Factsheets: Workplace Violence: Employee Information

Percent of employees in the past 12 months:

• Threatened with physical harm, 22%
• Harassed, 19%
• Physically attacked, 14%
• Often worried about being a victim, 10%

Percent of attacks from:

• Customer or client, 44%
• Stranger, 24%
• Co-worker, 20%
• Boss, 7%
• Former employee, 3%
• Someone else, 3%

Northwestern National Life Insurance Company Survey, 1993.

According to the latest Bureau of Justice Statistics’ annual crime survey, nearly 1 million individuals become victims of violent crime in U.S. workplaces each year. An estimated 8% of rapes, 7% of robberies, and 16% of all assaults occurred while victims were working or on duty. Overall, one out of every six violent crimes experienced by U.S. residents age 12 or older happens at work. Over 30% of victims who were working during a violent victimization faced armed offenders (Bachman, 1994). Recent studies by Northwestern National Life Insurance and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health have identified that the chances are one in four that a worker may be attacked, threatened or harassed on the job in the next year (Northwestern National Life Employee Benefits Division, 1993).

Six out of ten incidents of workplace violence occur in private companies (Bachman, 1994). These incidents cost companies $4.2 billion in lost work and legal expenses in 1992, according to the National Safe Workplace Institute. The Institute calculates that the average cost to employers of a single episode of workplace violence can amount to $250,000 in lost work time and legal expenses (Infausta, 1994).

For employees, crime victimizations occurring in the workplace cost about half a million workers 1,751,100 days of work each year, an average of 3.5 days per crime. This missed work resulted in over $55 million in lost wages annually, not including days covered by sick and annual leave (Bachman, 1994).

As the number of total work-related fatalities including accidents has declined over the past decade, intentional killings in the workplace have gained prominence. The Bureau of Labor Statistics census counted 1,063 work-related homicides in 1993 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1994). Over 80% of these homicide victims died as a result of gunshot wounds. Many of those murdered at work (24%) were either self-employed or working in the family business (Windau & Toscano, 1994). James Fox, a Northeastern University criminologist who tracks workplace violence throughout the country, says the number of workers killing their bosses has doubled in the past ten years (Allen, 1992).

Homicide was the leading manner of fatal injury for female workers, accounting for 40% of the fatal occupational injuries to women. Blacks, Asians and Pacific Islanders, and Hispanics incurred a disproportionate share of workplace homicides, compared with their share of total workplace fatalities and their employment share. Immigrants to the U.S. also had a high risk of homicide at work. This group comprised 25% of the workplace homicide victims, but only about 9% of the employed (Windau & Toscano, 1994).

While homicides at work occurred in a wide variety of occupations, a few stood out. Nearly half of the homicides occurring at work were in retail trade, primarily in food stores — including convenience stores, restaurants, drinking establishments, and gasoline service stations. One-sixth of the homicides occurred in service-related industries, including guard and armored car services, hotels and motels, and health and educational services. Taxicab companies and police protection were other industries affected by homicides (Windau & Toscano, 1994).

While workplace homicides due to disputes between co-workers, clients, or spouses usually make national news, the majority of homicides that occur at work are committed during a robbery or robbery attempt. Robberies frequently occur while workers were locking up at night or making money drops or pickups. Workplace homicides typically occur at night, between 7 p.m. and 2 a.m. A small number of workers were mugged and murdered while at work, on travel, or while leaving their work premises (Windau & Toscano, 1994).

Indeed, workplace violence has now become a virtual reality for any business and any employee — giving us a vulnerability that we had previously not felt. It has become a necessity that the reality and risks of this growing violence be examined, and a hard look given to what can be done by employers, management and employees in the area of prevention, as well as assistance and support to the ever-increasing number of workplace violence victims.

What’s making the job a more dangerous place? Experts say many factors, including economic, social and psychological, boost office violence. Though violence by disgruntled ex-workers tends to grab headlines, it’s not the most prevalent kind according to the Northwestern Life Study. Most attackers and harassers are people that victims deal with on a daily basis. Customers, clients and patients account for the largest segment of attackers (44%), while co-workers and bosses account for 86% of all harassment at work, one-third of threats and one-fourth of workplace attacks. Sometimes, the violence is caused by a stranger, as in the case of robberies. Interpersonal conflict is considered the main reason for harassment; irrational behavior is likely a cause of attacks (North-western National Life, 1993).

