UNDERSTANDING AND PREVENTING WORKPLACE VIOLENCE

Download Report

Transcript UNDERSTANDING AND PREVENTING WORKPLACE VIOLENCE

SCHOOL VIOLENCE THREAT MANAGEMENT: AN INTRO AND OVERVIEW

Kris Mohandie, Ph.D.

(626) 666-6139 e-mail: [email protected]

SCHOOL VIOLENCE MYTHS

Myth: It won’t happen here.

Reality: It can happen anywhere. Reality: Denial leads to the ignoring of important warning signs.

Reality: Realistic awareness, not paranoia, can increase school safety.

COURSE OUTLINE



Introduction to School Violence



Myths and Realities



Threat Assessment- Recognition



Legal and Practical Issues



Threat Management



Practical Exercise(s)

TYPES OF SCHOOL VIOLENCE

TYPE I- Perpetrated by someone with no connection to the organization/school TYPE II- Perpetrated by customer or service recipient of organization/school (student, former student, parent, other) TYPE III- Perpetrated by someone with an employment-related relationship with the organization/school (current or former employee, domestic violence spillover)

SCHOOL VIOLENCE MYTHS

Myth: The school violence problem is primarily about homicide.

Reality: While homicides are the worst case scenario, it is relatively rare and assaults, intimidation, and fear occur on campuses far more frequently. There is a range of violent behavior which should be of concern.

VIOLENT BEHAVIOR



Mass Homicide



Homicide



Assaults



Threats and Intimidation



Suicidal Behavior



Weapon Possession



Relationship violence



Stalking



Bullying

GRIM REALITIES

7/92-present Review of Facts and Figures



326 killed- 251 males, 75 females {74 in CA, 22 TX, 19 FL, 17 GA, 16 NY, 15 CO, 14 MA, 12 WA, 11 PA, 10 MO, 5 KY, 3 AZ, 2 OR, 1 NV, 1 OK, 1 NM}



244 were shot, 45 stabbed, 16 beaten



81 interpersonal dispute, 37 gang-related



58 suicides



34 elementary, 52 jr. high, 217 high school, 15 alternative, 8 other

GRIM REALITIES

CALENDAR YEAR TOTAL DEATHS SCHOOL YEAR TOTAL DEATHS 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 17 62 35 28 26 34 31 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 54 51 20 35 25 43 26 9?

2000-01 ?

GRIM REALITIES

National School Boards Association (NSBA):



Estimated 3 million incidents of violence a year on U.S. campuses



282,000 students attacked each month



135,000 students carry guns to school each day Incidence of youth homicide has doubled in last 20 years

GRIM REALITIES

Violence Incidence:



Overall, 1000 crimes per 100,000 students



50 serious violent crimes (murder, rape, assault w/weapon, suicide) per 100,000



Elementary: 13 per 100,000



Middle: 93 per 100,000



High: 103 per 100,000



Small sized: 61 per 100,000



Medium sized: 38 per 100,000



Large sized: 90 per 100,000

GRIM REALITIES

Trends as per CDC:



Steady decrease in school-associated violent deaths since 1992-93.



Total multiple victim events has increased to average of five per year during August ‘95 to June ‘98, compared to average of one per year during August ‘92 to July ‘95

GRIM REALITIES

2000 Josephson Institute Survey



Surveyed more than 15,000 US teens



Today’s teens have a high propensity to use violence when angry, easy access to guns, drugs, and alcohol, and a disturbing number take weapons to school



More than one in three students say they don’t feel safe at school



GRIM REALITIES

43 percent of high school and 37 percent of middle school boys think it’s okay to hit or threaten somebody who makes them angry



19 percent of girls agree



75 percent of boys and 60 percent of girls said they hit somebody in the past 12 months because they were angry



GRIM REALITIES

21 percent of high school males and 15 percent of middle school males said they took a weapon to school one day in last year



60 percent of high school boys and 31 percent of middle school boys said they could get a gun if they wanted to



Students who admit being drunk at school were more likely to use violence, carry weapons and have access to guns



GRIM REALITIES

This survey found that sports participation and honors class involvement had no significant impact!



Conclusions- have to work on the character of youngsters, changing their attitudes about violence, and strengthening their ability to deal with anger and feelings of alienation.



www.josephsoninstitute.org

SCHOOL VIOLENCE CONTRIBUTING CONDITIONS

Family issues:



Abusive/violent- violence begets violence



Ineffective parenting- “Junior is out of control and we don’t know what to do”



Absent- nobody there Peer Issues:



Influence by violent peer group- influence defuses personal responsibility



Rejection is everything

CONTRIBUTING CONDITIONS

Economic factors:



Youth impacted by economic hopelessness- no belief in future



School budget cutbacks Warrior culture:



What it means to come of age and be a man in Post-Vietnam America



The warrior fantasy to combat “loser” identity

CONTRIBUTING CONDITIONS

School issues:



negative/problematic school climate



polarized groups- in versus out crowd



school official insensitivity- “looking the other way”- prejudice Community issues:



inadequate resources



polarized community Poverty

CONTRIBUTING CONDITIONS

The Copycat Phenomenon:



