Tab E Chapter 3
THREAT ASSESSMENT TEAM INVESTIGATION AND RESPONSE
By Susan Sciara
ABSTRACT
This chapter addresses threat investigation and response by
organizational Threat Assessment Teams (TATs) in
situations where onsite supervisors or personnel have
determined that more detailed assessments are necessary or
the situation meets the conditions for TAT involvement. It
helps the reader assess the level of risk involved, gather
data, and determine the most appropriate ways to intervene
to reduce the chances of violence occurring. It summarizes
the most important recent shifts in thinking about how to
assess and manage threats of violence. The reader is given
both the advantages and the disadvantages to each strategy,
which will allow for a well-formed intervention.
The chapter includes a checklist developed by TATs to
organize their data gathering and evaluation. In addition,
supplements provide three case studies that can be used by
Threat Assessment Teams as a basis for discussion and
learning (E-3 Supplement 1); and a listing of additional
resource materials (books, articles and Internet sites; E-3
Supplement 2).
WVP 10/02 STP
E-3 1
Tab E Chapter 3
A. Current Thinking Regarding Assessing the Risk of Violence
Threat assessment is an evolving practice – a blend of art and science. Different practitioners and
“experts” take a variety of approaches to conceptualizing what threat assessment should or
shouldn’t be, and to performing actual threat assessments. This section summarizes important
pieces of current thinking about the issue; some of this thinking is consistent with thinking a few
years ago, while some reflects changes in thinking gained from the maturation of the field and
quality research that has been done in recent years.
1. Profiles are not particularly helpful
The year 1986 put workplace violence on the map as far as most Americans were concerned.
That was the year that Patrick Sherrill killed 15, including himself, and injured 6 others at the
Edmond, Oklahoma Post Office. Prior to this event, the majority of Americans believed that
they were safe at work. The idea of a co-worker turning on them and killing them was a foreign
notion. In the years that followed, Americans were inundated by media stories recounting
violence at one workplace after another. We were told that workplace violence is the fasting
growing crime; that workplace violence is the number one killer of women in the workplace.
“Experts” were quick to rise to the occasion, developing profiles of the typical perpetrator of
workplace violence. He was described as a middle-aged, white male with a military background
who is a loner and chronically disgruntled. Thousand upon thousands of workers heard this
portrait in corporate trainings throughout the country. Unfortunately, while this profile may fit
some or many of the perpetrators of past violence, it is not helpful in the least in determining if
someone in your employ poses a threat to anyone in your organization.
As the research into mass homicides in the workplace got better, more information emerged that
identified the kinds of behavioral cues these individuals exhibited prior to the act. Gavin de
Becker, an expert on the prediction of violence calls them “pre-incident indicators” or PINs.1
Michael D. Kelleher took an in-depth look at 13 cases of workplace homicide by an employee
and identified the following warning signs2:
1
2

a pattern of obvious frustration accompanied by persistent blaming or unwarranted criticism
of the organization, supervisors, or co-workers;

unexplained, persistent, and abrupt changes in mood that persist over time;

evidence of depression, increased social withdrawal;

unprovoked outbursts of anger or aggression that clearly are inappropriate to the
circumstances;

a significant and persistent change in work habits;

evidence of substance or alcohol abuse;

a refusal to follow reasonable work directives;
See Tab A Chapter 2, which includes an excerpt from one of de Becker’s books on this subject.
M.D. Kelleher, Profiling the Lethal Employee, Praeger, Westport, Connecticut, 1997.
E-3 2
WVP 10/02 STP
TAT Investigation and Response

bizarre or outlandish behavior that has the effect of inducing discomfort or fear in coworkers;

argumentative or combative behavior;

physical aggression, workplace disruption, or sexual harassment;

persistent discussions that revolve around subjects of weaponry, paramilitary themes and
publicized incidents of workplace violence; and

threatening or intimidating behaviors directed at co-workers, supervisors, or the
organization.
These are all behaviors, not individual characteristics or demographics. These behaviors can be
easily detected in the workplace by observant supervisors and co-workers.
2. Violence is situational
Many articles and books discuss how employers can identify the “potentially violent“ employee
among their workforce. The problem with this thinking is that there will never be a group of
personal characteristics that one can use to determine if someone will become violent at some
future time. Violence is situational, and all of us have the capacity to become violent,
depending on the circumstances. There is a big difference between potential for violence and
intent on violence.
Violence is the product of the interaction among three factors:

an individual who sees violence as a means to an end;

a setting that permits, facilitates, or does nothing to stop the violence; and

a precipitating event, or “final straw.”
Without all three factors in place, there will be no violence. Focusing only on an individual
without looking at the setting and the stressors being brought to bear is incomplete and is unlikely
to be successful.
3. One-time assessments are not useful
An assessment of the risk of violence is not and cannot be a one-time event. Even in a crisis
where the assessment has to take place quickly, the assessment should continue once the crisis
has passed.
Since the risk is based on situational factors, those factors can change along with the risk. Each
situation must be continually monitored to determine what is changing in the individual’s life.
Are the factors that are likely to escalate the violence increasing or decreasing? What about the
factors that are likely to mitigate against violence such as steady employment, financial
resources, a marriage, and children? An employee can appear to be a low-level risk, but the risk
can quickly escalate when a spouse leaves or is suspected of having an affair, the job is
WVP 10/02 STP
E-3 3
Tab E Chapter 3
terminated, and/or heavy drinking clouds the judgment. The case studies provided at the end of
this chapter illustrate this ebb and flow.
4. Violence is a process
Most media portrayals of violence in the workplace would lead you to believe that people
suddenly snap and become violent. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Violence is a
process that starts in an individual’s head. First comes the idea that killing would solve current
problems, then begins the fantasizing about it, and eventually a plan for the event takes shape.
The thinking stage leads to active steps toward making it happen: buying the equipment,
practicing with it, and possibly following the target.
For example, consider the following sequence of events:
Joe believed that his supervisor was picking on him. He felt that no matter what he
did, it was never good enough. He began to believe that the supervisor was out to get
him. Others advised him to let it go, or to transfer to another area of the company.
But Joe wasn’t going to let “that SOB drive me off.” It wouldn’t be right, it wouldn’t
be fair. Joe was not going to let that supervisor win. Joe continued to think about all
the real and imagined slights that he had experienced from the supervisor over the
years and began to ruminate about it. He had difficulty sleeping at night and began
drinking to be able to sleep. He often ended up hung over the next morning or
overslept and was late for work. The final straw happened when the supervisor
handed him a notice that he was suspended for two weeks and told him that if he kept
it up, he would be fired. Joe thought, “I ought to kill him for that.” He later told a
buddy at work that he’d like to kill the supervisor. The buddy replied, “Wouldn’t we
all?”
The thoughts of killing the supervisor became more frequent and Joe was convinced
that he would be doing a good deed for the others in the work unit if he killed the
supervisor. He started to think about how he would do it and when the best time
would be. Sometimes at night, especially when he had been drinking, he could see
the whole scene unfold in his mind and his co-workers were cheering him and telling
him that someone should have killed the supervisor a long time ago.
Joe’s work began to exhibit more and more mistakes and he became belligerent when
it was pointed out to him. His temper outbursts increased and his co-workers
avoided him. Joe became more isolated and argued frequently with those around
him.
Joe purchased some automatic weapons at a gun show and started target practicing in
the woods near his house. He casually mentioned to a few of his co-workers that
he’d like to give the supervisor what he’s got coming. Another time, he told his
fellow worker that the supervisor wouldn’t have that smirk on his face when he gets
a look at his AK 47. The co-workers shrugged it off and thought that Joe was just
blowing off steam.
E-3 4
WVP 10/02 STP
TAT Investigation and Response
Joe obtained a copy of his supervisor’s schedule for the week and decided that
Tuesday morning, when everyone was there, would be the perfect day. The night
before, Joe practiced at home in front of the mirror, wearing his camouflage jacket.
He shaved his head and appeared as though he was preparing for war as he loaded his
pockets with rounds of ammunition, guns, and knives. He got in his car and headed
for work.
You can predict the end to this story and can clearly see that Joe did not suddenly snap. There
were numerous clues along the way that indicated that Joe was contemplating violence and was
moving closer and closer to it.
5. Action should not be predicated upon the presence of a threat
Many threat assessment professionals, including those in law enforcement, do not take action
until an individual makes a threat. Law enforcement professionals have traditionally been
trained to respond to an event, not prevent one.1 More recent research has indicated that the
majority of those who commit significant episodes of workplace violence do not directly
threaten their victim. For example, a study of 30 mass murders in the United States and Canada
over a 50-year period revealed that only 20% of the perpetrators ever threatened their victims
prior to the act.2
Another study of 246 incidents of workplace violence over a 30-year period found that only 27%
of the violent offenders had previously threatened violence in the workplace,3 Instead, they are
more likely to reveal their intentions in ways other than direct threats such as making cryptic
remarks, discussing their plans with co-workers, and so on.
6. Each situation is different
Despite some who will tell you to fire threatening employees or to advise targets of stalking to
seek a temporary restraining order, there is no cookie cutter approach that works with all cases.
One size does not fit all. Even situations involving similar circumstances will require far
different types of interventions. The best way to know the type of intervention that will work is
to thoroughly assess the case.
As Gavin de Becker stated in a presentation to the CIA, “There is no one answer. Anybody with
only one speed should get off of the racetrack, because they’re causing accidents.”
TAT members should review the case studies in E-3 Supplement 1, and the additional case
studies in Tab H.
1
2
3
See Tab C Chapter 8 for further discussion of this topic.
“Offender and Offense Characteristics of a Nonrandom Sample of Mass Murders,” A. G. Hempel. J.R. Meloy, and T. C. Richards,
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law , 27(2): 213-225, 1999.
Southerland, M, Collins, P. and Scarborough, K., Workplace Violence: A Continuum From Threat to Death, Anderson Publishing Co.,
1997.
WVP 5/03 STP
E-3 5
Tab E Chapter 3
B. Assessing the Risk of Violence
The types of situations with which Threat Assessment Teams (TATs)1 are most likely to get
involved are where the subject of concern is a current or former employee, and/or it is a domestic
violence or stalking situation. Domestic violence can spill into the workplace when an employee is
attempting to leave an abusive relationship.2 Stalking and unwanted pursuit can involve two coworkers, an employee and a customer, or an employee and an ex-spouse or lover. Often there has
been some sort of romantic relationship that has ended, but it can also be a situation where one
person wanted a relationship and the other was not interested.3
Whatever the situation, it is imperative that the TAT collects as much information as possible.4 It
is unlikely that the TAT will be able to collect all the data identified below, but the more data that
can be obtained, the better the chances of a successful resolution and the lower the likelihood of
being blind-sided.
The following is a general guide to the kinds of questions that are helpful to ask and the type of
data that can be useful in looking at the risks that a certain situation presents. It is by no means
exhaustive, as there may be certain cases that raise different questions.
See the end of this chapter for a checklist developed by TATs to guide their data gathering and
evaluation efforts.
1. Precipitating event
The TAT should be asking the following questions:
1
2
3
4

