One of the most vexing problems companies face is evaluating the performance and effectiveness of their workplace violence prevention programs. An extremely important tool in the evaluation process is benchmarking--comparing one program against others known for their high quality. One way to use benchmarking is to identify the variety of programs used by leading-edge companies, and to check a company's program against the comprehensive listing. The listing provides a point of reference that can be used as a checkpoint for assessing company programs to deal with violent or threatening behavior in the workplace.

The School of Criminal Justice at Michigan State University has recently completed a benchmark study of ten companies with leading edge workplace violence prevention programs. Based on a literature review of recent research and on the advice of experts in the field, a comprehensive model was developed of the key elements in workplace violence prevention/response programs.

Companies can assess their own workplace violence programs by determining whether they have a comprehensive approach to the problem, and where gaps exist, by increasing activities.

WORKPLACE VIOLENCE INCIDENTS
All of the companies surveyed reported that their security and/or personnel/human resources departments were responsible for the prevention of and response to workplace violence.

Six of the ten companies reported at some time having experienced a workplace fatality as a result of violence. Six deaths were reported as having occurred during the previous two years. Other serious incidents taking place during the previous year included: physical assault, robbery, weapons possession, and vandalism.

Respondents rated the impact of these incidents on their companies using a scale of 1 to 5 (5 = extremely disruptive and 1 = not disruptive at all). The greatest impact reported was on productivity and the least on employee turnover (see Figure 1).

LEADING EDGE WORKPLACE VIOLENCE PROGRAMS
Of the forty-two components or elements identified as crucial to successful workplace violence prevention/response programs, the ten companies surveyed incorporated as few as 27 and as many as 40 (see Figure 2).

Programs and Procedures
Applicant Background Screening. All of the companies routinely performed background checks focusing particularly on employment history. One did not perform criminal history checks while three did not use psychological testing. Those that did use psychological testing made it dependent on type of position and work site.

COMPANY RANKINGS: Workplace Violence Prevention/Response Program Components
Workplace Violence Prevention Plan. Six companies had written violence prevention plans in place, and three were in the process of combining various components of a plan already in place into a structured, written plan.

Senior Management Participation. In five companies, senior management was actively involved in prevention efforts. For example, executives helped formulate and approve policies, attended strategy meetings, presented information to employees, and helped in implementation efforts. In the other five companies, senior management was aware of such efforts, but not actively involved.

Senior Management Briefings. All of the companies briefed senior management on threats and violence at company sites. Briefings were either provided routinely or when serious incidents occurred.

Employee Assistance Program. All of the companies had employee assistance programs available at all times, generally on site. Employee assistance was offered by full-time or contracted employees.

Crisis Management/Trauma Team. Nine companies had some form of crisis management or trauma team which generally drew from the following departments: human resources, security, employee assistance, legal, medical, labor relations, labor law, communications, employee support/benefits, operations, and psychological services. Some also used outside consultants and one included union representatives and senior management on the team.

Threat Assessment Team. Nine companies had some form of organized threat assessment. Four assigned this responsibility to the crisis management group; the other five assigned this work to another group which sometimes included outside consultants.

Critical Incident Review. Nine of the companies had a review or debriefing process for critical incidents; the remaining company planned to implement such a process. The main purpose was to analyze, learn from, and improve procedures. Secondary purposes were to provide appropriate care for victimized employees and to ensure that proper procedures were followed.

Outplacement Services for Terminated Employees. Eight companies provided outplacement services to terminated employees.

Relations with Law Enforcement Agencies. All ten companies maintained a positive relationship with local law enforcement agencies and were aware of their capabilities at company facilities/sites and employee field work locations.

Termination Guidelines. Eight companies had guidelines for terminating employees who were potentially violent. The other two companies had no official guidelines, but took additional precautions when employees were terminated for gross misconduct.

Grievance Process for Employees. Eight companies had some form of grievance process with appeal and review procedures for both union and nonunion employees.

Union Involvement. Union representatives were actively involved in the workplace violence prevention/response efforts of five companies.

Dissemination of Workplace Violence Information. Eight companies provided information to employees on workplace violence prevention. Communication formats included tip sheets in pay envelopes, company newsletters, bulletins, electronic mail, and briefing sessions with field employees.

Workplace Violence Experts. All of the companies had established relationships with workplace violence experts.

