What is the effectiveness of training programs for reporting suspicious behavior and targeted violence prevention at the workplace?

Chapter I

“Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we’ve been waiting for. We are the change that we seek.”- Barak Obama, 2008

Introduction

“Most of the time when a violent incident shatters a workplace and ends lives, experts learn too late about the information that someone knew – somewhere – that could have been used to prevent the attack” (Doherty, 2015, para. 1). Violent workplace incidents such as homicides account for 25- 30% of the annual number of workplace incidents (Meloy, White, & Hart, 2013). Between 1992 and 2012, all workplace homicides in the United States accounted for the deaths of 14,770 individuals (NIOSH, 2014). But incidents such as the 2015 massacre in San Bernardino, CA or the 2014 Fort Hood, TX shooting are permanently marked in our consciousness. Parfitt (2014) writes that “mass casualty shootings …continue to make news and to some extent each of these events happened because the actions and behaviors of those who perpetrated these crimes were not recognized for the risk they presented” (p.29).

Meloy et al. (2013) refers to these violent targeted acts as “tail risk” events; events that have a low probability but are foreseeable (p.1354). Although rare, these violent have catastrophic consequences and high behavioral health risk factors (Crimando, 2013). They are devastating to the survivors and the community surrounding the incident. In the past few years, the annual average of incidents tripled in comparison to previous years. Mass casualty active shooter events at the workplace account for 45.6 % of all incidents studied by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) between years 2000 and 2013. These attacks are well planned, emotionless and offensive, where an attacker rarely “snaps”. Going in, he/she knows that the intent is to “kill or physically harm identified or symbolic target” (White, 2014, p. 84).

Targeted violence at the workplace is not an epidemic, but it accounts for 34% of homicides in the workplace (White, 2014). Numerous studies suggest (Meloy et al., 2013, O’Tool, 2000, Broum, Fein, Vossekuil, & Berglund, 1999) that a targeted homicide “begins with a deeply felt personal grievance, often the loss of a job or a significant career setback, at times with parallel personal losses, especially financial stress” (White, 2014, p.84). The buildup of these difficulties may contribute to momentum toward violence and put the subject on a “path” to violence. White (2014) writes that these violent outbursts may be clinically understood as rooted in an extreme sensitivity to “narcissistic injury”. Attackers feel that their wounds are so deep that they are willing to sacrifice their own life to gain back a sense of pride and self-importance (White, 2014). “For the workplace avenger, violent action is often an acceptable and final solution to his or her own assessment of the current circumstances, if not a dark reflection on a life unrealized” (White, 2014, p.84).

The emergence of workplace mass murders and targeted-violence events has been on the rise since the 1980’s, when prevention and risk mitigation started to be recognized as occupations (Meloy et al., 2013). In the past few decades, security professionals developed a new approach to deal with violent incident – the interdisciplinary workplace violence risk assessment and management process that allows for potential identification and assessment of individuals before they commit an act of violence (ASIS, 2016). Typically, security programs focus on diversion, delay and response, but when it comes to workplace-violence incidents, these steps should be considered last. Instead, behavioral recognition, notification, assessment and intervention should take place (ASIS, 2016). The mitigating factor lies in understanding the mental state of the aggressor and diverting him/her from violence by early awareness and intervention.

According to Winer and Halgin (2016), the assessment of targeted violence threats rest on two key ideas: not all threats are of equal risk; and most of the subjects “who make threats are unlikely to carry out their threats, but all threats must be taken seriously and evaluated with efficient and thoughtful judgment” (p. 252). In the past, violence prevention techniques focused on individual assessment and creation of a specific perpetrator profile. However, at present, current best practices move beyond this approach. Understanding and recognizing “warning behaviors” is a typology that is proposed by threat assessors as their means to prevent targeted violence. “Warning behaviors” are defined “as any behavior that precedes an act of targeted violence, is related to it, and may, in certain cases, predict it” (Meloy and O’Toole, 2011, p. 514). Meloy, Hoffmann, Guldimann and James (2012) identify these behaviors as factors that accelerate the risk of targeted violence and propose eight categories that we should look at: pathway, fixation, identification, novel aggression, energy bust, leakage, last resort and directly communicated threat. Although, not all are conceptually equivalent, “leakage” is the behavior that allows us to get insight into a possible threat.

The term “leakage” was offered by O’Toole (2000) in her study of school violence and is a communication of the perpetrator to the third party of intent to do harm and attack their victim(s). It is important to understand leakage-warning behaviors as many studies (Exceptional Case Study Project and Safe School Initiative) show that around 80% of all subjects have communicated either verbally or in writing before their attack. “A person may intentionally or unintentionally reveal clues to feelings, thoughts, fantasies, attitudes, or intentions that can signal an impending violent attack” (O’Toole, 2008, p.16). This type of behavior from the attacker gives an opportunity for intervention.

We (employers/employees, law enforcement, and the community as whole) might never be able to stop all the targeted violent attacks. However, we can change the way we train and educate employees at the workplace to report on suspicious behavior. Information sharing is the key component to indentifying a problematic situation. “Many of the task force reports published after the Virginia Tech shootings have said that identifying students who pose a risk, improving information sharing and recognizing early warning signs of emotional crisis are extremely important in preventing this violence” (Parfitt, 2014, p.29). Parfitt (2014) argues that we need a cultural shift in recognizing and reporting suspicious behavior.