What has happened?

When did it happen?

Who reported the incident?

Is that person credible?

What are some possible motivations for the incident? For example, if a threat was made,
what is the most likely motivation for the threat? There is a big difference between a threat
that is made to reduce the threatener’s own anxiety and a threat made with an intention to
act (see Section D.1 below).
Tab B Chapter 4 describes the composition and duties of TATs in more detail.
For a more detailed discussion of domestic violence in the workplace, see Tab F Chapter 1.
The sparse research that is available on gay-couple domestic violence indicates that it is similar to that of heterosexual domestic
violence.
Tab C Chapter 6 and Tab E Chapter 1 address the topics of receiving and tracking reports of incidents. The Incident Report form (see
E-1 Supplement 1) and the Tracking Log (see E-1 Supplement 3) would be useful places for a TAT to begin their data gathering.
E-3 6
WVP 10/02 STP
TAT Investigation and Response
2. Identifying Information
It will be important to assemble as much information as possible about any violent situation.
Begin by finding out as much as you can about the subject.1

Assemble personal data.2 If the subject of your concern is an employee or a former
employee, you will probably have access to records that will provide you with useful
information, including the subject’s name, date of birth, social security number, home
address, and phone number. With this information, you would be able to check court
records if you decided to do that.

Assess the employment situation. Employment records will provide some information
about the work situation. If the subject is a current employee, how long has the subject
been employed? In what capacity? Who is the supervisor? More than likely, you will be
contacting the supervisor to get information. If the subject is a past employee, how long
was the subject employed? Who was the supervisor at the time? What were the
circumstances of the subject’s departure?

Identify an emergency contact. Employment records should also identify the subject’s
emergency contact, who may be able to tell you about the subject’s personal life. That
person is likely to be meaningful in the subject’s life and may even help you intervene in the
situation.

Obtain a description or photo. This can be useful if you need to tell or show security
officers, supervisors, or other personnel what this person looks like so they can be alert to
any attempts to enter the premises.
Of course, if the subject is a non-employee, none of this information may be readily available.
You will have to assemble it from scratch by questioning the person who has been threatened
and any co-workers who may have tidbits of information to contribute.
1
2
Through out this chapter I use the term “subject” to indicate the person who is the subject of concern or the subject of the TAT’s
investigation. This term has a more neutral connotation than the term “perpetrator.” If the TAT begins to think of this person as a
perpetrator, it may be more difficult for them to consider all of the available options when developing an intervention plan.
Your employer probably gathered basic information as part of pre-employment screening (see Tab C Chapter 1), and maintains current
data as part of the subject’s personnel file.
WVP 2/04 STP
E-3 7
Tab E Chapter 3
3. Background information
Review the subject’s education, military history, and employment history to gather information
about the subject’s intelligence, ability to get along with others, tenacity, types of skills,
knowledge, and abilities. Your employer may already have collected this information as part of
routine pre-employment screening efforts (see Tab C Chapter 1 of this Guide), and/or you may
wish to gather additional information that may be useful to your present assessment. This
investigation may also be subject to legal requirements intended to protect employee privacy and
ensure the quality and usefulness of information you are able to collect.1
1

Determine whether there is any history of violence or harassing behaviors. This kind of
background can give you information about the subject’s behavior under stress. Note,
however, that an absence of a history of violence doesn’t mean that the subject is less likely
to become violent.

You should also determine whether there is a history of criminal behavior, including arrests
for drunk driving. Is there any kind of pattern? For example, a number of battery arrests
where the charges were dropped could indicate domestic violence or a pattern of
intimidating witnesses.

What is the relationship history? Is this someone who has been socially inept and has had
difficulty connecting with others or is this someone who is socially skilled? If the subject is
a former employee, what does the past supervisor have to say? Does the subject make and
keep friends?
Until recently, the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA; 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681 – 1681x; 16 C.F.R. §§ 1.71 – 1.73, parts 600 - 601)
had been applied broadly to cover investigations of present employees in the context of disciplinary matters, including defining
investigative reports prepared by third parties as “consumer reports” or “investigative consumer reports” subject to FCRA. See Federal
Trade Commission (FTC) Staff Opinion, letter to Judi Vail (April 5, 1999). FCRA requirements are discussed in Tab C Chapter 1 of
this Guide. However, effective December 4, 2003, the 2003 Amendments to FCRA (enacted as the Fair and Accurate Transactions
Act of 2003, Pub. L. No. 108-159, 117 Stat. 1952 [12/4/03]) create a new exclusion for reports prepared and provided:
“… in connection with and investigation of:
(i) suspected misconduct relating to employment; or
(ii) compliance with Federal, State, or local laws and regulations, the rules of a [stock exchange or other entity established to
make and enforce requirements affecting securities], or any preexisting written policies of the employer.”
E-3 8
WVP 2/04 STP
TAT Investigation and Response

Is there any evidence of present or past mental illness or substance abuse?

Does the subject have weapons expertise? Where was it obtained – through the military,
through private lessons, etc? Has the subject ever threatened the target with a weapon? 1
Has the subject ever threatened to kill the target?

If this is a domestic violence or stalking situation, have there been three or more of
instances of violence over the past year? Has the target ever needed medical attention
(whether received or not) as a result of injuries? Has the subject conducted surveillance on
the target? Has the target recently ended the relationship? Have there been inappropriate or
unwanted calls, visits, faxes, letters, gifts, or packages to the worksite? Has the target
recently moved to a secret location? Is there evidence of other kinds of violence? For
instance, has the subject ever killed or injured a pet? Is there a history of excessive or
repeated destruction of property? Has the subject ever assaulted non-family members?
According to Park Dietz, the noted forensic psychiatrist, any of these factors make the situation
a high-risk one2 and increase the chances of violent activity spilling into the workplace.
4. Current life situation
The TAT should work to find answers to the following questions:
1
2

How stable is the subject’s current living situation?

