Managing Threatening & Disruptive Behaviors: Part 1 Understanding & Assessing the Threat Gene Deisinger, Ph.D. Commander, Special Operations Unit Iowa.

Managing Threatening & Disruptive Behaviors: Part 1

Understanding & Assessing the Threat

Gene Deisinger, Ph.D.Commander, Special Operations Unit

Iowa State University Police

Presented for the:Midwest Association of

Student Financial Aid AdministratorsOctober 17, 2006

© Gene Deisinger, Ph.D. October, 2006 Slide: 2

Gene Deisinger, Ph.D.

Ph.D., Counseling Psychology; Licensed Psychologist; Certified Health Service Provider in Psychology; Certified Peace Officer; Founding member, Iowa State University

Critical Incident Response Team Hostage / Crisis Negotiator; Crisis Intervention Team Leader;


Workplace Homicide

551

927

632609

643677

651

714

860

103610801074

1044

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004


Workplace Assaults

100000

300000

500000

700000

900000

1100000

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Aggravated Simple


Violence in the Workplace

Nationally Each Year (10 year Average): 807 employees killed; 1.75 million employees assaulted;

1.3 million simple assaults.325,000 aggravated assaults.36,500 sexual assaults.

5-7 million employees threatened; 12-15 million employees harassed.

Sources: Study by Northwestern National Life Insurance Company and

The Bureau of Justice Statistics


Violence Defined

An intentional act of aggression directed against another person that results in, or is likely to result in, physical injury.

- J. Reid Meloy (2000)

Violence Risk and Threat Assessment


On-Campus Violence

Type of Violence 2002 2003 2004Murder 23 9 15Forcible Sex 2350 2609 2649Robbery 2193 2123 2060Aggravated Assault 3070 3026 3009Arson 1103 1043 1059Injurious Hate Crimes 80 54 30Illegal Weapon Arrests 1243 1199 1354

Source: US Dept. of Education Office of Post-Secondary Education


Campus Violence

Violent Acts Experienced PercentArgument / Fight 32Hurt / Injured 16Threats of Violence 11Ethnic Harassment 6Physical Violence 5Forced Sexual Touching 5Unwanted Sexual Intercourse 4Theft Involving Force / Threat 2

Source: 2000 Core Survey of 55,026 undergraduate students


Campus Violence

Experience While Drinking PercentArgument / Fight 31Hurt / Injured 14Threats of Violence 34Ethnic Harassment 15Physical Violence 38Forced Sexual Touching 40Unwanted Sexual Intercourse 36Theft Involving Force / Threat 24

Source: 2004 Core Institute Survey of undergraduate students


Mental Health on Campus

Directors Perceiving Increase in: PercentRelationship Violence 41Severe Psychological Problems 78Sexual Assault on Campus 31Self-Injury 39Alcohol Problems 48Other Drug Problems 39

Source: 2000 University Counseling Center Director’s Survey (N=248)


Mental Health on Campus

Centers Dealing With: PercentObsessive Pursuit Cases 65Hospitalization of Student 91Student Suicide 29Client Suicide 10Warned 3rd Party @ Suicidal Student 73Warned 3rd Party @ Danger to Others 24

Source: 2000 University Counseling Center Director’s Survey (N=248)



Violence can occur among:

Supervisors; Employees/staff; Customers; Vendors; or Other community members.


Workplace Violence - Types

Type I: Criminal Intent;

Type II: Customer / Client;

Type III: Worker-on-Worker;

Type IV: Personal Relationship.

Source: University of Iowa, Injury Prevention Research Center (2001)



Type I – Criminal IntentSubject has no legitimate relationship to

the institution or its employees;Primary motive is theft;Deadly weapon often involved;Greatest risk involves workers who:

–Exchange cash;–Work late night/early morning hours, or;–Work alone.



Type II – Customer / Client The perpetrator has a legitimate

relationship with the organization; Perpetrator becomes violent while being

served; This category includes customers,

clients, patients, students, vendors, etc.



Type III – Worker-on-Worker The perpetrator is a current or past

employee; The perpetrator threatens or attacks

fellow past or present employees; May be seeking revenge for what is

perceived as unfair treatment; Includes employees, supervisors, and

managers.



Type IV – Personal Relationship Perpetrator usually has no legitimate

relationship with institution; Perpetrator has (or has had) a personal

relationship with the intended victim; May involve a current or former spouse,

lover, relative, friend, or acquaintance; Often motivated by perceived difficulties

in the relationship.