Contagion effect is noted for school violence



Parallels with suicide and other violence clusters



Normal people see a horrible event identify and sympathize with victims, potential perpetrators are the opposite



Stimulates and gives permission for ideas already there- one upsmanship

CONTRIBUTING CONDITIONS

Multiple media factors:



Reports of other events



Violent comics/cartoons- South Park



Violent video games- Doom, Quake



Music- violence oriented songs/groups used as accelerants



Movies- Basketball diaries, NBK, T-2



Internet

CONTRIBUTING CONDITIONS

Weapon Access:



Overall proliferation and availability of weapons in American society



Parents or family have weapons



Teenager has access to his or her own weapons



Friends have weapon access



Readily available information about weaponry through Internet/other sources

DYNAMICS OF YOUTHFUL OFFENDERS

Developmental Issues:



Adolescent impulsivity



Hypersensitivity to rejection



Adolescent idealism- judgement and intolerance



Emergence of fantasy life, including violent fantasies as compensatory tool



Deficient understanding of the finality of death- romanticizing versus realizing

SCHOOL VIOLENCE MYTHS

Myth: There is a demographic based profile of the potentially violent person.

Reality: While primarily male, perpetrators of school violence have many different demographic backgrounds Reality: Demographic profiles may cause us to ignore potential threats Reality: Behavioral clues/indicators are more important

SCHOOL VIOLENCE MYTHS

Myth: Violent students and others “snap” and strike without warning or clues Reality: Potentially dangerous individuals present multiple clues to multiple people Reality: Clues are not reported to appropriate individuals or entities Reality: Clues are verbal statements, physical, obsessions, bizarre statements

WARNING SIGNS



AND RISK FACTORS

In 75 percent of the incidents, other kids knew about the attack before it occurred, and an adult had expressed concerns about the student.



In more than half of the cases, more than one person had expressed concern.



Over half of the attackers developed the idea to harm the target at least two weeks prior to the incident.

WARNING SIGNS



AND RISK FACTORS

In well over 75 percent of the incidents the attacker planned the attack, some the same day, but more than half developed a plan at least two days prior (Vossekuil et al., 2000).

WARNING SIGNS AND RISK FACTORS



Warning Signs



Verbal Clues



Bizarre Thoughts



Physical/Behavioral Clues



Obsessions



Threat Assessment



Risk and Stability Factors for School Violence



Five Category System

EARLY WARNING TRAINING ISSUES



Staff training should address zero tolerance, warning signs, and reporting procedures



Student training should briefly educate about zero tolerance, minimal warning signs and reporting procedures



Parent training should cover zero tolerance, specific warning signs, reporting procedures, parenting tips, and where to go for extra help

THE EVOLUTION OF THREAT & RISK ASSESSMENT TECHNOLOGY

THIRD GENERATION:



Violence is the end result of a discernable process- interrupt forward motion



Dynamic



Integrated



Logical



Categorical descriptions of risk reflecting a range of lethality

THREAT ASSESSMENT



“Risk investigation utilizes available information about warning signs, risk factors, stabilizing factors, and potential precipitating events to arrive at a categorical description of risk for a particular point in time.”



“Risk investigation is only as good as the data collection to support it. Use of collateral data sources is essential.”



THREAT ASSESSMENT

False positive error- assess that the person is going to become violent and they do not.



False negative error- assess that they are not going to become violent and they do.



Erring on the side of caution leads to false positives; therefore, a interventions should strive to minimize negative repercussions as much as possible.

THREAT ASSESSMENT INTEGRATING THE CONCEPTS



Warning Signs/Clues



Risk Factors



Precipitating Events



Stabilizing Factors



Threat Assessment

THREAT ASSESSMENT

Risk assessment or investigation is seeking to answer the overall questions: “Is the individual moving on a path towards violent action?” “Is there evidence to suggest movement from thought to action?”

THREAT ASSESSMENT INTEGRATING THE CONCEPTS



Does the person have the ability (access, means, capacity, and opportunity) to become violent?



Is there evidence of intent (specificity of plan, action taken toward plan)?



Have they crossed thresholds (engaged in attack-related behaviors, broken rules) which indicate elevated risk?

THREAT ASSESSMENT



INTEGRATING THE CONCEPTS

Are others concerned by observed behaviors (subject discussed plan/threat with others, others are afraid)?



Does the at-risk individual demonstrate noncompliance with risk-reduction (lack insight, lack interest in reducing risk)? (Borum, 2000)

SCHOOL VIOLENCE MYTHS

Myth: Individuals are either dangerous or not dangerous.