How stable is the employment situation?

Is there an appropriate support system? Is there anyone significant in the subject’s life that
may be able to have a positive influence?

If the subject is a former employee, what has happened since the person left your employ?
Has the subject continued to experience losses or failures? Has there been one-sided contact
with co-workers or other evidence that the subject is still focused on the former employer?

Are there financial problems?

Have there been any recent losses, physical or psychological?

Are there any pending crises or changes in circumstances?
I refer to the person who is, or appears to be, targeted for violence as the “target.” I prefer this term to “victim,” which has
connotations of helplessness and powerlessness.
Personal notes from training conducted by Dr. Park Dietz, Chicago, IL, 1998.
WVP 2/04 STP
E-3 8a
Tab E Chapter 3
This page intentionally blank
E-3 8b
WVP 2/04 STP
TAT Investigation and Response

Is there any evidence of a downward progression in social, occupational, or psychological
functioning?
5. Attack-related behaviors
Review behavior to see if you can identify patterns:

Does the subject show any unusual interest in violence – movies, games, books, magazines?

Is there any evidence of ideas or plans for violence such as a diary, notes, a recent
acquisition of a weapon?

Has the subject communicated any ideas, thoughts, or plans for violence through threats or
other verbalizations to family, friends, or co-workers?

Is there an identifiable target? Is there any evidence that the subject has followed or visited
the target? Has the subject approached or attempted to approach the target? Has the subject
been seen hanging around or performing surveillance activities?
If the situation is a domestic violence or stalking situation, it is very helpful to develop a
timeline of events. The target can be helpful in preparing this. The timeline helps you visualize
what has been happening and identify whether the situation is escalating. It could also be a
helpful tool in prosecution.1
6. The target
If a target has been identified, it is useful to know as much as possible about the situation of the
target

How vulnerable is the target?

How familiar is the subject with the target?

Does the subject know the target’s routines?

Does the target believe the subject is capable of violence?

Is the target willing to make lifestyle changes?
If this is a domestic violence or stalking situation, it is also important to determine answers to
the following questions:

1
Is the target willing to have no further contact with the subject?
For example, California law makes “stalking” a separate crime, punishable by a fine up to $1,000 and/or up to one year’s
imprisonment. Cal. Penal Code § 646.9. As amended effective January 2, 3003, this law defines stalking as action by a person who
“willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, or willfully and maliciously harasses another person and who makes a credible threat
with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear for his or her safety, or the safety of his or her immediate family….” Id. At
§ 646.9(a). Harasses is further defined as “engages in a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that
seriously alarms, annoys, torments, or terrorizes the person, and that serves no legitimate purpose.” Id. at § 646.9(e). Finally, a
course of conduct is defined to include “two or more acts occurring over a period of time….” Id. at § 646.9(f). Considering these
terms, it should be clear that careful keeping of a timeline and other records would assist a prosecution under this statute.
WVP 2/03 STP
E-3 9
Tab E Chapter 3

Is there anyone helping the target? (These individuals are often at higher risk because the
subject sees them as preventing access to the target.)

Has the target become involved with another romantic partner? If so, this will frequently
escalate the situation.
C. Additional Sources for Data
A TAT can be most effective when it utilizes its creativity and resources to develop as much
information about the situation, the subject, and any potential targets as possible. Individuals with
special expertise can be brought in as consultants on a case-by-case basis. The following illustrates
the type of information that a TAT would be looking for in most situations.
1. Records
The following sources of official records can provide the TAT with a wealth of information:

Courts (municipal, superior, federal district, small claims): Court records can be accessed to
determine civil suits and judgments, criminal convictions, property bought and sold,
marriages and divorces, and birth records.

The County Clerk’s Office: This office maintains birth, death and marriage records, as well
as records of fictitious business names.

Law Enforcement Agencies: The state Department of Corrections and the Federal Bureau
of Prisons maintain information on criminal convictions and parole information.
Municipal, county, state and federal law enforcement agencies have information on incident
reports, police contacts with the subject, outstanding warrants, and weapons registration
documents.

