 

available and user-friendly, while respecting the right to privacy. 

• While consistent reporting continues to be an expectation of the Agency, gaps remain 

in the reporting processes that warrant appropriate management efforts. This 

emphasizes the need for continued training, work unit meetings, and communication 

to make certain that the reporting process is being used consistent with Agency 

policies and directives. 

• Although there has been an increase of FSIS form 4735-4 usage in FY 2001, there is 

still a need for complete documentation of incidents in a timely manner. The 4735-4 

forms require legibility and concise details of incidents and should be fax-ready. The 

Form Flow program, which is available on Field Operations computers, provides 

employees an electronic version of the 4735-4 form to aid in the reporting process of 

workplace violence incidents. In addition, supervisors should ensure that paper 

versions of the 4735-4 form are available in the FSIS office. While employees are 

directed and expected to complete the 4735-4 form themselves, supervisors should 

assist employees who may need help filling out the form. 

• There are a significant number of conflicts within the Agency that escalate into 

incidents of alleged threat, harassment, and/or intimidation. There is a need for more 

timely intervention. This should occur in such a way as to encourage local problem 

solving methods. The Workplace Violence Prevention program should be used to 

assist supervisors in their efforts to manage and hopefully prevent conflicts. The 

Workplace Violence Prevention Analysts can help supervisors in their efforts and 

give continuity to management when employees call for assistance. There have been 

many instances when this has worked effectively when supervisors have involved the 

analysts early in the process. The Workplace Violence Prevention Program is not a 

substitute for the immediate supervisor or chain of command. It is an enhancement of 

existing systems of management and an alternative resource when supervisors do not 

effectively respond to problems. Employees should keep their supervisors informed 

of their concerns and supervisors should use available resources to effectively 

manage local workplace violence prevention efforts. 

14
Current and Near Term Initiatives 

• Implementation of one analyst position to cover the West Coast. 

• Review the possibility of adding a computer specialist position to maintain interactive 

web based communication, as recommended by the Taskforce on Workplace 

Violence Prevention. 

• Computer Based CD for Workplace Violence Prevention training. 

• An expanded and accelerated training to continue the prevention effort at all levels 

and in all program areas. Training is being tailored to fit the problems and specific 

needs of each office. Some training is designed to fit within work unit meeting 

timeframes so that it is practical and easily implemented, respecting fiscal and 

program limitations. 

• Exploration of methods to improve reporting and intervention into incidents of 

conflict within the Agency with regard to potential or actual workplace violence 

conditions. 

• Inclusion of specific language in FSIS Directive 4735.3, Employee Responsibilities 

and Conduct, to specifically address an employee obligation for treating others with 

dignity and respect and to specifically identify unacceptable behavior, as it relates to 

preventing workplace violence. 

Missions Summary 

The Workplace Violence Prevention Program is a work in progress. Continued 

application of resources is needed to facilitate effective preventive measures through 

efficient program implementation. 

Steps taken to address the urgent issues of workplace violence account for the volume of 

this report. The value of recognizing shared goals and coordinating common efforts 

opens the way for new initiatives consistent with Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point 

methodology. Some parties continued to voice the opinion that conditions within the 

HACCP environment have caused conflict and may be a contributing factor to the overall 

potential for workplace violence. It may also be suggested that the HACCP environment 

should be a proving ground for open communications, which should offer a ‘systematic’ 

and business-like problem solving background for preventing violence. While these lines 

of thinking may be equally valid, it is the application of behavior that is the world our 

employees live in. Working in such an environment requires open-minded thinking, the 

courage to try new ways of problem solving, and the willingness to put honesty and 

objectivity into action. This requires us to explore a bold initiative in shifting old ways of 

thinking and behavior into a proactive process that lessens conflict and encourages team 

oriented thinking. The effectiveness of continued initiatives will be measured in what 

occurs in the workplace rather than what happens in the policy-making arena. 

15
With new approaches to the working environment, we must also take a bold look at the 

sociological, economic, and psychological background of the world that we all live and 

work in. It becomes incontrovertible that conditions outside of the workplace are often 

central issues to workplace violence. We must broaden our approach to proactive 

thinking to include factors outside of the confines of the workplace, while respecting the 

privacy of our employees. The beginning of such an approach lies with the ability to 

recognize the needs of our employees and to provide empathy, compassion, and 

assistance when the employee needs us most. This area needs improvement. While 

mechanisms are in place for employee assistance, we are seeing examples that indicate a 

need for improvement in practical intervention in problematic situations that show up in 

the workplace. Not taking this into account in an overall prevention effort misses the 

mark on approaching core issues rather than reacting to symptoms of a failure to do so. 

To accomplish these things will require a combination of theoretical exploration and 

grounding in real-world application of practical ideas. FSIS has the ability to do this now 

with resources within its reach. The success of such an initiative lies with our willingness 

to try new ideas and accept innovative, perhaps unconventional methods. 

It is the FSIS Workplace Violence Prevention Program’s goal to take case studies and 

present concerns, with data gathered from our current mechanisms and the combined all 

resources within this report to map a proactive approach towards solutions. 

FSIS wishes to thank all of our employees, the groups that have helped us 

along the path, our critics, and those who work quietly in the background. 