13,000 acts of violence against women in the workplace are committed annually by current or former male partners.

Homicide is the leading cause of death for women in the workplace.

Source: Northwestern National Life Insurance Company



30% of workplace assaults are committed by co-workers.

However, fewer than 7% of workplace homicides are committed by co-workers.

Sources: Northwestern National Life Insurance Company;University of Iowa Injury Prevention Research Center


Who Commits Workplace Violence?

80% committed by males; 40% committed by complete strangers; 35% committed by casual acquaintances; 19% by individuals well known to victim; 1% by relatives of the victim.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics


Results of Violence at Work

Psychological impairment; Property damage and theft; Reduced productivity; Diversion of management resources; Increased security costs; Increased personnel costs; Increased worker’s compensation costs; Employer liability.


Costs of Workplace Violence

Approximately 500,000 employees miss 1.75 million days of work annually;3.5 days lost per worker/per incident;

$55 million in lost wages; $180 million in lost time and productivity; $13 billion in medical costs/year.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics


Legal Issues for Supervisors

Respondeat Superior – holds employers liable for the actions of their employees.

If the employer knows or should know of information indicating that a person

is at risk for committing violence,the employer is responsible

for any violent acts that person commits.



Negligent Hiring & Retention - an employer has a duty to maintain the health, safety,

and welfare of the workplace.

If employer knows, or should have known, of harmful characteristics

and hires (or retains)the person in employment anyway,

the employer is responsible for any harm the person causes.



Duty to Warn / Protect - if an employer has information that leads him or her to

believe violence may occur, the employer must take action to warn or

protect the potential victim.


Key Points about Violence

Violence (dangerousness) is a DYNAMIC process not a static

event or a state of being.


Individual Profile

Male (80+%); White (75%) / Majority race (85%+); Age: Social violence: 15-24

School violence: 15-17Workplace violence: 30-45Stalking violence: 35-40

Military / Weapons experience; Power & control oriented; Obsessed / Identifies with violence.



Workplace violence offender profiles that are based on

demographic or static variablesare remarkably accurate,

and utterly worthless.


Mode of Violence: Affective

Intense emotion and expressiveness; Violence is reactive and immediate; Violence against perceived threats; Goal is threat reduction (homeostasis); Rapid displacement of target; Reactions are time limited; Primarily emotional and defensive; Heightened and diffuse awareness.


Mode of Violence: Predatory

Minimal emotion or expression; Violence is planned and purposeful; Violence is targeted; Goal are variable; Minimal displacement of target; Not time limited; Often preceded by private ritual; Primarily cognitive / attack; Heightened and focused awareness;



Violence is the product of an interaction among three factors:

The individual who takes violent action; A setting that facilitates or permits

violence, or does not discourage it; and, Triggering conditions that lead the

subject to see violence as an option.


Individual Warning Signs

Carrying or brandishing a weapon; Recently acquiring weapons; Fascination with weapons; Attempts to harm self / cries for help; Following or approaching targets; Bizarre or aggressive behavior; Desperation or reactivity;



Unexplained increase in absenteeism Decreased attention to personal hygiene; Resistance to change or reasonable limits. Over reaction to changes in policies or

procedures; Repeated violations of policies – pushes

limits; Personalizes decisions.



Statements indicating approval of the use of violence to resolve a problem;

Statements indicating identification with perpetrators of workplace violence;

Unusual interest in targets; Unusual interests in security; Threats of violence; Inappropriate communication with or about

targets.



Substance use (alcohol, stimulants); Extreme changes in behavior; Numerous conflicts with others; Poor problem-solving; Do not learn effectively from past behavior; Depressed mood / withdrawal; Paranoia / distrust;


Inappropriate Communications

Extreme admiration or affection; A special, shared history or destiny; Admonishments to change lifestyle; Religious/historical themes; Content that is disjointed, sinister or bizarre; The recipient being someone else; Mental illness: psychiatric care, medication;


Inappropriate Communications

Threats of violence; Death, suicide, weapons, destruction, etc; Persons who have been attacked; Persons who have carried out attacks; Unpaid debts or entitlements; Knowledge of Security:

Guards, access, keys, work practices; Stalking:

Surveillance, knowledge of activities;


Threats

DirectI’m gonna go home, get my shotgunand come back here and blow your f---in’ head off.

Indirect / VeiledThat guy over in Iowa City had the right idea about how to handle people that got in his way.


Threats

SpecificI am going to kill you.

ConditionalIf you don’t get me the aid I need, I am going to kill you;


Threats

First-PersonI am going to make you regret that decision.