The Department of Motor Vehicles: This department has detailed records regarding driver’s
license status, accidents, substance abuse violations, and traffic tickets, in addition to
vehicle registration information.
Much of this information can be obtained through Internet searches, private security companies
that specialize in background checks, or through a visit to the courthouse. Many states and
counties have Internet sites where you can search for felony convictions and registered sex
offenders.1
If the subject is a current or former employee, employment records including application forms,
employee medical records, and worker’s compensation claims can yield a wealth of information.
Speaking with a current and/or former supervisor can also be an informational gold mine.
A call or visit to the local police to see if they have had any contact with the subject can be
helpful. Even though there may not have been formal charges filed, many local police
jurisdictions record “suspicious incidents” and you may find that they have visited the subject’s
house from time to time.
1
See Section B.3 above, and Tab C Chapter 1.
E-3 10
WVP 2/04 STP
TAT Investigation and Response
Sometimes a call to past employers can yield results, even though many are reluctant to discuss
problems they had with the subject for fear of legal action. Sometimes asking a question such as
“Would you re-hire this person?” will provide you with information. If the ex-employer says
that they would not consider re-hiring the subject but will not discuss it, you might be able to
infer that there were problems and those problems are likely to be similar to the ones that you
are experiencing with the subject.
Local newspapers are often archived and increasingly are available on the Internet. It can be
fruitful to enter the subject’s name in the search feature to see if there has been any mention.
2. Interviews
Interviews with the subject, the target(s), the subject’s friends, family, and co-workers are
invaluable sources of detailed information.
However, there are some important things to consider. For instance, what is the scope of your
authority? Can you compel an interview? Could the results be used for disciplinary or legal
action against the subject,1 and/or by the subject against the company?
Of the people to be interviewed, identify who is likely to be friendly, who is likely to be neutral
or disinterested, and who is likely to be adverse. Decide in advance what order to interview.
The general rule is that you start with the friendly witnesses, move to the neutral, and save the
adverse witnesses for last. Generally, you should only depart from this order when there is a
very good reason, since superior knowledge is a major advantage when interviewing the adverse
witness.
When interviewing the subject, there are two goals: gather information, and encourage change in
the subject’s behavior. The interviewer is most likely to be successful if he or she is friendly,
respectful, and professional. You will need to decide if it would be better to send an interviewer
that is known to the subject or more helpful to send someone who is not known. Obviously, if
someone has developed a rapport with the subject from previous contacts, this person would be
the ideal interviewer. On the other hand, if the interviewer knows the subject and has negative
feelings about the person, a more neutral interviewer would be desirable.
1
Employers must ensure that the subject employee’s rights are protected during the investigation. One source of such rights may be the
National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). For example, in 1975 the United States Supreme Court interpreted the NLRA to provide an
employee in a unionized workplace with the right to have a union representative present in any “examination” in connection with an
investigation that may result in disciplinary action against the employee. National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) v. Weingarten, Inc.,
420 US 251, 95 S.Ct 959, 43 L.Ed.2d 171 (1975). In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court led stand a decision in which the NLRB extended
this so-called “Weingarten rule” to allow an employee in a non-unionized workplace to have a co-worker present during such an
examination. Epilepsy Fdn. Of NE Ohio v. NLRB, 268 F.3d 1095 (D.C.Cir. 2001), cert. denied 536 US 904, 122 S.Ct 2356, 153
L.Ed.2d 179 (2002). However, in June 2004, the NLRB changed its policy, deciding that the NLRA could reasonably be interpreted
either to permit or deny co-worker presence for non-unionized employees, and determining as a matter of policy to deny such
presence. In discussing this change in policy priorities, the NLRB noted the rise in concerns over workplace harassment and violence,
and heightened security concerns since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. IBM Corp., 341 NLRB 148 (2004).
WVP 9/04 STP
E-3 11
TAT Investigation and Response
a. Risks and benefits of interviewing the subject
There are both advantages and disadvantages to interviewing the subject. The interview
provides a direct method of gathering information about the subject’s life, thought processes,
behaviors, and plans. It is also an opportunity for the subject to discuss frustrations with
whatever is happening in his or her life. An interview also communicates to the subject that
the behavior has been noticed and is unacceptable and must cease.
Once such an interview has been conducted, the subject knows that an investigation is
underway. Sometimes this knowledge can escalate the situation. The subject may fear losing
his or her job and become more desperate. An interview conducted by the police may even
embolden the subject, replacing fear of the police with the feeling that ”I met with them and
nothing bad happened.” In some cases, an interview may intensify the subject’s interest in a
target. A subject who has been angry at the organization in general now has a focus for
aggression, which could increase the risk of violence to the interviewers.
The U.S. Secret Service recommends that if there has been face-to-face contact between the
subject and the target, or the subject has communicated a threat to the target, then an
interview is a good idea. Gavin de Becker, on the other hand, recommends using direct or
detectable interventions only when non-detectable ones have failed.
b. Risks and benefits of interviewing the target(s)
Targets may be able to provide an abundance of useful information, both about the subject
and themselves. The information can be used to determine how vulnerable the target is to an
attack and how willing he or she is to make the necessary changes to become less vulnerable.
The information can also be used to supplement what you already know about the subject.
Potential targets, and those who work with or have been friends with the subject, are often
unwilling to consider that someone they know could want to kill them. They would prefer to
think that someone who is dangerous will be a stranger. Often they will tell you things like,
“Yeah, I heard Bob say that he wants to kill Joe, but I think he was just blowing off steam. I
don’t think he is serious.” Although it is important to identify whether potential targets are
apprehensive, just because they deny being frightened doesn’t mean you should discount the
subject’s potential for violence.
In stalking situations where there has been a relationship between the subject and the target,
the relationship may be continuing unbeknownst to you. The target may have ambivalent
feelings about ending the relationship for a variety of reasons and could be reporting to the
subject any information that you provide.
If the stalker believes that the interviewer is blocking access to the target, the interviewer may
become a target.
E-3 12
WVP 5/03 STP
TAT Investigation and Response
c. Risks and benefits of interviewing family, friends and co-workers
Family members, friends, and co-workers can be rich sources of information. They may also
have divided loyalties and may report back to the subject. The subject may become enraged
at being discussed with others and see this as an intrusion into personal privacy. It can easily
escalate any paranoia.
Interviewers have to be careful not to place themselves in a position to be sued for invasion
of privacy, libel, or defamation of character. The interviewers may be at risk of violence
from the subject as a result of their visible involvement in the situation.
D. Interpreting the Data and Assessing the Case
Once the TAT has gathered sufficient data, they will need to decide what those data mean and how
to interpret them. How much data to collect before moving on to this step varies by case and
becomes a decision for the TAT to make. Often data gathering is not a finite event, since
information generally comes to the TAT in a piecemeal fashion. Sometimes the TAT will learn
new information that changes the way they previously viewed the data. The following section lays
out ways to think about the meaning of the data that you have gathered.
1. Instrumental v. expressive threats
Threats, which are defined in this context as expressions of an intention to inflict something
harmful, are either instrumental or expressive. Dr. Reid Meloy provides the following
distinctions1:
An instrumental threat is primarily intended to control or influence the behavior of
the target through an aversive consequence. Expressive threats are primarily used
to regulate affect in the threatener.
After a review of the scientific literature on threats, Dr. Meloy concluded that threats are very
common – but most individuals do not act on their threats. Threats may increase, decrease, or
have no relationship to subsequent violence. In the stalking of public figures, those who pose a
threat do not generally make a threat beforehand.
Threats can serve many different purposes, so it is important to evaluate the purpose of the
threat. Was the threatener attempting to manipulate others, voicing intentions, or attempting to
regulate emotion in a highly charged situation? In other words, all threats are not equal.
1
Meloy, in Pinard and Pagani (Eds.) Clinical Assessment of Dangerousness, Cambridge Press, 2000.
WVP 5/03 STP
E-3 13
Tab E Chapter 3
2. Affective v. predatory violence
Dr. Meloy, a psychologist who is an expert in violent behavior, has developed a model that
differentiates between two different types of violence.
Affective violence is reactive and immediate and is based on the subject’s
experience of anger or fear. It is time-limited and primarily emotional. Bystanders
might see puffing up of the chest, along with fist and teeth clenching. The goal of
affective violence is to reduce any real or perceived threat. An example of this is the
typical bar fight. There is a provocation and an immediate response that is over
quickly. Affective violence is the most common form of violence.
Predatory violence is planned and purposeful where no threat exists. It tends to be
preceded by a private ritual such as practicing with weapons, cleaning the weapon,
and/or carrying certain symbols. The behavior is not time-limited and the goals are
power, control, recognition, or notoriety. About 25% of spousal abuse is predatory
and most sexual violence is predatory. Virtually all workplace homicides that are
committed by someone known to the victims are predatory.
If your subject has a history of violence, an important distinction to make is whether that
violence been affective or predatory. Obviously, you will be much more concerned if your
subject has a history of predatory violence. This does not mean that a subject with a history of
affective violence is not someone to be concerned about. Nor does it mean that absence of past
violence reduces the risk.
3. Stalking/obsessional following/unwanted pursuit
No matter what term you use to describe this behavior, it can be one of the most difficult kinds
of situations for the TAT to manage. Current research on stalking indicates that stalkers tend to
be male and their targets tend to be female. Stalkers tend to be more intelligent than other
criminals, and many are unemployed or underemployed. It has also been described as a
“courtship disorder” for some stalkers in that many years of relationship incompetence coupled
with poor social skills can increase the risk for this behavior.1 Many stalkers have personality
disorders, which are extremely difficult to treat.
So far, the studies on stalkers indicate that the three variables that predict lethality in stalking are
prior criminal convictions, substance abuse, and prior sexual intimacy. According to Reid
Meloy, who has studied both stalkers and the research on stalkers, the risk of violence is above
50% if there has been prior sexual intimacy. The weapons most commonly used, in the order of
frequency, are guns, knives, and cars.
Section E.2 of this chapter provides a longer discussion of stalking.
1
Stalking may also be an aspect of domestic violence in an established relationship. See Tab F Chapter 1.
E-3 14
WVP 11/04 STP
TAT Investigation and Response
4. False victimization syndrome
If you have an employee who is complaining of being stalked and, after gathering all available
information, the situation does not seem to make sense or there are pieces that do not appear to
be credible, you may have what has been referred to as “false victimization syndrome.”
Researchers estimate that about 2% of all stalking reports fall into this category. According to a
recent study,1 the majority of the “victims” are women who are motivated by their desire to
resurrect a failing relationship. These individuals often want to be the center of attention,
express shallow and rapidly shifting emotions, and provide information about the stalking events
that are impressionistic and lacking in detail. They may go so far as to harm themselves in order
to validate their claims and increase their credibility. These cases can be very difficult to
investigate and drain valuable resources.
5. Putting it all together
After the TAT has gathered information, it is helpful to ask and answer the following questions
about your case.

What was the precipitating event for our investigation? What evidence is there of current
stimuli that might cause the event to be repeated or to escalate?

What evidence is there to indicate that the subject is considering violence as an option?

Is the setting (work or home) permitting, facilitating, or not stopping violence?

How vulnerable is the target? Is the target willing to make lifestyle changes?

Is the subject moving toward or away from violence?