Reality: Individuals may fall along a continuum of violence potential and risk for creating emotional distress in students, faculty, and others Reality: National Assessment Services five category system is one widely used system

IAS/NAS FIVE CATEGORY SYSTEM

Category I- High Violence Potential, Qualifies for Immediate Arrest or Hospitalization Category II- High Violence Potential, Does Not Qualify for Arrest or Hospitalization Category III- Insufficient Evidence for Violence Potential, Sufficient Evidence for the Repetitive/Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Upon Others Category IV- Insufficient Evidence for Violence Potential, Sufficient Evidence for the Unintentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Upon Others Category V- Insufficient Evidence for Violence Potential, Insufficient Evidence for Emotional Distress Upon Others

SCHOOL VIOLENCE MYTHS

Myth: Even if you can identify violent students and others, you can’t do anything about them.

Reality: Intervention by boundary control and team management works to reduce risk. Reality: Set and maintain clear boundaries for threatening student/individual.

THREAT ASSESSMENT TEAMS



TO PREVENT SCHOOL VIOLENCE

Also known as Incident Management Assessment Teams



Multi-disciplinary- Educator, Security/School Police, Mental Health, Legal Counsel



Convened when there is an identified problem



Process and seek appropriate information and resources to manage a potential threat and bring it to a logical conclusion

THREAT ASSESSMENT TEAMS



TO PREVENT SCHOOL VIOLENCE

Review information



Apply varied specialized expertise



Advise decision making process



Determine essential vs. less essential information



Evaluate and recommend options with safety and individual rights considered



Delegate tasks logically for follow-up



Document process

Warning Signs

are observed by or reported to school personnel

Is there an Imminent Risk?

(Category 1) (possession of firearm, detailed threats of lethal violence, suicide threats, etc.) If

Yes,

then Take IMMEDIATE ACTION to secure individual & maintain safety; contact Law Enforcement and/or 911 If

No,

then TAT leader initially screens for level of risk Arrest Hospitalization Liaison Tarasoff

High

(Category 2)

Moderate/Low

(Category 3 or 4)

Low/No

(Category 5)      Monitor for release Increase security Establish re-entry criteria Set boundaries Monitor Criteria met?

Yes

, then Return to school/work Convene TAT Review warning signs, risk factors, stability factors, potential precipitating events, seek information, revise risk level      Security Consider removal & notifications Psych. eval/consult Reentry criteria?

Monitor       Minimal security Removal versus limits Psych. referral Behavioral contract Upgrade criteria?

Monitor       Decrease security Evaluate report sources Address accused Psych. referral Upgrade criteria?

Monitor Criteria met?

Yes,

LEGAL ISSUES



Federal and State Legislation



Educational Code



Welfare and Institutions



Criminal Statutes



Case Law

ESSENTIALS OF SCHOOL



VIOLENCE THREAT MANAGEMENT

Realization



Thoughtful zero tolerance



Identification (recognition and reporting procedures)



Assessment procedures (team approach)



Threat management strategies appropriate to level of risk



Monitoring and follow-through

UNDERSTANDING AND PREVENTING WORKPLACE VIOLENCE

Transcript UNDERSTANDING AND PREVENTING WORKPLACE VIOLENCE

SCHOOL VIOLENCE THREAT MANAGEMENT: AN INTRO AND OVERVIEW

SCHOOL VIOLENCE MYTHS

COURSE OUTLINE

TYPES OF SCHOOL VIOLENCE

SCHOOL VIOLENCE MYTHS

VIOLENT BEHAVIOR

GRIM REALITIES

GRIM REALITIES

GRIM REALITIES

GRIM REALITIES

GRIM REALITIES

GRIM REALITIES

GRIM REALITIES

GRIM REALITIES

GRIM REALITIES

SCHOOL VIOLENCE CONTRIBUTING CONDITIONS

CONTRIBUTING CONDITIONS

CONTRIBUTING CONDITIONS

CONTRIBUTING CONDITIONS

CONTRIBUTING CONDITIONS

CONTRIBUTING CONDITIONS

DYNAMICS OF YOUTHFUL OFFENDERS

SCHOOL VIOLENCE MYTHS

SCHOOL VIOLENCE MYTHS

WARNING SIGNS

AND RISK FACTORS

WARNING SIGNS

AND RISK FACTORS

WARNING SIGNS AND RISK FACTORS

THE EVOLUTION OF THREAT & RISK ASSESSMENT TECHNOLOGY

THREAT ASSESSMENT

THREAT ASSESSMENT

THREAT ASSESSMENT INTEGRATING THE CONCEPTS

THREAT ASSESSMENT

THREAT ASSESSMENT INTEGRATING THE CONCEPTS

THREAT ASSESSMENT

INTEGRATING THE CONCEPTS

SCHOOL VIOLENCE MYTHS

IAS/NAS FIVE CATEGORY SYSTEM

SCHOOL VIOLENCE MYTHS

THREAT ASSESSMENT TEAMS

TO PREVENT SCHOOL VIOLENCE

THREAT ASSESSMENT TEAMS

TO PREVENT SCHOOL VIOLENCE

LEGAL ISSUES

ESSENTIALS OF SCHOOL

VIOLENCE THREAT MANAGEMENT

FINAL THOUGHTS

Directory