Workplace violence prevention is a goal shared by all. Let us share the 

responsibility as well. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. The Link to Milbank Memorial Fund Report on Conflict and Violence in the Food 

Safety Workplace 

2. The Link to Agency Taskforce Report 2000 

3. Status Report on Milbank Report and Taskforce Recommendations 

4. Letter from Deputy Administrator Ron Hicks to All FSIS Employees dated 9/13/01 

5. Workplace Violence FY 2001 Case Graphs 

6. FSIS Notice 04-01 - Workplace Violence Prevention Policy Statement 

7. FSIS Notice 13-01 - Firearms in Work Establishments 

8. Workplace Violence Prevention Emphasis Letter to All Field Supervisors dated 

9/22/01 

9. Constituent WPVP Training Invitation Letter dated 7/19/01 

16
In Memory 

Jean Hillery, Thomas Quadros, and Bill Shaline, were killed in June 2000, while in 

performance of their regulatory duties. the hard lessons learned from their loss not 

be in vain, but serve to remind us each day of our duty to transform tragedy into a better 

life for those who follow in their footsteps. 

Senior Special 

Investigator, State of 

California, 

Bill Shaline 

May 

Attachment 1 

17 
Attachment 1 

Conflict and Violence in the Food Safety 

Workplace: 

A Report on Meetings Convened by the Milbank 

Memorial Fund at the 

Request of the U.S. Department of Agriculture in 

Fulfillment of a 

Cooperative Agreement of September 2000 

http://www.milbank.org/0107foodsafety.html 

18
Attachment 2 

Web Link to the Taskforce 2000 Report on Workplace Violence 

Prevention 

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/oa/topics/violence.htm 

19
Attachment 3 

Status of Recommendations from the Taskforce on Workplace Violence 

Prevention and the Milbank Memorial Fund Report on Conflict and 

Violence in the Food Safety Workplace 

During the fiscal year 2000, the Taskforce on Workplace Violence Prevention was 

formed to reassess critical issues in the aftermath of the murder of two FSIS Compliance 

Officers and a State of California investigator in San Leandro, California. The findings 

of the Taskforce are detailed in it’s report, “Workplace Violence Prevention Taskforce 

2000 – Report of Recommendations”. A link to the web site containing the report can be 

found in Attachment 2 of this report. Following the Taskforce meetings, the Milbank 

Memorial Fund organized meetings to determine the scope, makeup, and possible 

solutions to workplace violence issues in the food safety workplace. The findings of 

these meetings are detailed in the report, “Conflict and Violence in the Food Safety 

Workplace: A Report on Meetings Convened by the Milbank Memorial Fund at the 

Request of the U.S. Department of Agriculture in Fulfillment of a Cooperative Agreement 

of September 2000.” This attachment will address the status and timeline of the 

recommendations made in the Taskforce and Milbank reports. 

The Taskforce 2000 report identifies current FSIS accomplishments, which were 

completed prior to the report’s release. Other core issues identified in recommendations 

by the Taskforce are works in progress and are at various stages of advancement. Many 

of the recommendations will be a continuing process with no clear completion, an 

example being changing the culture. Movements of this nature will be maintained 

indefinitely. This attachment will endeavor to comment on where we are in those kinds 

of processes, relative to the Taskforce assessment. 

Taskforce Recommendations for Immediate Implementation 

Provide cell phones to employees for personal security, beginning with compliance 

officers. 

Status - Completed 

Cell phones have been provided to Compliance Officers and many Circuit Supervisors. 

The Workplace Violence Prevention Assessment Team (WPVPAT) is currently 

performing risk assessments on other assignments, locations, and situations to determine 

where additional cell phones may be needed. 

Communicate to industry the Agency’s zero tolerance policy on workplace violence 

Status – Completed 

This recommendation is addressed in this and the previous Report on Workplace 

Violence Prevention. 

20
Conduct employee interviews to determine extent of incidents, safety, and security 

needs/gaps 

Status – In Progress 

The implementation plan for the interview process is near completion. Implementation 

was delayed in order to bring into full operation the three new Workplace Violence 

Prevention Analyst positions. The analysts will implement the interview process once 

the plan has completed the clearance process. It is expected that the employee interviews 

will begin in early 2002 and be completed before the end of the fiscal year 2002. 

Listening sessions with interactive discussions with FSIS employees throughout the 

country were conducted during the fiscal year 2001. Members of the WPVPAT 

participated in these listening sessions. In addition, the WPVPAT has significantly 

increased its exposure and interaction with FSIS employees, which has addressed, to a 

large degree, this recommendation. 

Allocate adequate resources to Inspectors-in-Charge (IICs) to meet with their 

inspectors and, separately, with plant managers 

Status – Completed

The Next Steps Work Unit Meetings, which included meetings with plant representatives, 

were accomplished during the fiscal year 2001. Also ongoing work unit meetings with 

inspectors have been funded and provided for. Weekly meetings with plant managers are 

a program routine, which addresses a diverse range of issues, including workplace 

violence prevention. Emphasis letters, training, and other management communications 

have placed workplace violence prevention as a high priority, which has driven the 

response to this recommendation. 