What factors in the subject’s life and/or environment might increase/decrease the likelihood
for violence?
Once the TAT has answered these questions, you should have a clearer assessment of the
risk of violence and a sense of the level of intervention that is needed.
1
Zona, Palarea and Lane in The Psychology of Stalking, Meloy (Ed), Academic Press, 1998.
WVP 5/03 STP
E-3 15
Tab E Chapter 3
E. Determining How to Intervene
Intervention involves developing a plan that moves the subject away from considering violence as a
viable option and/or making the target inaccessible. Intervention strategies vary across cases, in
some generalized ways and in actual case-specific actions. Each case will be different. What has
worked in the past with one may not work with your current case. The following is a long list of
possibilities that have been used at various times. Some cases may require that you try several
different options until you are able to effect a successful intervention. It is not necessary or even
advisable to use all of the following possibilities. The TAT may want to discuss each strategy to
determine if it would be appropriate for a specific case. Keep in mind that just because an
intervention is not listed, that does not mean that it cannot be a viable tool for your TAT to use.
1. General intervention strategies
The following is a list of possible options. Not all are appropriate for each case. Depending
upon the circumstances of the case, strategies may either help or escalate the situation. Other
strategies may have no effect whatsoever on the behavior of the subject and the outcome of the
case. The TAT, in consultation with management, must give careful consideration to the
advantages, disadvantages, and any possible unintended consequences of each alternative before
implementing any strategy.
Watch and wait
The advantage to watching and waiting is that you are monitoring the situation in an unobtrusive
way. There are times when taking any action may only intensify the subject’s interest. For
example, a former employee has been calling the company president’s secretary and leaving
voice mail messages saying that the company has ruined his life and that they will be sorry. This
may be a situation where you want to wait and continue to capture the messages and analyze
them to determine whether they are becoming more angry and increasing in frequency and
intensity before you take any direct action against the subject.
There may be other times when the situation calls for immediate action and watching and
waiting may not be in your organization’s best interests.
Conduct a security audit
Assessing the security of the worksite and any targets’ homes, along with identifying ways to
protect the targets during periods of travel and when they are at other locations, can be helpful.1
Simple measures such as providing the targets with cell phones that have 911 programmed into
the speed dial feature can go a long way in decreasing their vulnerability. Adding security
cameras or other types of electronic security devices may be necessary. Making sure that the
existing security is being utilized (for instance, doors are not propped open, employees are
wearing identification badges, etc.) is critical. Adding escorts to and from parking areas for the
1
Tab A Chapter 3 presents a general discussion of workplace evaluation for workplace violence issues. Many of the same elements
appear in a case-specific assessment.
E-3 16
WVP 10/02 STP
TAT Investigation and Response
targets can provide protection to and from the car. There may be times when you will need to
consider personal protection personnel (bodyguards.) Providing your site security personnel
and/or receptionists with a photo of the subject can help determine if the subject is attempting to
enter the facility and serve as “an early warning” mechanism. Train those personnel how to
respond if there is an attempt at entry or if there are calls requesting information about the target.
In many communities, local police will provide home security audits upon request. If they do
not, this service can be contracted out, as there are many companies that specialize in home
security.
The disadvantage to this strategy is that many organizations simply apply extra security and wait
for an attack. As has been proven many times over, an armed assailant who doesn’t mind dying
for a cause will be able to penetrate perimeter security. Also, the additional security measures
can be costly, especially if it involves security guards or personal protection specialists, and
there is no way to determine how long this type of security should be in place.
Security efforts that are detectable to the subject may deter or may signal the organization’s fear
and increase the subject’s sense of empowerment and control.
Identify ways to reduce or eliminate the stimulus
In every situation where the risk of violence is high, there is always a precipitating event or a
stimulus where the subject feels at wit’s end and sees violence as a way to solve the problem.
Sometimes identifying ways to reduce or eliminate the stimulus may calm the situation down.
The disadvantage to this is that it may not be enough if the subject is already committed to
violence as a means of achieving the desired ends. Many companies also wrestle with the notion
that it is not desirable to reward inappropriate behavior by giving the subject some or all of what
they want and/or in bending the rules in ways that reduce or avoid punishment for the behavior.
Try direct confrontation
Sometimes sitting down and listening to the employee’s complaints and explaining how much
there is to lose by continuing on a course that is moving toward violent action can be helpful.
Depending on the situation, it can be useful to point out other people’s reactions to the
employee’s behavior. This can often work in situations where a socially inept employee falls in
love with a co-worker and pursues in spite of all discouragement. Often the employee has no
idea of the possible consequences of continuing the pursuit. Merely pointing out the fact that
the co-worker is frightened by the attention and that persisting may result in termination or even
arrest may be enough to stop the behavior.
At other times, direct confrontation will only make the subject more determined and could put
the confronter at risk. It can make the subject feel more desperate and precipitate action if it
appears as though loss of the job and of personal freedom is going to happen anyway. A
paranoid and delusional subject can easily incorporate the confronter into any delusions of
persecution.
WVP 2/03 STP
E-3 17
Tab E Chapter 3
Maintain contact with friends or relatives
Contact friends or relatives to get their agreement to notify you if things worsen in the subject’s
life. The advantage to this is that trustworthy and concerned friends and family can serve as an
early warning system, alerting you to significant changes in the subject’s life.
The disadvantage is that the friends and relatives may have conflicting loyalties. The
information could be incomplete or distorted. The subject may become angry at your efforts to
contact friends and family and it could heighten any sense of paranoia. It can feel like an
encroachment of personal space and may cause the subject to act out aggressively.
Keep in touch with the treating physician/mental health provider
Ask the treating physician/ mental health provider to provide notification if things change
in the subject’s situation. The advantage to this is that you have co-opted the treatment
provider into becoming a team member and working with you to head off any negative changes
that could escalate the potential for violence. The treatment provider is also in a position to use
medication and/or hospitalization if necessary.
However, the treatment provider’s first duty is to his or her sense of the subject’s best interests.
A provider is unlikely to share information with you without the patient’s consent so this is not
an unobtrusive method of gathering information or intervening. This could heighten any
feelings of paranoia or sense of conspiracy on the part of the subject.
The other risk is that the treatment provider may not be convinced that the patient is at risk for
violent behavior. Some treatment providers too willingly believe the false notion that a patient
who hasn’t directly threatened anyone is unlikely to be dangerous. The treatment provider can
see you as obtrusive and harassing and can inadvertently reinforce the subject’s behavior.
Monitor and/or maintain communication with the subject
Communication such as letters, e-mails, and voice mail messages can often be reviewed without
the subject’s knowledge. These communications can be reviewed to determine if they are
directed to a specific person, increasing in frequency, becoming angrier, or becoming
threatening.
Sometimes, someone in the organization will have contact with the subject in the course of the
investigation and will be able to develop rapport. This is often a member of the security staff or
a Human Resources professional. That person can have continued contact with the subject and
periodically check in “just to see how things are going.” This can work if the subject views that
person as a neutral party or someone who wants to help. However, if the subject begins to see
this person as someone who is no longer on his or her side, that person can become the target of
aggression.
E-3 18
WVP 2/03 STP
TAT Investigation and Response
Monitor the situation through pretext calls
Although using pretext to obtain information is often practiced by private investigators, it is a
controversial technique in the corporate world. Depending on how elaborate the pretext is, there
is a fear that lawsuits and negative publicity for the organization could emerge if it were
discovered that information was obtained through trickery.
The advantage is that this method may be the only way you have to obtain information about the
subject’s current state of mind. One example of using pretext to obtain information from a
problematic employee who recently left your company is to call and say that the Human
Resources department is doing a survey on former employees’ opinions of the company. If you
are able to get the subject talking, you may be able to determine the level of anger, at whom the
anger is directed, and perhaps even uncover any plans to “do something about it.”
Monitor activities through surveillance
Surveillance can give you information about the subject’s daily activities. It can give you
information about how the subject handles a situation that has the potential to escalate. For
example, conducting surveillance of a subject who has been given a termination notice can
provide you with information on where the subject goes and activities undertaken.
Collecting the subject’s trash can also be a useful tool for gathering information in an
unobtrusive way. You may be able to determine that the subject is drinking, using drugs, taking
medication, or whatever. You may be lucky enough to obtain notes that the subject has made
about the situation.
An internal security person, who may or may not be a member of the TAT, generally does these
activities or they may be contracted out to an external security vendor. You have to determine
when to conduct surveillance, and for how long. Surveillance tends to be very costly and timeconsuming, and it often yields no useful results. A surveillance team, no matter how good it is,
often loses subjects who are under surveillance.
Another risk is that the subject will spot the surveillance team. If the faces are familiar -perhaps the team includes security personnel who have interviewed the subject in the past -- it