Although men who are victimized while working are more likely to be attacked by a stranger, women are more likely to be attacked by someone known to them. Five percent (5%) of the women victimized at work are attacked by a husband, ex-husband, boyfriend, or ex-boyfriend (Bachman, 1994). One-sixth of workplace homicides of women are committed by a spouse, ex-spouse, boyfriend or ex-boyfriend (Windau & Toscano, 1994). For every murder, there are numerous rapes and assaults that often leave victims battered and disabled (Kinney & Johnson, 1993). According to the U.S. Department of Justice, boyfriends and husbands, current and former, commit more than 13,000 acts of violence against women in the workplace every year (Anfuso, 1994).

Domestic violence is a problem that does not disappear when women leave home and enter the workplace. Perpetrators come to the workplace searching for the intended victim because they are often barred, through legal injunctions or restraining orders, from going to the victim’s home. Victims’ addresses and telephone numbers easily can be changed — but not necessarily their employment. Victims often are sought out at their places of employment and attacked or killed.

A recent survey of security directors at corporations nationwide revealed that more than 90% of those surveyed were aware of more than three incidents in which men stalked women employees, and 94% said that domestic violence is a “high security problem” at their companies. “The insidious epidemic of domestic violence is now in the workplace,” says Joseph Kinney, Executive Director of the National Safe Workplace Institute, which conducted the survey of security directors. “We are seeing that violence is often lethal and that the workplace can be the scene of the killing” (Family Violence Prevention Fund, 1994, p.4).

The traditionally dangerous types of work, such as police work, bar staff, social workers, firefighters, bank tellers and others, are not the only work groups at risk. Incidents of workplace violence are growing with frightening regularity, and these incidents are dispelling the common belief: “It can’t happen here.” Unfortunately, it can and does happen anywhere, anytime — in large industries, in small businesses, in major cities, in small towns, in hospitals, even on college campuses and in our neighborhood schools.

Violence in America’s schools has increased dramatically over the past decade and continues to escalate. In a 1987 survey, Public School Teachers’ Perspectives on School Discipline, it was revealed that 20% of the teachers polled indicated that they had been threatened with violence by students. Nearly 5,200 of the nation’s one million secondary school teachers are physically attacked at school each month, according to a National Institute of Education study. About 1,000 are hurt seriously enough to require medical attention. Theft is reported by 130,000 teachers in a month’s time. Having something taken from them by force, weapons or threats, is reported by 6,000 teachers. The Center to Prevent Handgun Violence reported that 65 students were killed, 186 wounded, six school employees died, and 15 were injured during the four academic years of 1986 through 1990 (Wheeler & Baron, 1993).

In a 1989 study of violence in hospitals, surveying 300 hospitals across the country, it was found that there was a sharp upswing in assaults in hospitals and that half of them took place in emergency rooms. In a 1991 study of 1,200 emergency room nurses, two out of three reported that during their careers, they had been assaulted (Wheeler & Baron, 1993). It is the nursing staff of hospitals that spend the greatest amount of time involved in direct patient care, and they experience violence on a routine basis. A variety of studies demonstrate that up to 50% of practicing clinical workers, including social workers, psychologists, and psychiatrists, have been assaulted at some time in their professional career. These assaults occur in a wide range of clinical settings and the incidence appears to be increasing (Atkinson, 1991).

Unfortunately, violence can happen at even the most tranquil nonprofit. Nonprofit employees and volunteers have been assaulted while working in churches, hospitals, museums, homeless shelters, on the playing fields of various sports, and in many other situations (Nonprofit Risk Management Center, 1994).

The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 was enacted “to assure so far as possible every working man and woman in the nation safe and healthful working conditions” (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 1993). Through simple measures, employers can minimize violence and harassment in their workplaces. By doing so, they will avoid harm to their employees and the great cost of these problems to their businesses. Workplace violence can sometimes be anticipated and possibly deterred. Planning ahead can both prevent human suffering and save a lot of money. With proper preparation and training of employees, and implementation of strict protocol, workplaces can become safer places.

Workers who have been interviewed following their workplace victimizations have strongly advised that all workers, supervisors and management need to acknowledge the problem of workplace violence, advocate for safe work environments, and train workers in precautionary measures and what to expect if they do become victims (Atkinson, 1991).

Victim Impact and Emotional Consequences

Whenever a violent incident occurs in the workplace, there exists great potential for physical, psychological and financial impact. In the aftermath of the violence, the survivors, including those who were injured, those who were targeted but missed, witnesses, co-workers, family members, friends and other people in the organization, can be emotionally devastated. For the survivors and their co-workers, the work-place is no longer a safe place for it has now become a threatening environment.