Ensure that there is adequate police coverage in potentially violent situations 

Status – Completed 

Completed as described in the Taskforce 2000 report. 

Near-Term and Long-Term Recommendations 

Change the Culture

Status – Ongoing implementation

The Next Steps Work Unit Meetings included specific instructions with regard to 

communications, workplace violence prevention, and addressing the regulatory role in 

the HACCP environment. Specific Workplace Violence Prevention training has focused 

on helping FSIS employees in all program areas to understand Agency policy; their rights 

and responsibilities regarding working in an environment that is free of violence, threats, 

21
harassment or intimidation; their responsibility for striving for non-adversarial 

relationships on the job; reporting of situations that may present a potential for workplace 

violence; and a zero tolerance policy for reprisal against those who report incidents and 

situations. Reporting of all threat and violence incidents is now mandatory. 

Collect and Analyze Information/Data 

Status – Ongoing implementation 

As shown throughout this and the previous annual reports, improved reporting and 

tracking of the data within all forms of reporting have shown significant improvements. 

The WPVPAT database is at the heart of a systems approach to managing the prevention 

program. This has proven to be a critical tool in accurately identifying trends, gaps, and 

the specific makeup of the overall concerns. The WPVPAT can access the database from 

the field in real time, giving critical feedback to concerns in advance of encounters. The 

WPVPAT has worked closely with District Enforcement Operations, District Managers, 

and senior FSIS managers to identify potential and actual problem areas. In many cases, 

information contained within the database has been used to apprise Compliance Officers 

of situations in advance of their arrival at a specific location; thus giving options and 

alternatives to situations that may become hostile or violent. This is a critical step to 

preventing incidents like the tragedy in San Leandro, by providing threat assessment 

information before violence opportunity is encountered. The WPVPAT continues to 

refine this process and be using similar data tracking methods for assembling feedback in 

the aforementioned employee interviews 

Identify Safety/Security Measures 

Status – Ongoing implementation 

District Enforcement Operations has done specific work in this area throughout the fiscal 

year 2001. The WPVPAT has applied risk/threat assessment consistent with the specific 

concerns within this Taskforce recommendation. The WPVPAT uses information 

gathered through the various reporting methods to weigh the facts of situations against 

the measurement of known risk and threat patterns. This gives the WPVPAT information 

that can guide supervisors and managers to take steps to avoid developing situations that 

present a risk. The WPVPAT continues to refine this process and is currently researching 

sources of outside guidance to improve work already done. 

Establish/Revise Policies and Procedures to Support the Desired Cultural Change 

Status – Ongoing implementation 

FSIS Directive 4735.4, Reporting Assault, Threat, Intimidation, or Interference has been 

revised to address this recommendation. Reporting is now mandatory when a threat or 

assault is known. The revised directive provides for more direct involvement by the 

WPVPAT to monitor and assist the investigation process, as well as provide for more 

timely tracking of reported incidents. Revision 2 of the 4735.4 directive is currently in 

22
the clearance process. The WPVPAT is developing a proposal for incorporating specific 

language into FSIS Directive 4735.3, Employee Responsibilities and Conduct, to address 

behavioral expectations with regard an anti-harassment policy. This will provide for a 

clear understanding of unacceptable behavior and sanctions should employees engage in 

such behavior. This helps address a gap that was identified by the Taskforce regarding 

reporting internal confrontational behavior, which is not plainly addressed in a manner 

consistent with the principals of FSIS Directive 4735.4. 

Provide Training 

Status – Ongoing Implementation 

Workplace Violence Prevention training was provided to all Consumer Safety Inspectors, 

Veterinarian Medical Officers, Circuit Supervisors and District Managers within the Next 

Steps Work Unit Meetings. Compliance Officers are getting specific workplace violence 

prevention training in Verbal Judo and safety training at Artesia, New Mexico. The 

WPVPAT is conducting a variety of formats for prevention training at all levels and in all 

divisions within FSIS. In addition, the WPVPAT is extending this training to industry 

and other outside organizations as described in the Accomplishments section of this 

annual report. As of the end of the fiscal year 2001, specific workplace violence 

prevention training (in addition to the Next Steps module) has been provided for 

approximately 2,417 FSIS employees and 726 employees from other sources. Continued 

expansion and improvement of training is a high priority in the prevention effort. 

Communicate Policies, Procedures and Incidents 

Status – Ongoing 

Actions to address this recommendation are described in the Taskforce report and 

previously described initiatives within this report. 

Develop a Systems Approach 

Status – Ongoing as described throughout this annual report. 

Use Civil and Criminal Penalties 

Status – Ongoing 

FSIS has imposed criminal penalties on persons that threaten or assault FSIS employees. 

FSIS has extended this into terrorist related activities, hoaxes that are perpetrated within 

the FSIS work environment, and other workplace violence incidents. FSIS continues to 

explore legal avenues to control and penalize activities that are used to threaten 

employees, their family members, and our customers. 

23
Provide and Adequate Budget 

Status – Completed 

FSIS had fully funded and supported the significant expansion of the Workplace 

Violence Prevention Program. This includes the addition of the three analysts added to 

the Labor and Employee Relations Division staff during the fiscal year 2001. 