will be clear that your organization is attempting to keep watch. This could increase the
subject’s rage at the company. On the other hand, discovering surveillance by strangers can
contribute to feelings of paranoia and desperation.
Offer leave with pay
One strategy to consider carefully is placing the employee on off-duty pay status while the team
investigates. The advantage to getting the employee out of the facility while you collect data is
that you may have reduced the stressors that were fueling the inappropriate behavior. It can
provide both management and the employee with a cooling off period. Continuing the
employee’s pay reinforces the notion that the organization wants to work with the employee to
resolve the situation and it does not contribute to an adversarial atmosphere or increase the
WVP 2/03 STP
E-3 19
Tab E Chapter 3
employee’s desperation by cutting off the paycheck. It also shows that the organization takes the
behavior seriously and takes decisive action. It can also be reassuring to other employees who
may be frightened of or intimidated by the subject.
The disadvantage to removing the employee from the workplace is that you have disrupted the
routine. For some people, especially those who are mentally ill, having a routine and a place to
go every day helps them function at a higher level. Now the employee has a great deal of time
available to ruminate about problems and maybe take action. In addition, you don’t know where
the employee is or doing what. Other employees can become fearful that the subject will return
and seek retribution, especially if they are not sure that adequate security measures are being
taken.
Obtain a fitness for duty evaluation
It is often very helpful to obtain a psychiatric fitness for duty evaluation for the subject. A
mental health evaluation can provide you with information that you would not have been able to
obtain any other way. It can give you the opportunity to “get inside the employee’s head.” It
can identify treatable mental illnesses and recommend a course of treatment. The evaluation can
determine whether or not the employee is able to return to work afterwards or at some point in
the future.
The disadvantage to a mental health evaluation is that it is intrusive for the employee and can be
costly for the employer. There are few evaluators with the specific skills to provide you with
truly useful information. There is also the danger of over-reliance on the information that the
mental health provider gives you to the extent that you minimize the rest of the investigation. In
addition, the employee may believe that the organization perceives him or her as mentally ill and
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) issues may come into play. Depending upon the results
of the evaluation, the organization may have to offer the employee reasonable accommodation
for a handicapping condition.
Develop a Return to Work Agreement or a Last Chance Agreement
A Return to Work (RTW) Agreement is a formal written agreement that identifies the
conditions under which the employee may return to work and continue to work and is based on
accommodation for a medical condition. It may include provisions for mental health or
substance abuse treatment, taking medication, no contact with the target, etc. It also specifies
how these provisions are measured and monitored and who does the monitoring. If the
employee does not comply with the provisions of the agreement, that employee is considered
unfit to work. The employee can be removed at this point with the argument that the
accommodation did not work. The advantage is that an RTW Agreement can provide a win-win
solution. The organization gets to keep an employee in whom it has invested time and money
and the employee gets to keep the job. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC) has implicitly endorsed this approach.
The disadvantage is that the monitoring systems could fail and the employee could act out
violently. This creates legal liability for the organization since it can’t say it didn’t know.
E-3 20
WVP 2/03 STP
TAT Investigation and Response
A Last Chance Agreement (LCA) is similar to an RTW Agreement except the employee has
been terminated for cause. The agreement holds the discipline (the termination) in abeyance as
long as the employee complies with the terms of the agreement. The terms can include a mental
health evaluation and any recommended treatment, along with medication, toxicology screens,
and so on. If the employee violates any part of the agreement, the original discipline is
instituted.
LCAs have their origins in accommodating alcoholic employees and often include Employee
Assistance Program (EAP) participation as a condition of employment so that the employee is
able to receive treatment for the alcoholic condition. Courts and arbitrators have consistently
held that it is important for an employee to have a date on which the LCA terminates since it is
tied to discipline. In the federal system, LCAs generally last two years.
The advantages and disadvantages of an LCA are similar to those of an RTW Agreement. The
major difference is that LCAs are time-limited, and tied to discipline, while RTW Agreements
are ongoing and are based on a medical condition
Offer treatment
There may be times where offering and paying for mental health and/or chemical dependency
treatment is prudent for the organization, even if the subject is no longer working for your
organization.1 If the subject is high risk for violence, managing the mental illness or substance
abuse will dramatically decrease that risk. If you select and pay for the treatment, it also gives
you a measure of control since you will be sending the subject to a provider whom you know
and trust. It is an additional way to obtain information and monitor whether the risk appears to
be increasing or decreasing.
The disadvantage to this is that it further strengthens the link between the organization and the
subject and can help intensify the subject’s preoccupation with the company. Offering posttermination services continues a link that might otherwise be severed. Some organizations
choose to pay for the treatment but set it up in such a way that the subject does not know that the
money comes from the organization.
Use a mediator
Hire a neutral third party to act as a liaison or mediator. Sometimes an employee or former
employee who feels unfairly treated and is contemplating violence really wants to feel heard and
understood. His or her anger at the organization may be so longstanding and intense that no one
in the organization can act as a facilitator or mediator of the situation. Companies that
specialize in acting as a go-between in situations such as this can broker a solution that is
agreeable to all parties in an effort to reduce the chances of violence occurring.
The advantage is that the third party can help develop solutions that had not been considered by
either party and may be in a position to monitor the outcome and provide continuing data on the
subject to the organization.
1
These services exceed those typically included within a routine EAP. See Tab C Chapter 5.
WVP 2/03 STP
E-3 21
Tab E Chapter 3
The disadvantage is that this type of service can be costly and may not yield results. The other
disadvantage is that the subject, knowing that the third party is in the employ of the
organization, may not perceive the third party as truly neutral. This method requires quite a bit
of skill on the part of the third party to win and keep the subject’s trust.
Request a law enforcement interview
Sometimes a visit by security, the police, or other law enforcement personnel, known as a
“knock and talk,” can discourage continued behavior. It may also provide information,
particularly if the interview is conducted in the subject’s home. It can be helpful for the TAT to
know what condition the house is in, who lives there, and if there are signs of mental illness
such as pervasive signs of neglect, or even extreme indicators such as foil on the windows or
wrapped around the television set, which could indicate paranoid delusions.
A police visit may impress upon the subject the seriousness of the behavior; it may convince the
subject to cease.
On the other hand, it may also remove the deterrence factor if the police came and nothing
negative seemed to result. If other possibilities are increasing the subject’s sense of desperation
and anxiety, the chances of acting out might be increased if the subject figures there is nothing
to lose since arrest is pending anyway.
Offer a separation package
Another option to consider is offering a separation package in return for the employee’s
resignation. This can be another way to get an employee who poses a threat out of the
organization, and do it in a non-adversarial way that will not escalate the conflict. The employee
can leave the organization with no damage to dignity and the company can be rid of a bad apple.
The separation package might include salary continuation, agreement not to contest
unemployment benefits, continuing medical benefits, paying for or contributing to the costs of
mental health/chemical dependency treatment, and/or career counseling. It can present a winwin where the employee is encouraged to get on with life and find employment that may be
more suitable and the company is not constantly looking over its shoulder. The risk of anger
continuing to fester should be reduced if the employee feels in control of successfully
negotiating advantageous terms. In time, the anger could subside to become nothing more than
a bad memory, and the employee will no longer present a safety risk.
If the company has engaged a service provider such as a career counselor or outplacement
agency to help the employee transition out of the workplace, these providers are in a position to
help the company continue to monitor the employee’s behavior. The TAT can get a sense of
whether the transition strategy is working or not.
The disadvantage is that this option can cost the company time and money. Many companies
are unwilling to reward bad behavior. The thinking is that the employee should not be paid to
go away as it sets a bad precedent and may encourage others to act out and collect benefits for
doing so. It also continues to link the organization and the subject.
E-3 22
WVP 2/03 STP
TAT Investigation and Response
Companies also struggle with the ethical and moral aspects of helping an employee who is high
risk for violence find employment at another organization. Some argue that this is only passing
a bad employee to another company where the same behaviors may be repeated.
Assist the subject in obtaining SSI benefits
If the decision has been made that the employee can no longer work at your organization and is
mentally ill, he or she may qualify for supplemental security benefits from the government.
Helping an employee obtain these may ease the financial burden of being unemployed.
The downside to this is that in order to be successful at obtaining these benefits, one generally
needs an attorney who is skilled at disability law. This can be an added expense for the
employer, and it is often a lengthy process, sometimes taking years with a series of denials and
appeals before the benefits are awarded.
Assist the subject in obtaining disability retirement benefits
If the subject of your concern is a current employee who you have determined can no longer
work for you, it is useful to explore the possibility of retirement, especially if your company
offers disability retirement. This may allow the employee to leave with some dignity and retain
some benefits.
The disadvantage to this is that it requires the employee to admit that there is something wrong,
either mentally or physically. Most employees who are in the position of being considered a
