Indirect Threat Assessments and Direct Violence Risk Evaluations

Transcription

1 BEHAVIORAL THREAT ASSESSMENT Indirect Threat Assessments and Direct Violence Risk Evaluations Understanding the Critical Difference A PRIMER FOR EXECUTIVES

2 Indirect Threat Assessment As a discrete component of a comprehensive threat identification, assessment and management process, behavioral threat assessment can take one of two forms, depending on whether or not the assessor meets the subject of a given threat in person for the express purposes of evaluation. At Hillard Heintze, we refer to these two interventions as Indirect Threat Assessment and Direct Violence Risk Evaluation. Indirect threat assessments are typically requested when the client organization has a concern about a disgruntled or potentially dangerous employee, contractor, former employee or contractor or their partner, customer, vendor or other third party. The violence risk potential and recommendations are based on a review of records and collateral interviews (e.g., current or former managers) which act as primary sources of information that assist the threat assessment. Additional sources of information may include findings emerging from an investigation into the background of the subject. This data is then applied to the Workplace Assessment of Violence Risk (WAVR-21, 3rd Edition), a 21- item coded instrument for the structured assessment of workplace targeted violence risk. This executive primer provides a brief and general overview of each intervention as it relates to preventing and managing workplace violence. In the vast majority of cases, some case-specific data remains unknown. 2 3

3 Types of Interventions It is imperative that the client organization understand that in conducting an Indirect Threat Assessment, Hillard Heintze does not have direct access to the subject, thus limiting the data that inform the assessment team s findings on the subject s risk potential as well as its recommendations. Internal Subject is typically a current employee or contractor. Type of intervention: Indirect Threat Assessment or Direct Violence Risk Evaluation External Subject is usually a former employee or a partner, customer, vendor or other third party. Type of intervention: Indirect Threat Assessment 4 5

4 Typical Records Requested for Review The Hillard Heintze team determines a risk potential Low, Moderate, High or Imminent and develops recommendations based on the subject s current known mental state at the time of the assessment. When the subject is a current or former employee or contractor: Resume, job description and salary Employee policies and procedures, particularly with respect to workplace violence prevention, harassment and misconduct Past and current performance evaluations Past and current disciplinary actions, including any appeals by the subject Past and current remediation efforts in response to any corrective action imposed (e.g., performance improvement plans) Incident and investigation reports (e.g., criminal and civil background, social media, surveillance and inappropriate or threatening correspondence and behaviors) Coworker and supervisor complaints Medical records (may not always be available or relevant) Commendations or awards Any other records or materials that provide context for the concerning behaviors and situation When the subject is a customer, vendor or other third party include: 6 All incident and investigation reports (e.g., criminal and civil background, social media and surveillance) Inappropriate or threatening correspondence and behaviors 7

5 Direct Violence Risk Evaluation Risk Can Change It is important to note that a subject s violence risk potential is dynamic or changeable in nature. The subject may become more likely to be aggressive or violent when stress or anger has increased, perhaps due to a specific event, and less likely as they feel more in control of their life. Employees and contractors are typically referred for a direct violence risk evaluation after they have violated the organization s workplace violence prevention policy. As with the Indirect Threat Assessment, the violence risk potential and recommendations are based on a review of records and potential findings emerging from a background investigation. However, the Direct Violence Risk Evaluation also includes an in-person interview with the subject and discretionary psychological testing. This data is then used to apply the Workplace Assessment of Violence Risk (WAVR-21, 3 rd Edition) methodology. If the Hillard Heintze team is made aware of past or current mental health evaluations or treatment, assessors ask the subject during the interview to sign an authorization for release of information so the team can receive either verbal feedback or evaluation and treatment progress notes from the providers. The subject must voluntarily allow this protected mental health information to be released. In most cases it has been our experience the subject grants this permission. 8 9

6 When conducting a Direct Violence Risk Evaluation, the Hillard Heintze team makes a determination as to risk potential Low, Moderate, High or Imminent and provides recommendations based on the subject s current known mental state at the time of the evaluation. Benefits of the Direct Violence Risk Evaluation Captures Direct Subject Input: Allows the subject to tell their version of the alleged behaviors to an independent, objective, third-party expert. In most cases the referring organization can answer the who, what, when, where and how but not always the why. The latter is best addressed by the subject in an open discussion about the circumstances and alleged behaviors. Most subjects welcome this opportunity to communicate their side of the story. Supports a Broader Range of Inquiry The assessor is able to ask any questions during the course of the evaluation, as well as any specific questions that the client organization wants answered

7 Generates Predictive Insights: The assessor is able to ask the subject a series of hypothetical questions. The subject s answers can suggest or clarify insights into the subject s potential reaction to various scenarios, such as: (1) returning to the same work group and environment; (2) transfer to another work group, worksite or department; and (3) termination. With respect to the latter, the goal is to gain insight into the subject s perceived expectations regarding any potential exit or termination, including any severance package and to get a sense of any short and long-term plans. This information is critical when planning for post-evaluation next steps regardless of whether the employee is retained or terminated. May Reduce Risk by Serving as an Intervention: In most cases, the evaluation itself is a significant intervention. Subjects often comment that they underestimated or were otherwise unaware of the potential short- and long-term consequences of their violation of the company s workplace violence policies

8 Direct Violence Risk Evaluation Protocol 1. Referral: Client organization makes a formal referral to Hillard Heintze. 2. Protocols for Report Release: Client identifies who within its organization will be allowed to receive a copy of the written report. The subject must sign a Consent for Evaluation and Release of Information. Hillard Heintze releases the report to designated client representatives and sends a copy to the subject via USPS-certified mail. In most cases, the subject is entitled to a copy of the report, which also assists in building rapport and ascribes to the process a much higher level of independence, objectivity, transparency and credibility. 3. Type of Intervention: When mandating the evaluation, the client organization s representatives ask the subject if they are willing to participate in the evaluation. If the subject declines, Hillard Heintze cannot complete a Direct Violence Risk Evaluation. In those cases, the assessment team conducts an Indirect Threat Assessment Location and State Regulations: Identify where the evaluation will occur with respect to location and state. Hillard Heintze assessors are able to travel, but first must confirm any state-specific regulations governing out-of-state licensed psychologists. Most states allow short-term practice while others must grant formal permission (i.e., pay a fee, pass a jurisprudence examination and complete application forms). In some instances, it is easier to see the subject in a neighboring, less restrictive state, or have the subject fly into Chicago-O Hare where Hillard Heintze has office space available on the airport grounds. 5. Receipt of Final Report: The subject receives only the Direct Violence Risk Evaluation report. The client organization receives a more comprehensive report which typically includes additional information emerging from the other facets of the broader threat identification, assessment and management process, such as from the background investigation or insights gained from social media monitoring in addition to the Direct Violence Risk Evaluation report. In cases where the client organization would like Hillard Heintze to discuss a Return to Work Plan or Termination/ Separation from the subject, the firm can provide additional recommendations to help mitigate risk and manage the subject. 15

9 For more information, contact: Matthew Doherty, Senior Vice President Threat Assessment and Management Mobile Mark Brenzinger, Psy.D., Vice President Licensed Forensic and Clinical Psychologist Threat Assessment and Management Work Mobile For more thought leadership and collateral on workplace violence prevention, threat assessment and active shooter planning, visit