The Recommendations of Milbank Memorial Fund Report on Conflict 

and Violence in the Food Safety Workplace 

While some of the recommendations within the Milbank Report are similar to those of 

the Taskforce report, other issues unique to the Milbank meetings have required a 

specific response. FSIS considers itself well on the way in implementation of the 

recommendations within the Milbank Report. The following are issues identified within 

the report’s Action Agenda: 

Improve the Timing and Effectiveness of the Appeals Process 

Status – Near Term Implementation 

FSIS Field Operations is currently developing an action plan for ensuring audit and 

accountability for the appeals process. Timely processing of the appeals process was 

emphasized during Next Steps Work Unit Meetings. 

Increase HACCP and Food Safety Education and Training for Industry and 

Department Employees 

Status – Near Term Implementation 

Ongoing education and training of FSIS employees was accomplished in the fiscal year 

2001 with Next Steps Work Unit Meetings. This effort will be continued and expanded 

on as FSIS Field Operations develops an action plan for increasing the scientific basis of 

food safety pilot training projects for joint training of Agency and Industry employees. It 

is important to note that 35 Consumer Safety Officer positions were created and filled in 

the fiscal year 2001. This represents the beginning of a broad initiative to improve the 

scientific methodology applied to the FSIS role in the HACCP environment. 

Implementation of the Consumer Safety Officer role will address multiple issues 

identified in the Milbank Report call for improvements in the focus of HACCP 

implementation. 

24
Design and Implement Enhanced Programs to Prevent Workplace Violence 

Status – In Progress 

Evidence of the progress on this front is contained in this report. While we have come a 

long way on this path, we recognize that there are many more issues to address to fulfill 

the expectation within this recommendation. For example, FSIS will be expanding the 

relationship with industry, assemble FSIS participation in a collaborative effort with 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and consult with industry groups 

in an effort toward joint training. FSIS is already sharing information from the 

Workplace Violence Prevention Program with industry, which fosters networking and a 

free exchange of ideas. This effort will continue and grow as the prevention program 

evolves. 

Improve the Inspection Process 

Status – In Progress 

The aforementioned improvements in the inspection process are one aspect of the 

Agency’s attention to this recommendation. As a part of the overall improvement effort, 

FSIS has implemented Food Safety Systems Correlation (FSSC) teams. FSIS Notice 42-

01 outlines the purpose of the teams, which directly addresses this recommendation: 

Quoting FSIS Notice 42-01, “FSIS will evaluate the information that FSSC teams gather 

to determine how program personnel are following the inspection methodologies as 

specified in FSIS Directive 5000.1 and in other relevant directives and notices. FSIS 

will use the information gathered by the FSSC teams to determine the need for training, 

correlation activities, and instructional materials. FSIS will not use the results to rate 

the performance of inspection program personnel. FSIS’ goal is to ensure that food 

safety related inspection program activities are carried out in as consistent a manner as 

possible throughout the country. Although not the team’s focus, it will be inevitable that, 

at times, the team will identify trends in establishment approaches to regulatory 

requirements that are questionable and that need correlation. These types of findings 

will be considered in deciding what types of correlation and training should be provided 

to in-plant program personnel and, if they are interested, to establishments.” 

Review Compliance Procedures 

Status – In Progress 

As previously stated in the status of the Taskforce recommendations, Compliance is 

actively evaluating and revision procedures to address the concerns of this Milbank 

recommendation. Compliance is actively communicating with FSIS’ Workplace 

Violence Prevention Program in advance of compliance visits to situations that are cause 

for a safety concern. 

Establish an Ombudsman 

25
Status – Under Discussion 

FSIS is currently discussing the feasibility of adapting current mechanisms to address the 

concerns of this recommendation. FSIS will report on its complete response to this 

recommendation as soon as possible. 

Review and Improve Crisis Management Plans 

Status – In Progress 

Individual topics identified in this recommendation have been covered in this report and 

attachment. FSIS continues to innovate the Workplace Violence Prevention Program to 

identify areas where crisis management may need strengthening. Regarding industry 

plans during recall situations, this is one of many topics being addressed through the In 

Depth Verification process, as detailed in FSIS Directive 5500.1, Conducting Targeted 

In-Depth Verification Reviews. 

The Taskforce and Milbank recommendations continue to be a driving force in the policy 

and application of workplace violence prevention efforts. Questions, comments, and 

concerns regarding the FSIS response to these recommendations should be directed to 

Mr. Donald Mussachio, Assistant Deputy Administrator, Office of Management. Mr. 

Mussachio may be reached at 202-720-4744. All mail for the Administrator’s office 

should be sent to: 

1400 Independence Avenue 

Room 1166-South Building 

Washington, DC 20250 

26
Attachment 4 

United States Food Safety Office of Management 

Department of and Inspection Washington, DC 20250-3700 

Agriculture Service 

September 13, 2001 

To: All FSIS Employees 

From: Ronald F. Hicks 

Deputy Administrator 

Office of Management 

Subject: Attack On Our Nation 

All of us are shocked over the tragic events of recent days in New York, Washington, and 

Pennsylvania. The horrific loss of life, the attack on our fellow Americans, and the 

impact on our way of life seems beyond understanding and acceptance. It is nearly 

impossible to think of anything but the images of the disaster, the people who have lost 

their lives, and the loved ones who struggle to survive the pain. 