threat to the organization are so caught up in their rage at the company that they are unwilling to
acknowledge that they have had any role in creating the conflict. They are often unwilling to
cooperate with the process even if a physician has declared them disabled and unable to work.
Write to mental health providers regarding their duty to warn
If the subject is in treatment with a mental health provider, there may be times where it is helpful
to ask your company’s legal counsel to write a letter to the provider documenting the
organization’s concerns about the potential for violence and reminding the provider of his or her
duty to warn or protect victims from imminent danger. This duty was first established by a court
case in California in 19761 and has become part of the mental health code in many states.
Mental health providers are familiar with this doctrine.
The advantage is that it clearly puts the provider on notice and identifies your organization’s
concerns in writing.
The disadvantage is that the mental health provider may see it as an adversarial move. This
strategy is generally used when efforts to gain the provider’s assistance have not worked.
1
Tarasoff v Regents of the U. of Cal., 551 P2d 334 (Cal 1976).
WVP 2/03 STP
E-3 23
Tab E Chapter 3
Terminate the employee
There are times when an organization decides that it is in its best interests and that of other
employees to terminate the subject’s employment.
The advantage to this approach is that the company has taken decisive action and may reduce the
risk of continued acting out. It may limit its liability for future tort claims for violence that the
subject engages in while employed. It can also provide a powerful disincentive for other
employees and may cause them to think twice before engaging in inappropriate behavior.
The downside is that it doesn’t always take care of the problem. There have been numerous
examples of employees who were fired only to come back to their former workplace to kill those
they held responsible. Some organizations increase security measures when they fire an
employee who appears to present a threat. Unfortunately, no one can tell you how long you will
need to leave the extra security in place and often, as costs mount, the decision is made to
discontinue it without any knowledge of whether the former employee continues to present a
threat.
Initiate a corporate restraining order
This is where an organization, not an individual, goes to court to get an order to keep someone
away from a particular person.
Currently California is the only state to offer the option of allowing a company to obtain a
Temporary Restraining Order against an individual.1 However, several other states are looking
at enacting similar laws.
This can be helpful in stalking cases where the stalker is not an employee and the company
wishes to take legal action to keep the stalker away from the work site. If the company is the
petitioner, the focus is not on the target and any anger that is felt may not be as likely to be
directed against the individual target.
As with any kind of legal action, this can escalate the adversarial nature of the relationship and
fuel the hostility and anger that the subject feels. The company needs to weigh its responsibility
to the target along with its responsibility to the rest of the workforce. By putting its name on the
petition as the complainant in a restraining order, the company risks the subject’s anger turning
on its representatives.
Send a “stay away” letter
If you do not want the subject to come on your property, either permanently or while you are
conducting your investigation, it is advisable to notify the subject formally in a letter that is sent
1
Cal. Code of Civil Procedure § 527.8.
E-3 24
WVP 2/03 STP
TAT Investigation and Response
by express mail with a carrier receipt. This provides you with documentation that the subject
has received the instructions.1
By notifying the subject by mail, you avoid putting any of your employees at risk by having to
confront the subject with the request to leave and not come back. Once you have delivered
written notification, the local police can be called as soon as the subject is seen on the premises
and the subject can be arrested for trespassing.
If the subject is a current employee who has had an adversarial relationship with a supervisor, it
is best not to have that supervisor sign the letter. A higher-level manager should sign it to avoid
aggravating what may already be a tense situation.
The advantage is that you have taken steps to keep the subject off the company property and can
increase the safety of those at work. The disadvantage is that this can be construed as an
adversarial action on the part of the organization and as such, has the potential to escalate the
situation.
Obtain a court order
Sometimes it might be practical to obtain a court order for an outpatient commitment or an order
for involuntary admission to a psychiatric facility.
Some states allow outpatient mental health commitments where the court orders an individual to
engage in outpatient mental health treatment, and often medication. Indiana is one example of
this. If the subject does not comply with the court order, the court orders hospitalization. This is
often done with individuals who are chronically mentally ill, who function fairly well as long as
they are medicated, and have a history of non-compliance with medication. There are some
medications that have a sustained action and can be given monthly in the mental health clinic.
All states allow an individual who is deemed to be imminently dangerous to self or others to be
held in a psychiatric facility involuntarily. Most states allow for a 72-hour observation and
assessment period with the institution having the option of petitioning the court for additional
time.
The advantage of a court order for inpatient treatment is that it can buy some time if violence
appears imminent. There have been times when it is fairly certain that hospitalizing a subject
saved others’ lives. It can get a mentally ill person into the mental health system who would not
go any other way. In some states, psychiatric hospitalization would preclude the subject from
ever obtaining a firearms permit, which is another advantage.
What you gain in short-term benefits, you may lose in other ways since this is intrusive and
adversarial and is unlikely to produce long-term benefits. The subject is likely to consider this a
hostile act and any notion that the organization is out to get him or her has now been confirmed.
Hospitals generally do not keep someone for very long unless the person is acutely psychotic.
Otherwise, hospital personnel tend to base their assessments of violence potential on the
1
If you use certified mail with a return receipt, the subject may avoid signing the receipt and the letter will be returned to you. If this
happens you will have to determine how to proceed.
WVP 2/03 STP
E-3 25
Tab E Chapter 3
subject’s self report. In other words, they ask the subject about suicidal or homicidal feelings,
and if the subject denies any such feelings, they determine that they can no longer hold the
person against his or her will. A subject who has been locked up in a psychiatric hospital for 72
hours and then released may come out with even more intense anger at the organization.
An individual who poses a threat is not necessarily mentally ill. Additionally, there are
individuals who may have formal diagnoses of mental illness who are not amenable to treatment
because they do not want it and don’t believe that there is anything wrong with them.
If the subject does not have health insurance coverage for this hospitalization, the organization
may decide to foot the bill. You need to decide quickly how many hospital days the company
will pay for, as the cost can mount rapidly. Another other option may be hospitalization at a
community or state facility for indigents, if the subject qualifies.
The process for a mental health commitment varies from state to state but it is generally not an
easy process and takes the involvement of medical or mental health professionals. In some
jurisdictions, if police witness certain behaviors, they have the authority to take an individual to
a psychiatric facility for observation. Their willingness to do this varies depending upon the
particular law enforcement agency and the particular jurisdiction.
Arrest and probation
If the behavior warrants an arrest and the charge is likely to result in probation, it may be helpful
to enter discussions with the local prosecutor for certain conditions that may reduce the chances
of violence. For example, if the subject is a substance abuser, asking for substance abuse
treatment along with toxicology screens can be appropriate.
The disadvantage is that the subject may see this as more evidence of the organization’s
determination to “get me.” Some corporate attorneys argue that this could create a fiduciary
responsibility by the organization. Note, too, that the prosecutor may not welcome advice from
the TAT.
Felony arrest and incarceration
Some individuals will continue to pose a threat as long as they are not incarcerated. The
advantage of incarceration is that the organization can breathe a sigh of relief and employees can
feel safe knowing that the subject is behind bars.
The disadvantage is that for most subjects who pose a substantial threat, unless the prison time
is lengthy, it may have little deterrence on their behavior. If the subject is arrested and allowed
to bond out, this may increase the chances for violence since it may result in feelings of “there’s
little to lose.”
E-3 26
WVP 2/03 STP
TAT Investigation and Response
2. Stalking
Stalking is the most common reason for a TAT to get involved in dealing with violence by a
non-employee, but it can also happen between employees, or between employees and clients.1
The strategies outlined below offer some options for dealing with such a situation.
Note: In situations where the stalker is an employee you will likely want to use a combination of
the strategies outlined below, along with strategies in the previous sections.
a. Strategies for the target
Take personal responsibility for safety
This is often one of the most difficult hurdles. A target wants to believe that the police can
offer adequate protection, that mental health professionals can accurately predict violence,
and that the criminal justice system will operate efficiently. It is common to feel victimized
and believe that it is not fair that the situation demands significant changes in lifestyle. After
all, why should the victim have to move, get a different car, or change job location?
The truth of the matter is that it isn’t fair; not at all. But at this point, the critical piece is not
about fairness; it is about safety and the only way that the target is going to be safe is to take
responsibility for personal safety.
Since this involves a major shift in thinking and feelings, it is helpful for the target to work
with an Employee Assistance Program (EAP) or other counselor who is skilled and
experienced in stalking situations.2
The target can be referred to the security department or a personal protection specialist to
learn ways in which to increase personal safety and reduce vulnerability.
Cease all contact with the stalker
Often, the target has inadvertently encouraged the stalking. It is all too easy to be convinced
that a pursuer will go away if persuaded. One more conversation will do it.
In reality, according to Gavin de Becker, one of the United State’s foremost experts on
security, any further communication will be perceived as negotiation.3 Negotiations are
about possibilities. If the relationship is over, then there is nothing to talk about. In a
