Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 3:36 am
Time: 3:36 am
Results for workplace homicides
1 results foundAuthor: Interagency Security Committee Violence in the Federal Workplace Title: Violence in the Federal Workplace: A Guide for Prevention and Response Summary: According to the figures released by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the estimated number of violent crimes in 2011 declined for the fifth consecutive year. The 2011 statistics show the estimated violent crime rate decreased 4.5% decrease from the 2010 rate. However and according to the latest known statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), from 2006 to 2010, an average of 551 workers per year were killed as a result of work-related homicides. In 2010 (the last year for which final data are available), there was a reported total of 518 workplace homicides, or 11% of all fatal work injuries that occurred that year. Shootings accounted for 78% of all workplace homicides in 2010 (405 fatal injuries). More than four-fifths (83%) of these workplace homicides from shootings occurred in the private sector, while only 17% of such shootings occurred in government. Five percent of all establishments in the United States experienced a violent incident in 2005, and half of the largest establishments (employing 1,000 or more workers) reported at least one incident. No workplace is immune, and any government facility can serve as the setting for an incident of workplace violence. The April 1995 attack on the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City provides an extreme example of how an office setting can be affected by workplace violence, in this case terrorism. This single act killed 168 people, injured 800 more, and was the largest terrorist attack on American soil prior to the September 11, 2001 attacks. It remains the most deadly terrorist attack ever perpetrated by an American citizen on American soil. Fortunately, tragic events such as these are still the exception: most acts of workplace violence occur as some form of verbal or non-verbal threat, bullying, harassment, or non-fatal physical assault. However, it is important to remember acts of physical workplace violence might start as some form of non-physical assault, so agencies must take all threats seriously and respond appropriately. It is also important to note a threat will not lead to a violent act in the great majority of cases. The threat itself, however, damages workplace safety and must be addressed. An act of workplace violence generally can be categorized as one of four types: Criminal Intent: The perpetrator has no legitimate relationship to the agency or its employees and is usually committing a separate crime, such as robbery, in conjunction with the violence. Customer/Client: The perpetrator has a legitimate relationship with the agency and becomes violent while being served by the agency. This category includes customers, clients, patients, students, inmates, and any other group to whom the agency provides services. Employees working for government agencies servicing large segments of the public on a daily basis are likely to be exposed to this type of workplace violence. Employee-on-Employee: The perpetrator is a current or former agency employee who attacks or threatens another current or former employee(s) in the workplace. Personal Relationship: The perpetrator usually does not have a relationship with the agency but has a personal relationship with an agency employee. This category includes domestic violence that spills over into the workplace. It is also worth noting that, according to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, workers are at greater risk of becoming victims of workplace violence if they: exchange money with the public; deliver passengers, goods, or services; or work alone or in small groups during late night or early morning hours, work in high-crime areas, or work in community settings and homes experiencing extensive contact with the public.5 In addition to the standard descriptions of incidents and the classification categories – mentioned above - in use since at least 2000, newer classification systems focus on triggers and intent, often distinguishing predatory from affective violence. Identifying triggers and intent supports risk assessment and prediction of recurrence and the required prevention strategies. Details: Washington, DC: The Interagency Security Committee, 2013.80p., app. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 7, 2017 at: https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/ISC%20Violence%20in%20%20the%20Federal%20Workplace%20Guide%20April%202013.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/ISC%20Violence%20in%20%20the%20Federal%20Workplace%20Guide%20April%202013.pdf Shelf Number: 148063 Keywords: Workplace Crime Workplace HomicidesWorkplace Security Workplace Violence |