Assessment of Organizational Climate. Nine companies regularly assessed their organizational climate.

Assessment of Site/Facility Security. All of the companies regularly assessed site/facility security through reviews of security policies and procedures, personnel and equipment needs, prevention efforts, and so forth.

Assessment of Readiness. Five companies had assessed their ability to handle workplace violence, and at least one did so on a regular basis through simulations.

Assessment of Employee/Facility Risk Level. Seven companies had assessed employee/facility risk levels; several assessed these risks on an on-going basis.

Protection for Threatened Employees. Nine companies would provide personal protection to employees threatened as a result of their employment. Such situations were individually evaluated and levels of protection varied accordingly.

Training
Detecting "Red Flags." Seven companies provided mandatory training to detect behaviors which indicate the potential for violence. Three companies provided such training to their senior management, five provided it to all management, and one provided it to employees with nuclear access.

Domestic Violence Response. Five companies provided training or information on domestic violence; four made such training mandatory while two provided it to anyone who requested it.

Conflict Resolution. Seven companies provided conflict resolution training for employees and four of these made it mandatory.

Cultural Diversity. Six companies provided cultural diversity training with a focus on reducing violence; five made it mandatory, and four indicated that senior executives received the training. One additional company planned to add such training in the future.

Personal Safety. Eight companies furnished personal safety training; two made it mandatory, while three provided it to any employee who requested it.

Dealing with Difficult Customers. Eight companies provided employees with training in dealing with difficult customers. Of those eight, seven made it mandatory.

Effective Communication. Seven companies gave employees effective communication training; four made it mandatory, while two provided it to hourly employees.

Stress Management. Stress management training was available in eight companies. One made it mandatory, while three reported it was available to any employee who requested it.

Diffusing Violent Situations. Eight companies had training in handling violent situations at the work site or in the field and the remaining two planned to provide it in the future. Five companies made it mandatory, and three reported management received the training.

Liability Issues. Two companies trained employees in liability issues as they relate to workplace violence; one made it mandatory, the other provided training to employees who requested it. Two more companies plan to add such training in the future.

Policies
Zero Tolerance of Threats/Violence. Six companies had a "zero tolerance" policy regarding threats of violence or violent behavior. Some companies defined the policy as termination for such behavior while others defined it as taking immediate action to address such behavior. Four companies did not have a "zero tolerance" policy, but two of these did have policies prohibiting threats at the workplace.

Code of Conduct. Nine companies had either a code of conduct or standard of corporate behavior.

Code of Sanctions. Seven companies had a code of sanctions for noncompliance with company policy.

Safeguarding Access to Facilities by Nonemployees. All of the companies had guidelines to control nonemployee access to facilities.

Weapons Prohibitions. All of the companies had policies prohibiting weapons.

Drug/Alcohol Prohibitions. All of the companies had policies prohibiting drugs and alcohol.

Sexual Harassment Prohibtions. All of the companies had policies prohibiting sexual harassment.

Reporting/Recording
Notification Process. Eight companies trained employees to notify the appropriate department or individual when they observed situations with a potential for violence. One company planned to institute a notification process in the near future.

Incident Reporting. All of the companies had systematized reporting procedures when threats or violent activities occurred at work sites or facilities. Nine companies had centralized reporting; records of such incidents were usually maintained by the security or loss prevention department. The company with decentralized recordkeeping maintained reports and files at the facility or site where the incident occurred.

Computerized Database. Eight companies used computerized databases to report incidents. Six had crime analysis capabilities. Five companies reported their current systems were either being upgraded or needed to be upgraded.

24-Hour Reporting Hotline. All of the companies had 24-hour hotlines for employees to report emergencies. Eight were staffed 24 hours a day. Two were staffed during business hours and used an answering machine at other times; an alternate emergency phone number was also provided during nonbusiness hours for reporting emergencies. All companies accepted anonymous calls reporting internal criminal activities.

Communication Equipment. All of the companies had emergency communication equipment for personnel who responded to emergencies; these included pagers, cellular telephones, and radios.

For more information, contact: The School of Criminal Justice, Michigan State University, 560 Baker Hall,
East Lansing, Michigan 48824.

The research for the Workplace Violence Programs in Leading Edge Companies was supported by Florida Power and Light Company