When workplace violence occurs, there is always a concern about the possibility of a reoccurrence. The more meaningless and arbitrary the incident, the more vulnerable and unsafe the survivors seem to feel. The moments that immediately follow a trauma-tic incident of workplace violence, are characterized by shock, a sense of disbelief and physical/psychological numbing. Many survivors of traumatic events report that they are very tired, and have difficulty concentrating and remembering important information (Barnett-McQueen & Bergmann, 1993). This can affect a person’s entire life, including relationships with family, as well as the ability to work and carry out everyday activities.

There are a number of things that can affect the degree of psychological trauma experienced as a result of violence in the workplace. Some of these factors include the victim’s age, family support, experience in similar circumstances, whether they have survived other stressful situations and the number of these situations in their lives, as well as their perception of the incident. The everyday coping skills a worker has developed to deal with life’s stressors will probably be inadequate to deal with the possibly life-disrupting changes and emotional reactions they experience after workplace violence. Most survivors will not be able to just put it behind them and “get on with their lives.” The victimization and its consequences are things they must deal with, but there are things they can do, things others can do, and programs in place that can help. Victims of workplace violence are not alone.

Consequences

There are three general types of posttraumatic consequences that survivors experience in the hours and days following work-related traumatic incidents (Barnett-McQueen & Bergmann, 1990):

1. Re-experiencing consequences include feeling as if the incident is happening again, constant and intrusive thoughts about the event, fear or anxiety and concern about another or similar incident happening, and nightmares.
2. Withdrawal consequences include attempts not to think about or to feel emotions connected to the incident. These attempts can include overworking or not coming back to work, depression, avoidance of reminders of the incident, withdrawal from family and friends, and possibly, self-medicating with alcohol or drugs.
3. Other consequences include such things as anger, irritability, sleep problems, difficulty concentrating and an exaggerated startle response.

Long-term problems can develop if posttraumatic consequences are not managed. With immediate and effective responses to work-related trauma, most of these long-term problems can be prevented, and the workers and organization can resume normal activities. The overall goals for victims of workplace violence in dealing with their emotional reactions to the traumatic event are the decrease of distressing symptoms, the enhancement of emotional expression and the assimilation of the traumatic experience (Baron, 1993). The process of resolution can be facilitated by family and friends who acknowledge the trauma, allow the individual to talk about it, and accept the uneven road to resolution.

Detailed discussion of the incident with others is an important element of posttraumatic recovery. Debriefings are group meetings designed to reduce the probability that organizational personnel exposed to a traumatic incident will experience long-term consequences by providing the opportunity to discuss experiences and feelings during and after the incident. For maximum effectiveness, the debriefing should occur two to five days after the incident (Barnett-Queen & Bergmann, 1990). A small percentage of personnel exposed to workplace violence require more assistance than is provided by debriefings and peer or family support. Such posttrauma counseling is short-term, generally 3-5 sessions, and specifically focuses on the traumatic incident.

Crime victim counselors can be found in many communities. Make sure any counselor you access is trained and experienced in working with crime victims. Contact your Employee Assistance Program, local victim assistance programs or mental health associations for referrals. For the families of homicide victims, grief assistance programs offer support and counseling. Such programs may be privately- or publicly-funded, and operate out of mental health clinics, prosecutors’ offices, or medical examiners’ offices. There are also homicide survivor support groups that can be accessed in many communities. Community services and resources are available for victims, as well as advocacy services, which are especially vital to domestic violence and stalking victims.

The reaction, support and assistance offered by management and those around them are very important to survivors of workplace violence. Secondary victimization occurs when employers, managers, employees or those engaged by an organization respond in one of the following ways:

• Disbelief and denial: The incident’s description or details provided by the victim(s) are not believed;
• Discounting: The magnitude of the incident and its results are poorly understood or minimized;
• Blaming the victim: Responsibility for the incident is attributed to the victim(s);
• Stigmatization: A judgement concerning the psychological consequences for a victim of a traumatic event, e.g., ridicule for experiencing symptoms or a belief that symptoms result from predisposing factors, malingering, for attention or sympathy, etc.; and
• Denial of assistance: Necessary services are denied because they are perceived as unwarranted, undeserved or unnecessary (Barnett-Queen & Bergmann, 1994).