As we set out on a path to recover from this terrible loss, I wish to express my deep 

concern for all our employees, especially the ones who have lost friends or loved ones in 

this tragedy. Please know that we are concerned for each of you and wish to provide the 

support that you may need to cope with this terrible situation. 

For those who may have lost loved ones, friends, or associates, please know that we are 

here for you and your families. We stand ready to provide support for you in ways that 

we are able. Employee Relations Specialist, Roslyn Robinson, is available to assist in 

arranging support through the Employee Assistance Program (EAP). Ms. Robinson’s 

telephone number is 202.720.5657, and her email address is Roslyn.Robinson@usda.gov. 

You may also contact our Employee Assistance Program directly by calling 

800.523.5668 or TDD 1.800.882.7610. 

You may be experiencing many feelings at this time: anxiety, lack of concentration, quilt, 

hopelessness, a variety of physical symptoms, mood swings, and an extreme sense of 

sadness. These feelings are all quite normal. Talk about your feelings with coworkers, 

your supervisor, and your families. It will help in relieving some of your anxieties. It is 

also welcome if you listen to others. I have attached a list of suggestions for helping coworkers cope with grief. 

Your children, I’m sure, are a major concern to you, also. At times of crisis, their 

imagination can run in all directions. Our EAP counselors advise us that the best way to 

address the issue of helping children work through their grief is to be open to their 

questions. Answer as honestly as you can and reassure them that you will do whatever it 

takes to keep them and yourself safe, and, above all, let them know that they will be cared 

for. 

27
Please be mindful that our sense of anger and want for justice is natural and 

understandable. We have all been injured in some way by this life changing event. But 

justice will come in due time and by the people who are responsible for delivering it. 

Whatever our feelings about what happened, we must make certain that treating each 

other with dignity and respect is a priority. We have a diverse workforce, and it may 

become tempting to allow our frustration to vent itself in negative ways. 

In staying safe, we hope that you remain aware what is happening around you and don’t 

lose sight of the everyday hazards of our work and life. It is easy to become preoccupied 

and distracted during traumatic times. We rely on the physical, mental, and spiritual 

health of our employees, and we stand ready to be of assistance should you need our help. 

Our work in FSIS does not stop and we must continue to maintain a safe meat, poultry, 

and egg supply for our nation and the world. All of us at FSIS have reason to be 

thankful and proud of what we do and who we are, as an organization, as a nation, and as 

individuals. 

Thank you all for the work that you do and please continue to persevere during these 

trying times. Be proud and renewed in our strength together. 

Attachment 

Attachment 5 

Page 28 
0 50 100 150 200 

Total Incidents 

B OM B T H R EA T 

C R IM IN A L P R OVISION 

D ISCRIM INA T ION 

F IREA R M -TWDW 

HA RR A SSM EN T 

HOM ICID E 

IN T ER F ER EN C E 

IN TIM ID A TION 

KNIF E- T WD W 

PH YSIC A L ASSA ULT 

PH YSIC A L TH R EA T 

REF TO KILLIN G-TWD W 

SEXUA L HA R R A SSM EN T 

SUIC ID E 

VER B A L A B USE 

VERB A L THREA T 

DOM EST IC 

STA LKIN G 

VA N D A LISM 

Case Categories

Workplace Violence Incidents Overall 

Cases FY2001 

Hotline Reported Case Files 

Non-Hotline Reported Case Files 

TWDW = Threat with 

Deadly Weapon 

Page 29 
Workplace Violence Incidents 

Threat to Life FY2001 

4 

18 

1

4 

18 

6 

BOMB THREAT (4) 

FIREARM (18) 

HOMICIDE (1) 

KNIFE (4) 

REF TO KILLING (18) 

POTENTIAL SUICIDE (6) 

OVERALL CASES IN THREAT TO LIFE CATEGORIES (Total 51) 

Page 30 
0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

120 

140 

160 

180 

In c id e n ts 

H o tlin e 

R e porte d 

C a se F ile s 

N on-H o tlin e 

R e porte d 

C a se F ile s 

To ta ls 

W o rk p lace V io len ce In cid e n ts 

In te rn a l A g e n c y / O u ts id e S o u rc e 

F Y2001 

In te rn a l Ag e n c y 

O u ts ide S ourc e 

Page 31 
0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

120 

140 

160 

180 

200 

Incidents 

Hotline 

Reported 

Case Files 

NonHotline 

Reported 

Case Files 

Totals 

Workplace Violence Incidents 

Imminent/Developmental FY2001 

Imminent 

Developmental 

Page 32 
District Overall Cases FY2001 

0 0 40 

ALAMEDA 

ALBANY 

ATLANTA 

BOULDER 

CHICAGO 

DALLAS 

DES MOINES 

GREENBELT 

JACKSON 

LAW RENCE 

MADISON 

MINNEAPOLIS 

PHILADELPHIA 

PICKERINGTON 

RALEIGH 

SALEM 

SPRINGDALE 

Districts 

Total Cases 

Hotline Reported Cases 

Non- Hotline Reported 

Cases 

2

Page 33 
O v er a ll C a ses FY 2001 by S ta te 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 