Third-PartyMy husband told me to tell you that you better watch out, cause he is going to take care of you for treating me like this.


Evaluating Threats

Threats may increase, decrease or have no relationship to violence

Some subjects who make threats ultimately act on them;

Most subjects never act on threats. Note: 68% - 90% false positive rate;

Many subjects who commit acts of violence never make threats.


Evaluating Threats

Specificity:Time;Target;Place;Means;Motive;

Consistency; Plausibility; Emotionality; Relationship between persons.


Evaluating Threats

At eight o’clock tomorrow morning, I am going to shoot that bastard in financial aid.

That is when he’s in his office by himself. I have thought about this a lot

and he needs to pay. I am sick and tired of the way he lords over

decent people he is supposed to help. A few 9mm rounds in the faceought to teach him the lesson.


Dealing with Threats

Take threats seriously, but be careful not to over-react.

Be sure to investigate and follow-up on credible threats.

Consider threats in the appropriate context. Document your findings and actions. Notify Police / Security of concerns.


Inhibitors to Violence

Where inhibitors outnumber risk-factors, violence is unlikely.

Interpersonal skills; Connection to others; Financial support systems; Mental health resources (?); Reputation; Coping skills; Perceived alternatives; Healthy family dynamics/involvement.


High-Risk Work Settings

Chronic unresolved conflict; High volume of complaints; High rate of injuries; High perceived levels of stress; Authoritarian attitudes; Toleration of aggressive interactions; Unpleasant physical environment Persistent disrespect / devaluing.


High-Risk Campus Settings

Detached / isolated staff or students; Inequitable discipline; Inflexibility; Pecking order/cliques supported; Code of silence; Unsupervised computer / lab access; Copycat effect; Authoritarian & controlling attitudes;


Situational Risk Factors

Exchange of money with the public; Work alone or in small numbers; Work late night or early morning; Work in high crime areas; Guard valuable property or possessions; Work in accessible community settings;

(e.g. taxi drivers, retail clerks, police).


Situational Risk Factors

Work where alcohol or drugs are dispensed; High exposure to unstable or volatile

persons - (e.g. health care, social services, criminal justice settings);

Position involves deciding on benefits, or controlling a person’s future, well-being or freedom.

(Source: NIOSH)


Triggering Events

Loss (real, perceived, or anticipated)Job or income;Loss of status;Significant other;

Perceived rejection; Perceived injustice; Ostracized by others; Health problems; Violation of a court order.


Key Points About Violence

Violence is a process, as well as an act.

Careful analysis of violent incidents shows that violent acts are usually the culmination of long-developing, identifiable, trails of problems, conflicts, disputes, and failures.



Most (over 75%) consider, plan, and prepare before engaging in violent behavior;

Most (over 75%) discuss their plans with others before the attack.

Identification of the perpetrators “attack-related” behaviors is critical.

Perpetrators of violence engagein a process of escalation.


The Process of Violence

Attack-Related Behaviors:

Ideation

Planning

Preparation

Implementation



Dangerousness is not a permanent state of being nor solely an attribute of a person.

Dangerousness is situational & based on:

Justification;

Alternatives;

Consequences; and

Ability. Source: Gavin de Becker


TAM Process: Assessment

Systematic approach to: Identify subject(s); Identify target(s); Determine risk of violence; Identify potential management strategies.


Why a Systematic Approach?

Provides a legally defendable position: Ensures fairness; Ensures consistency;

Ensures thoroughness.


TAM Process: Management

Implement plan to diminish risk; Decrease access to target; Maintain channel of communication; De-escalate subject; or, Contain or control subject.



Victims are much more interested in THREAT MANAGEMENT than in

Threat Assessment.



Involves a spectrum of behavior; Is a dynamic and situational process; Results from the interaction of factors; Behavior is influenced by environment; Is best understand within a context; People exhibit multiple warning signs; Trust your intuition until proven wrong!


For More Information:

Gene Deisinger, Ph.D.Commander, Special Operations Unit

Iowa State University PoliceRoom 168, Armory Building

Ames, IA 50011

Phone: 515-294 - 4529

Email: [email protected]

Managing Threatening & Disruptive Behaviors: Part 1 Understanding & Assessing the Threat Gene Deisinger, Ph.D. Commander, Special Operations Unit Iowa.

Documents

threat gene deisinger

threat assessment slide

workplace homicide slide

secondary education

physical violence

threats of violence

violence risk

campus violence experience