Employer Responsibilities and Legal Duties

Policies and procedures are required to effectively handle the problem of workplace violence. Current estimates are that over half of all victimizations sustained at work are not reported to police (Bachman, 1994). When no system is in place, many employees will not bring concerns or fears to management. Employers must create an atmosphere where workers are encouraged to report threats if they occur. Too often in the past, employers have ignored threats and violence has occurred, often with fatal results. Employers have a legal duty under the negligent retention doctrine to heed notice of threats and harassment that occur within the workplace and adequately respond to its employees' complaints and warnings about potentially dangerous employees (Kinney & Johnson, 1993).

A vital part of any workplace violence prevention plan, according to all experts, is the development of guidelines for workers to report either actual violent incidents or suspected trouble. The guidelines stipulate that supervisors should be employees’ first con-tact. If the incident requires further action or investigation, the chain of involvement is usually human resources, the legal department, and then security (Anfuso, 1994). If neither management nor security respond to an employee’s report, the employee should then also report any incident or threat of violence to the local law enforcement authorities.

Employers are required by law to provide adequate security. Many court actions have raised questions of negligent security practices, as well as the removal of potential hazards (Baron, 1993). Administrative controls, such as requiring that employees not work alone and conflict resolution training, are suggested. This is geared toward controlling violence from customers and clients, but can also include disgruntled employees — especially when layoffs or termination occur.

When an employee is attacked or killed on the job, it is emotionally devastating — not only to the victim and their survivors, but to everyone in the workplace. It also can be expensive. Not only does such an incident cause lost work time and lowered productivity, but depending on an employer’s actions before the violent act, it can result in civil settlement as well.

The workplace has a duty to provide reasonable protection for employees and invitees. Reasonable protection refers to premises security and management practices in the employment of persons. Reasonable security protection, however, is situational and dependant upon risk factors associated with foreseeability and notice. As risks increase, so does the duty of care; therefore, protection responses would naturally increase as the risks become known to the employer.

It is recognized that total crime prevention is unattainable. The real objective is to displace, deter, or control criminal acts. A number of factors must be balanced to determine if there is a duty or obligation to protect employees or invitees from harm. In order to establish negligence upon a landowner or business, there must be: (1) a duty or standard of care recognized by law; (2) a breach of that duty or failure to provide adequate care; and (3) harm proximately caused by the duty to protect (Meadows, 1990).

Respondeat superior is one of the foundations of employment law that holds principals (employers) liable for the actions of their agents (employees). In other words, if the employer knows — or should know — of information indicating that a person is a risk for committing violence, the employer is responsible for any violent acts that person commits. An employer has a duty dictated by the 1970 Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) to maintain the health, safety, and welfare of the workplace; if an employer knows, or should have known, of certain characteristics of an individual and hires the person or retains him or her in employment anyway, the employer is responsible for any harm the person causes (Anfuso, 1994).

If a company has information that leads it to believe violence may occur, it must take action. If management had knowledge that an employee was being threatened with violence by other employees or third parties, then a duty may arise to protect or at least investigate the threats. Courts have held that notice could result from phone threats, restraining orders, and other forms of communication (Meadows, 1990).

The 1990 case Tepel vs. Equitable Life Assurance Society, for example, concluded that the company was responsible for the death of two people and injuries of nine others because it had been told about threats the killer had made against his wife who was employed at the insurance company, but had not beefed up security (Anfuso, 1994).

In order for an employee to recover for damages resulting from a violent act committed in the workplace, there must be evidence that the business failed to provide adequate security, or that the security was below standard. If risks cannot be proven (i.e., the presence of foreseeability or notice), then the only recovery available may be worker’s compensation programs or state victim compensation programs (Meadows, 1990).

While most criminal acts committed in the workplace involve robbery as the primary motive, it is important to establish some type of protective response. Business managers must also assure that employees are properly trained, screened and supervised before assuming sensitive responsibilities. This is not to suggest that businesses become “armed camps” or that every potential employee must possess a “top secret” clearance; however, reasonable security practices are simply efforts by management to protect workers and invitees. The extent of these practices should naturally vary with the business, but should always involve recognized protection practices (Meadows, 1990).

Sexual Harassment in the Workplace

Both men and women can be victims of sexual harassment. The victim does not have to be of the opposite sex. The harasser can be a supervisor, someone acting for an employer, or a co-worker. Whether or not sexual harassment in the workplace has increased over the years, the number of employees who complain about it has grown swiftly. Statistics from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) show that the 14,400 cases filed by mid-December 1994 was up from the 11,908 cases filed in 1993 — which had almost doubled from the 6,100 cases filed in 1990 (Peterson, 1994).