There are different schools of thoughts concerning mitigation of targeted violence incidents. Two primary positions emerged as result of studies done by law enforcement and federal agencies: prevention/preemption, and tactical intervention (Ergenbright, & Hubbard, 2012). When it comes to prevention and tactical intervention, law enforcement agencies are trained to recognize suspicious behavior, can make reliable decisions based on risk assessment and are experts on incident response. However, we cannot rely on this expertise at the workplace. But we can learn from law enforcement how to recognize early signs. Since employees can aid in recognizing behaviors that may show some escalation towards violence, we could incorporate the “if see something, say something” methodology into workplace prevention programs.

Although, the “if see something, say something” program was created to raise awareness of the indicators of terrorism and the importance of reporting suspicious activity to local authorities, the idea of the program can be introduced in workplace prevention programs. Most of the current trainings on mass shooter incidents at the workplace follow the U.S. Department of Homeland Security “Run, Hide, Fight” training that focuses on response to an on-going incident but since many violent acts are preceded by a threat, it is important to recognize and report problematic behaviors ahead of the violent act. It can be a crucial component in saving lives.

Statement of the Problem

This study seeks to improve the effectiveness of training programs for reporting suspicious behavior and targeted violence prevention at the workplace. The field of workplace violence emerged about four decades ago and has been widely practiced across organizations. However, a number of high-profile workplace mass murders reported in “media created public awareness and concern about a relatively new perpetrator of violence: the disgruntled homicidal-suicidal employee” (White, 2014, p.84). While numerous case studies tackled the “warning behaviors” methodology to aid the threat assessment process, the “empirical evidence for the effectiveness of workplace-specific interventions to prevent targeted violence is … lacking” (White, 2014, p.84). This stems from the shortage of perpetrators (who are dead), their unwillingness to participate in the studies, or the reluctance of the organizations to release information about incidents.

Over the last few years, several mass shooting have occurred at the workplace, prompting organizations to reevaluate their workplace violence and security training. Most courses focus on actions to respond when the event occurs. They are based on the principles of “Avoid, Deny, Defend” or “Hide, Run, Fight” but rarely cover the importance of reporting on suspicious behavior. “Many times a violent act is preceded by a threat…but in many instances, behavior might be observed by other that might suggest the potential for some type of violence to occur” (Parfitt, 2014, p.32). Threat assessors look for “warning behaviors” or “red flags” to determine if the subject is on the “path” to violence. If we engage workplace employees to in the specific intervention training programs, we could potentially prevent some incidents of workplace violence.

Although, many programs have been implemented and employees have been trained on how to respond to workplace threats and violence, the organizations need to do a better job in engaging employees when it comes to reporting of suspicious behavior.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness of training programs for reporting suspicious behavior and targeted-violence prevention at the workplace. As organization confront targeted violence mass-shooter scenarios, they train employees to face the lethal threat. In the state of Arkansas, several employers have a mandatory program to prepare employees for acts of targeted violence. Those employees, who have a license to carry a firearm, are being taught to react with lethal force. For those who don’t, like Energy’s Electric Utility company employees, are required to undergo a computer-based training.

The basic instructions are simple: run, hide, fight, in that order. Most programs for businesses are based on recommendations from the Department of Homeland Security, which advises people to follow a planned escape route and immediately evacuate. If escape is impossible, it suggests hiding out of the shooter’s view, locking doors or barricading entry points and staying silent (Massey, 2016, para. 8-9).

The same type of training is held across other states. The New York Police Department in their 2012 study “Active Shooter: Recommendation for Risk Mitigation” provide recommendations for training that was outlined by the Department of Homeland Security in “Active Shooter: How to Respond”. Once more, three simple steps are provided to follow: evacuate, hide and take action.

None of the training techniques require employees to be a part of the prevention program and to take steps to possibly mitigate the act of violence. The process of comprehensive emergency management runs through a “life cycle” that includes: preparedness, mitigation, response and recovery. There is a need to evaluate current training programs to assess their effectives and to possibly be a part of the preparedness and mitigation emergency management cycle, rather than only response and recovery. The preparedness mission seeks to reduce the loss of life and property and protect communities through training, threat assessment, and exercises. The mitigation mission seeks to reduce or eliminate long-term risks to people and property from hazards and their effects through risk assessment, development of policies, plans and procedures. Where response mission seeks to conduct emergency operations to save lives (“Run, Hide Fight” training, crisis communication, liaison with law enforcement) and property, and the recovery mission seeks to support communities in rebuilding (business continuity, investigation, trauma management) (FEMA, 2010).

Organizations need to learn on how to be proactive vs. reactive, as workplace violence costs employers more than 36 billion a year as reported by Federal Bureau of Investigation (2011). In addition, shootings account for 78 percent of all workplace homicides, where 83 percent occurs in a private sector (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2015). Through sound preparedness and mitigation strategy, organizations can possibly reduce violent acts.