AK 

AL 

AR 

AS 

AZ 

CA 

CO 

CT 

DC 

DE 

FL 

GA 

GU 

HI 

IA 

ID 

IL 

IN 

KS 

KY 

LA 

MA 

MD 

ME 

MI 

MN 

MO 

MS 

MT 

NC 

ND 

NE 

NH 

NJ 

NM 

NV 

NY 

OH 

OK 

OR 

PA 

PR 

RI 

SC 

SD 

TN 

TX 

UT 

VA 

VI 

VT 

WA 

WI 

WV 

WY 

States 

Tota l C a se s 

H o tline R eporte d 

Ca s e s 

N on-H o tlin e 

R epo rted C a s e s 

Page 34 
Workplace Violence Overall Incidents 

"SUBJECT" (Gender) Comparison 

FY2001 

66% 

19% 

15% 

Male 

Female 

Undefined 

Page 35 
Workplace Violence Overall Incidents 

Victims (Gender) Comparison 

FY2001 

47% 

39% 

14% 

Male 

Female 

Undefined 

No reference or conclusions should be made concerning the Districts 

showing most cases. There may be other Districts with as many cases that 

are not communicating with the Workplace Violence Program. 

Any questions concerning this report can be directed to 

John Campbell – 202.690.1999 

Page 36 
WORKPLACE VIOLENCE POLICY STATEMENT 

Violence or the threat of violence, by or against an FSIS employee is unacceptable 

and will not be tolerated. Possession, use, or threat of use of a deadly weapon is not permitted at work or

in vehicles when used for official business. Violators are subject to serious disciplinary action and possible 

criminal charges. 

An employee must report any act or threat of workplace violence promptly to the 

supervisor, manager, or other official. In an emergency, an employee reports 

violence directly to law enforcement officials. Management acts immediately on 

each complaint of workplace violence. If a manager fails to take action, an employee 

calls the next line supervisor or a member of the FSIS Workplace Violence Prevention Assessment Team. 

An employee may reach the assessment team members on the 

24-hour, toll free pager number by calling 1-888-894-6217. Team members return pager calls as soon as

possible. 

Remember, it is each employee’s responsibility to prevent workplace violence. We should treat every 

employee fairly, equitably, and with dignity and respect at all times. 

Attachment 6 

Page 37 
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE 

WASHINGTON, DC 

FSIS NOTICE 13-01 3/21/01 

FIREARMS IN WORK ESTABLISHMENTS 

I. PURPOSE 

This notice provides guidance to address concerns on the presence of firearms in 

federally inspected plants and other locations where FSIS employees carry out 

responsibilities under the law and regulations. 

II. BACKGROUND 

A. FSIS employees must carry out inspection and enforcement duties in a 

manner that upholds high standards of honesty, integrity, and impartiality. Agency 

inspection and compliance personnel represent USDA and must make decisions in an 

atmosphere free of unreasonable distractions, including distractions that pose a risk to 

safety and personal security. 

B. This notice supplements guidance on reporting incidents of assault, threats 

of assault, intimidation, or interference in FSIS Directive 4735.4, Revision 1, Reporting 

Assault, Threats, Intimidation, or Interference, dated October 22, 1997. 

III. POLICY 

It is FSIS policy to protect employees from assaults, threats of assault, intimidation, or 

interference relating to the performance of their official duties. 

IV. LEGAL POSSESSION 

A. The presence of firearms in official establishments and other locations 

where FSIS employees carry out their duties is not uncommon. A wide variety of 

Federal, State, and local laws govern the possession of firearms. 

B. The mere presence of a firearm by an individual or business regulated by 

FSIS does not constitute an act of intimidation or interference, under the Federal Meat 

Inspection Act (FMIA), Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA), or Egg Products 

Inspection Act (EPIA) or Title 18 of the United States Code, Crimes and Criminal 

Procedures. The Agency does not have a legal basis to prohibit or restrain the possession 

of the firearm if: 

DISTRIBUTION: 

All Field Employees; All Offices 

NOTICE EXPIRES: 

April 1, 2002 

OPI: 

LERD – Office of the Director 

Attachment 7 
1. The possession of a firearm by an individual in an FSIS inspected 

or regulated facility is in accordance with Federal, State or local laws and, 

2. The firearm is not used in a manner to intimidate or interfere with 

the official duties of an FSIS employee. 

C. There are situations when firearms have been in official establishments for many 

years with the knowledge of FSIS personnel, and their presence has not been an issue. 

Establishments may have firearms for security reasons or for the control or downing of animals. 

D. It is possible that private businesses may impose restrictions on the possession of 

firearms on their premises. FSIS will encourage plants or other businesses to re-evaluate the need 

to keep firearms at their place of business and to assure that they are properly secured. 

V. FIREARM VIOLATIONS 

A. Violation. Under no circumstances are plant personnel allowed to bring 

firearms into the government office of an official establishment. Possession of firearms in any 

USDA laboratory or office is prohibited. 

B. Agency Actions. 

1. FSIS determines when the presence or use of firearms may 

constitute a violation of the criminal provisions of our statutes and should be referred for court 

action or when the threat posed meets the provisions of FSIS Directive 4735.4. 