Although it can be a precursor to acts of violence and other criminal actions, sexual harassment is not itself legally classified as a crime in most jurisdictions in the U.S.; therefore, it can only be addressed through a civil action. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, prohibits sexual discrimination in employment. Section 1604.11(a) of the 29 Code of Federal Regulation provides that harassment on the basis of sex is a violation of Section 703 of Title VII. All employees and employers are required by Federal law to enforce Title VII and provide a working environment free from sexual harassment. The EEOC recognizes two types of sexual harassment:

• Unwelcome advances that threaten an employee’s job or affect decisions made about him or her; and
• Advances that create a “hostile work environment” or interfere with job performance.

Courts have increasingly demonstrated a willingness to hold companies vicariously liable for sexual harassment acts committed by their supervisors and employees. The doctrines of negligent retention and hiring have also been applied to sexual harassment in the workplace.

A recent Illinois decision, Geise vs. Phoenix Company of Chicago, determined that a company had a duty to select and retain managers who should not commit acts of sexual harassment. The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that “hostile work environment” sexual harassment exists where an employee is subjected to sexual harassment that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the vicitm’s employment and create an abusive working environment (Barbetta vs. Chemlawn Services Corp., 669 F.Supp. 569 [1987]).

Addressing sexual harassment with a serious commitment can prevent workplace violence from occurring. An employer’s sexual harassment policy should describe conduct that constitutes harassment and include a forceful statement that sexual harassment is not tolerated by the company, as well as by state and Federal law. The employee’s right to complain about sexual harassment without fear of retaliation should be explained in the policy, and a provision should be included to guarantee that an employee does not have to complain directly to the harasser. The policy should have a grievance procedure that the recipient of the harassment can follow and which encourages employees to report such harassment (Kinney & Johnson, 1993).

The victim should make it clear that the sexually harassing conduct of a supervisor or co-worker is unwelcome. Use any company complaint procedure available. If you have been the victim of sexual harassment in the workplace, contact your local or state human relations commission or its equivalent. Contact the EEOC in Washington, D.C., if necessary. If you
cannot access any of these agencies, contact your state Attorney General’s Office for more information.

Red Flags for Employee Behavior

Management’s most important line of defense in preventing workplace violence is to combine preventive human resource practices with close attention to the warning signs for the prediction of violent behavior. A plan should be in place with a management team trained on what to watch for and what procedures to follow.

According to John E. Douglas, former chief of the FBI’s Investigative Support Unit, National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime, some of the potential employee behaviors that should place managers and co-workers on alert include:

• Having an obsession with weapons;
• Compulsive reading and collecting of gun magazines;
• Excessively discussing weapons;
• Making direct or veiled threats;
• Intimidating or instilling fear in others;
• Having an obsession with one’s job;
• Showing little involvement with co-workers;
• Displaying unwanted romantic interest in a co-worker;
• Exhibiting paranoid behavior;
• Being unaccepting of criticism;
• Holding a grudge;
• Having recent family, financial, academic, social, legal, or other personal problems;
• Showing interest in recently publicized violent acts;
• Testing the limits of acceptable behavior; and
• Making extreme changes in behavior or stated beliefs (Burgess, Burgess & Douglas, 1994).

Red flags for stress in the workplace include layoffs, reductions in force, and labor disputes. Managers must be trained so that they can properly discuss these realities with employees.

Caution: This list is merely to help develop awareness and recognition of potential risk behaviors. There is no
definitive checklist of behavioral indicators for a potential perpetrator of workplace violence.

What Should Potential Victims of Workplace Violence Do?

Any indicators of potential violence in the workplace should be immediately brought to the attention of appropriate supervisors, human resources and/or security.

If you should experience any form of harassment or threats from another employee or a supervisor, or if you should witness any behavior that indicates a potential for violence, these incidents should be reported as soon as possible to management, according to your office’s or business’ policies and procedural guidelines. It is within your rights to request confidentiality concerning your report to management. If you should become the victim of a stalking, you should notify your supervisor of this as soon as possible.

If you are experiencing any sort of violence or threats in your current relationship or marriage, so that you feel the potential for personal harm is present or imminent, this also should be reported to your supervisor, human resources manager or an Employment Assistance Program counselor.

If you are victimized in the workplace, you are encouraged to also report the crime to local law enforcement authorities. The choice about whether or not to report belongs to you. However, statistics show that crimes reported sooner, rather than later, have higher arrest rates, and local authorities may be able to direct you to further victim assistance in the community. It is especially important for you to report any workplace victimization to local law enforcement if you get no response from management, human resources, or security at your place of employment once you make them aware of the incident or threat.

Victims have rights within the criminal justice system. Although those rights differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, victims’ rights often include the rights to be informed of and present at critical stages of the criminal justice process, and the right to some amount of input to the court at sentencing (known as a victim impact statement). For an explanation of those rights available to you, please contact your local police or your prosecutor’s office.

For Additional Information, Please Contact:

National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health
4676 Columbia Parkway
Cincinnati, Ohio 45226
(800) 35-NIOSH

Office of Safety, Health and Working Conditions
Bureau of Labor Statistics
US Department of Labor
2 Massachusetts Avenue, NE, Room 3180
Washington, DC 20212-0001
(202) 691-6179

References

Allen, Kathleen. (1992, June 8). Workplace violence increasing. Tucson, Inc., Section F, 1.

Anfuso, Dawn. (1994, October). Deflecting workplace violence. Personnel Journal, 73(10), 66-77.

Atkinson, Joan C. (1991). Worker reaction to client assault. Smith College Studies in Social Work, 62(1), 34-42.

Bachman, Ronet. (1994, July).Violence and theft in the workplace. Crime Data Brief: National Crime Victimization Survey. NCJ-148199. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Barnett-Queen, Timothy. (1991, February 25). Include trauma training in your disaster planning. Safety Compliance Letter with OSHA Highlights, Number 1904. Waterford, CT: Bureau of Business Practice.

Barnett-Queen, Timothy, & Bergmann, Lawrence H. (1990, July). Response to traumatic event crucial in preventing lasting consequences. Occupational Health & Safety, 53.

Barnett-Queen, Timothy, & Bergmann, Lawrence H. (1993, September). After the incident . . . Intervention. EAP Association Exchange, 23(9), Cover feature.

Barnett-Queen, Timothy, & Bergmann, Lawrence H. (1994). Secondary victimization in work-related trauma. Columbia, SC: Post Trauma Resources.

Baron, S. Anthony. (1993). Violence in the work-place: A prevention and management guide for businesses. Ventura, CA: Pathfinder Publishing.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (1994, August). Violence in the workplace comes under closer scrutiny. Issues in Labor Statistics. Summary 94-10. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor.

Burgess, Ann W., Burgess, Allen G., & Douglas, John E. (1994). Examining violence in the work-place: A look at work-related fatalities. Journal of Psychosocial Nursing and Mental Health Services, 32(7), 11-18, 53.

Family Violence Prevention Fund. (1994, Fall/
Winter). Labor pains: Violence at home has effect on the workplace. News from the Homefront, 4.

Kinney, Joseph A., & Johnson, Dennis L. (1993). Breaking Point: The workplace violence epidemic and what to do about it. Chicago, IL: National Safe Workplace Institute.

Lawlor, Julia. (1993, October 18). Survey: Homicides at work on the rise. USA Today, Section A: 1.

Meadows, Robert J. (1990). Violence in the work-place: Establishing the nexus between security practices and premises liability. Journal of Security Administration, 13(1 & 2), 21.

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. (1993, August). Fatal injuries to workers in the United States, 1980-1989: A decade of surveillance — National profile. DHHS(NIOSH) Publication No. 93-108. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control.

Nonprofit Risk Management Center. (1994, September). Workplace violence hits nonprofits. Community Risk Management & Insurance, 3(3),1.

Northwestern National Life Employee Benefits Division. (1993, October). Fear and violence in the workplace. Minneapolis, MN: Northwestern National Life Insurance Company.

Peterson, Karen, S. (1994, December 16-18). Full ‘disclosure.’ USA Today, Section A: 1-2.

Wheeler, Eugene D., & Baron, S. Anthony. (1993). Violence in our schools, hospitals and public places: A prevention and management guide. Ventura, CA: Pathfinder Publishing.

Windau, Janice, & Toscano, Guy. (1994, May). Workplace homicides in 1992. Fatal workplace injuries in 1992: A collection of data and analysis. Report 870. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

All rights reserved.

Copyright © 2000 by the National Center for Victims of Crime. This information may be freely distributed, provided that it is distributed free of charge, in its entirety and includes this copyright notice.