2. FSIS may make appropriate case referrals through District 

Enforcement Operations if indiscriminate handling or storage of firearms violates FMIA, PPIA, 

EPIA or Title 18. 

3. Each office manager, compliance supervisor (CS), and inspector-in-charge 

(IIC) is to ensure that a Title 18 poster is hung on the entry way to each building and office that 

houses FSIS employees. The office manager, CS, or IIC calls the supply center to order the 

poster (order number GSADC-8911101946) and hangs it up if there is none displayed. 

VI. SAFETY PROCEDURES 

Exercise good judgment in determining when actions or statements constitute interference with 

official duties or pose a risk to safety. Supervisors and employees will be held accountable when 

it is found that they were aware of a potentially harmful situation and failed to take appropriate 

action. FSIS personnel: 

A. Must remove themselves from danger, contact local law enforcement officials 

immediately, and follow FSIS Directive 4735.4 if at any time there is an actual assault, threat, 

or other immediate danger. 

B. May refuse to engage in conversations or conduct meetings with plant 

personnel: 
 FSIS NOTICE 13-01

1. When firearms are present or used inappropriately. 

2. If an employee believes that the presence of a firearm constitutes an 

unreasonable risk due to past instances of carelessness or questionable indiscriminate behavior. 

C. May ask plant personnel to secure or remove any firearm if: 

1. It is displayed or presented in a manner that is threatening or intimidating. 

2. Industry employees demonstrate signs of anger or hostility towards them. 

D. May curtail normal processes and take any of the following actions if the 

presence of firearms precludes effective dialogue and resolution of issues: 

1. Discontinue discussions of non-compliance issues. If appropriate, move 

the discussion to another location where a firearm is not present. 

2. Seek law enforcement assistance as backup. 

3. Withhold the marks of inspection if the danger is unreasonable. 

VII. DOCUMENTING AND REPORTING INCIDENTS 

A. Documenting Incidents. Employees and immediate supervisors are to continue 

to follow the policy and procedures provided in FSIS Directive 4735.4 to document incidents of 

assault, threat, intimidation, or interference. 

B. Reporting Incidents. 

1. Hostile Environment. Careless or indiscriminate handling or storage, 

jokes or horseplay, or belligerent or hostile exchanges are not tolerated. Report the information 

to the supervisor, the District Manager or Assistant District Manager for Enforcement and with 

the Workplace Violence Prevention and Response Coordinator, who can be reached on the toll 

free, twenty four-hour pager, 

888-894-6217. 

2. Other Incidents. Report the information to the Workplace Violence 

Coordinator if you feel or are concerned that State or local laws have been violated. Information 

and the contact telephone numbers for the immediate reporting of incidents are in the Preventing 

Workplace Violence Brochure dated February 1999. Request immediate assistance from local 

law enforcement and the Office of the Inspector General. 

VIII. WITHHOLDING AND SUSPENDING INSPECTIONS 

A. FSIS may withhold the marks of inspection and suspend the assignment of 

inspectors when Agency employees are not able to carry out their responsibilities without 

fear or intimidation because of the actions by plant personnel. These actions must be 

coordinated through the district manager. 
Food Safety and Inspection Service Third Annual Report on Workplace Violence Prevention 

B. These actions are not designed to punish wrongdoers, but to protect 

employees. Withholdings or suspensions are lifted when FSIS determines that plants 

have taken steps that assure the safety of FSIS employees and unimpeded application of 

critical food safety judgments. 

IX. CRIMINAL PENALTIES 

A. The FMIA, PPIA, and EPIA each provide criminal penalties for 

violations. 

B. Assault or threats to government officials may also violate the 

provisions of Title 18 of the United States Criminal Code. Criminal penalties are 

imposed through the United States District courts. 

X. PREVENTION TASKFORCE 

FSIS has established a task force on Prevention of Workplace Violence to recommend 

ways to improve the Agency’s efforts to address incidents of assault, intimidation, and 

interference with FSIS personnel. It is expected that the task force will recommend 

culture and operational changes, which will be introduced to both government personnel 

and individuals and businesses covered by the Federal meat, poultry and egg products 

laws. 

Deputy Administrator 

Office of Management 

- 41 -
Food Safety and Inspecti Attachment 8 on Workplace Violence Prevention 

United States Food Safety Washington, DC 20250 

Department of and Inspection

Agriculture Service 

August 30, 2001 

TO: District Managers 

All Field Supervisors 

FROM: John Campbell 

Workplace Violence Prevention Coordinator 

Through: Dr. Mark Mina 

Deputy Administrator, Field Operations 

SUBJECT: Workplace Violence Prevention Emphasis 

This letter is to remind supervisors of their responsibility to effectively address incidents involving assault, 

threats, intimidation, or interference against inspection personnel. Supervisors must ensure that all 

provisions of FSIS Directives 4735.4 and 4735.7 are effectively conveyed to plant management and 

inspection personnel. In addition, supervisors shall be held accountable for the effective administration of 

these directives in an overall effort to prevent workplace violence. 

Incidents that clearly present inspection personnel to an imminent danger threat, or situations where 

employees are assaulted, shall be addressed immediately. Actions to mitigate the situation should include 

withholding of inspection/removal of FSIS personnel from the hostile site, notification to the local law 

enforcement authorities, and actions as prescribed by FSIS Directive 4735.4. 

Incidents that are of a level lower than imminent danger shall be documented on FSIS form 4735-4, and 

procedures followed as designated. Where it is found that a plant manager/employee has assaulted, 

threatened, intimidated and/or interfered with an FSIS employee, plant management must implement 

corrective actions and preventive measures to ensure that incidents are not repeated. Actions to decisively 

end incidents of threats, intimidation, or interference against inspection personnel may include withholding 

inspection by removing inspection personnel until a meaningful preventive measure is presented to 

effectively address the recurring issue. 

Professionalism is a two way street. In no case shall FSIS tolerate Agency personnel 

engaging in hostile acts, which threaten the safety and well being of plant or program 

personnel. Complete investigation of alleged incidents will include due process and 

respect of personal rights. FSIS employees who are found to have threatened, struck, 

harassed, intimidated, retaliated against, or otherwise caused duress through hostility 

shall be dealt with in an effective manner that ensures an end to such activities. 

Administrative actions in response to incidents involving FSIS employees engaging in 

these types of activity may result in disciplinary actions, which could include dismissal. 

There should be no misunderstanding the seriousness of preventing workplace violence. 

All FSIS and industry management personnel are expected to put workplace safety and 

treating people with respect at the highest priority. Immediate action is required by all 

FSIS supervisors to take the necessary steps to accomplish this. 

- 42 -
Food Safety and Inspection Service Third Annual Report on Workplace Violence Prevention 

The Workplace Violence Prevention Program has four specialists with designated areas 

of responsibility to help provide assistance to you when needed. They are as follows: 

John Campbell, call anytime day or night on the 24 hour pager 888-894-6217 

Daytime phone numbers, 202-690-1999, cell phone 202-421-5135, and fax number 202-

690-1666 

E-mail, John.Campbell@USDA.GOV

Areas of responsibility by Districts: Albany; Philadelphia; Minneapolis; Madison; and 

Salem 

Deborah Linder, 

Daytime phone numbers, 202-690-4038, cell phone 202-489-9660, fax number 202-690-

3938 

E-mail, Deborah.Linder@USDA.GOV 

Areas of responsibility by Districts: Pickerington; Greenbelt; and Chicago 

Eileen Foresman, 

Daytime phone numbers, 404-562-5916, cell phone 404-964-2311, and fax number 404-

562-5930 

E-mail, Eileen.Foresman@USDA.GOV 

Areas of responsibility by Districts: Alameda; Boulder; Des Moines; Lawrence; and 

Atlanta 

Alvin Sewell, 

Daytime phone numbers, 850-942-8370, cell phone 850-321-5295, fax number 850-942-

8371 

E-mail, Alvin.Sewell@USDA.GOV 

Areas of responsibility by District: Jackson; Raleigh; Springdale; and Dallas 

Thank you in advance for your immediate support for this very important initiative. 

- 43 -
Food Safety and Inspection Service Third Annual Report on Workplace Violence Prevention 

 - 44 - 

Food Safety and Inspection Service 

United States Department of Agriculture 

Washington, D.C. 20250-3700

Text of Letter to Constituent Groups: Workplace 

Violence Prevention and Response Program 

July 19, 2001 

Constituent Groups and Contacts of 

United States Department of Agriculture 

Food Safety and Inspection Service 

1400 Independence Avenue SW 

Washington, DC 20250-3700 

Dear Constituent: 

The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) developed a Workplace Violence Prevention and Response 

Program three years ago and has taken a very aggressive approach in training its employees. This training 

includes identifying the warning signs of potential workplace violence, what to do once these signs are 

recognized, and what programs are available to provide assistance and guidance in resolving workplace 

violence issues. 

The Department's Workplace Violence Prevention policy clearly states that it is the employee's 

responsibility to help prevent workplace violence by treating everyone with dignity and respect. 

Departmental policy also emphasizes that employees who fail to treat others with respect and/or 

supervisors who fail to act on warning signs that they are aware of, will be held accountable. The FSIS 

Workplace Violence Prevention Program exists to carry out USDA's policy of prohibiting acts or threats of 

violence against persons or property in the USDA workplace. This policy applies to violent threats or acts, 

whether committed by USDA employees or by the individual outside of USDA. 

Workplace violence is a national concern and requires everyone working together in an effort to ensure a 

safe and professional work environment. In this regard, I believe it is imperative that Industry and the 

Agency work together in this very important undertaking as a national concern. 

In an effort to facilitate the liaison with Industry, John Campbell, FSIS Workplace Violence Prevention 

Coordinator, is available to meet with interested parties to identify how FSIS can work simultaneously and 

help each other in the prevention process. A training program, similar to that given to FSIS employees, is 

also available for your organization, and be customized to meet your specific needs. If you are interested in 

having Mr. Campbell meet with you and your organization, please have a member of your staff contact him 

at (202) 690-1999. Mr. Campbell may also be contacted via e-mail message at 

John.Campbell@USDA.GOV. 

Thank you for your interest and support in preventing workplace violence. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ Ronald F. Hicks 

Deputy Administrator 

Office of Management 

Attachment 9