stalking situation, almost any contact from the target is seen as progress. If the stalker calls
30 times, then the target finally calls back with a request to stop calling, the stalker has just
learned that the price of a callback is 30 phone calls. If the target tells the pursuer eight times
that there will be no further contact, the target has just entered into seven negotiations.
1
2
3
See Tab F Chapter 1 for a discussion of domestic violence, which is involved in many stalking cases.
EAPs are discussed in Tab C Chapter 5.
See Tab A Chapter 2.
WVP 5/04 STP
E-3 27
Tab E Chapter 3
In addition, targets who continually restate the rejection are only facilitating the pursuer’s
continued emotional investment. They are perpetuating the fantasy that the stalker has in
which the two of them are linked together.
Many stalkers easily misinterpret information. The target may believe that if the stalker
witnesses a new relationship, the stalker will know the old relationship is over: The stalker’s
interpretation is that as soon as that new partner is out of the way, the target will be available
again. A determined stalker could make plans to get the new partner out of the way so that
the target is again available.
In order to stop contact, the target must do exactly that: stop contact. There is no clearer way
to communicate that no further contact is wanted than to stop communicating.
Reduce access possibilities
The target must do whatever it takes to make access difficult for the pursuer. Referring
female targets to seek services at a domestic violence shelter cannot be emphasized strongly
enough, since these facilities offer the expertise and supportive services that are essential in
such situations.1 They will also provide advocacy, which is sometimes difficult for the TAT
to provide since it has to be concerned with the safety of the organization as well as the
target. Sometimes the needs of the target and the needs of the organization do not intersect.
Some other examples of ways to reduce accessibility include: moving, using a private
mailbox service as the address of residence, and changing all records (work, bank, property,
driver’s license, voting registration, and so on) to reflect the new address. Someone other
than the target should answer the phone, and respond to inquiries about the target’s schedule
without giving out any information. The target can use a fictitious name for home deliveries
to screen for presents that the subject may send.
Other strategies include getting a dog, varying routines and routes so that movements are
unpredictable, not walking to the car alone, and carrying a cell phone to call for help.
There are dozens of other possible strategies, but the basic idea is that the harder the pursuer
has to work to find the target, the less likely it is that the behavior will persist and the more
likely the target will be alerted if it does. Some stalkers who find the victim to be very
difficult to access give up and end up stalking another target.
In extreme cases, there are domestic violence advocates who specialize in legally relocating a
target. It is now legal to change one’s social security number in situations where domestic
violence has occurred. Some advocates will help the target create a fictitious death, complete
with obituary and funeral, so that the stalker believes that the target is dead and will no longer
pursue. Obviously, this is a drastic measure that is used in only the most extreme cases since
it involves giving up contact with family and friends and relocating.
1
F-1 Supplement 3 provides contact information for domestic violence resource and referral agencies throughout the United States and
Canada. Employers should make it a point to identify such organizations near their workplace(s) and inform workers of those
resources.
E-3 28
WVP 5/04 STP
TAT Investigation and Response
Consider a restraining order
Research shows that the effectiveness of restraining orders (also called orders of protection or
protective orders in some states) has been mixed. Some studies indicate that they have been
helpful under certain circumstances, while other studies indicate that they have not. Most of
the studies on restraining orders have been non-random studies of short duration in domestic
violence situations. Overall, the research indicates that when taken as a whole, restraining
orders tend to work. When limited to stalking cases, the research shows that protective
orders tend not to be effective.
As with any intervention, restraining orders have the potential to escalate the situation. Think
about it for a minute. You have a person who is so sensitive to rejection that relinquishing
the relationship is too difficult, and now that rejection has just been made public. The
restraining order may be served at work in front of co-workers or at home in front of friends
or neighbors. This sort of psychological loss-of-face can intensify the situation and increase
the risk of violence.
Some things to consider when trying to determine whether or not to pursue a restraining order
are:
 Have there been restraining orders in the past? If so, how effective were they?
 Has there been a history of physical violence toward the target?
 How preoccupied or obsessed is the subject?
 How good is the enforcement in the jurisdiction where it will be served?
If the restraining order did not work in the past, it is unlikely to work in the future. Relying
on a restraining order when the subject is obsessed with the target and has already used
violence will rarely prove effective. As the judge noted in a famous stalking case that ended
with death, “Paper does not stop bullets.”
If the police are not particularly good about enforcement of restraining orders or if it involves
multiple jurisdictions, this will diminish the effectiveness of the order.
One of the major advantages of restraining orders is that even if they don’t work they can be
used to facilitate arrest and other interventions.
WVP 5/04 STP
E-3 29
Tab E Chapter 3
b. Strategies for the Organization
Relocate the target
The target can be relocated, permanently or temporarily, to another part of the organization.
In order for this strategy to work so that it protects the target without endangering the new coworkers, as few as possible within the organization can be allowed to know where the target
has gone. The stalker must be able to find out only that the target is no longer in the old
location.
Communicate with other employees
If there is the possibility that there may be an approach at the worksite, it is important to
identify employees, such as security personnel and receptionists, who would most likely
come in contact with the pursuer, and to train them how to respond to and who to notify of an
approach.
As other employees become aware of the situation, their feelings of apprehension will
naturally increase as they worry about their own personal safety. One strategy is to hold
periodic meetings with the affected employees to assure them that the organization takes the
situation seriously and is concerned about their safety as well. Management, along with
security and EAP personnel, can conduct this meeting. Management can reiterate their
commitment to a safe workplace; Security can talk about general ways to increase their
personal safety and the results of any safety audit that was done at the worksite. EAP
personnel can talk about anxiety and give some tips on ways to manage it. A general
question-and-answer session can usually be kept sufficiently vague so as to not violate
anyone’s privacy or expose strategies, yet still provide reassurance to the other employees.
Any employees who are having prolonged difficulties can be referred to the EAP for an
individual assessment.
Restraining orders
The same concerns about restraining orders apply for organizations as for individuals (see
above): there are pros and cons that need to be weighed carefully.
If a restraining order is issued, the time immediately following the issuance is highly
emotionally charged. You may want to consider surveillance and ensure the target is
completely unavailable to the subject.
E-3 30
WVP 5/04 STP
TAT Investigation and Response
Separate the target
There may be situations when, despite your best efforts, the situation just remains too
dangerous to risk putting the other employees in harm’s way. Efforts to make the target less
accessible may not have worked, or the target may have refused to take responsibility for
personal safety by being unwilling to make necessary lifestyle changes. Whatever the
reasons, the organization has an obligation to provide a safe workplace for its employees. If
one employee is keeping the organization from that goal, it may be time to separate that
employee from the organization.1
The times to consider separation are when:
 violence is probable,
 felony arrest and incarceration is unlikely to happen,
 civil commitment is unlikely to be helpful,
 a restraining order is unlikely to be obeyed,
 the worksite cannot be completely secured,
 others at work would be in danger if an attack occurs,
 the steps the target is taking outside of work increase the risk at work, and/or
 the target refuses to make the necessary lifestyle changes.
F. Closing the Case
Although some threat management experts will say that a case is never closed, the reality is that
organizations have finite resources and it makes sense to allocate those resources in the most
efficient manner. The following are questions to for the TAT to ask and answer when considering
closing a case:
1.
What has changed in the subject’s life that appears to lessen the likelihood of violence?
How do these changes affect the individual, situation, and/or setting?
2.
What components of the case management plan seemed to have had an impact? In what
way?
3.
What circumstances might occur that would once again put the subject at greater risk for
contemplating, planning, or attempting violence toward the original target or another target?
4.
Are there ways to detect that the subject is once again moving toward violence?
5.
Are there supports in place (or that can be developed) that will be known and available to
the subject when the subject is at risk of moving toward violent behavior?
Once a case is closed, the organization should retain relevant files to access if the problem recurs.
There are likely to be privacy and other issues involved in doing so.2
1
2
Please see Tab C Chapter 4 for additional information on terminations. You will need to consider carefully the potential liabilities for
such a termination, and the inducements necessary to avoid such liabilities.
See Tab B Chapter 4.
WVP 5/04 STP
E-3 31
Tab E Chapter 3
IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLIST
1.
Determine the details of the precipitating event.
Yes
Have we determined:





2.

No

What happened?
When it happened?
Who reported the incident?
Is that person credible?
Possible motivations for the incident?
Assemble detailed information about the subject.
Have we assembled identifying information?







Have we assembled background information?















How stable is the person’s current living situation?
How stable is the employment situation?
Is there an appropriate support situation?
Is there anyone who could be a positive influence?
Has the subject experienced recent losses/failures?
What is the financial situation?
 Any pending crises?
 Any evidence of downward progression?
 If the subject is a former employee, do we know:
E-3 32

Education
Military history
Employment history
History of violence or harassing behavior
Criminal history
Substance abuse history
Psychiatric history
Weapons expertise
Relationship history
Have we assembled information about the subject’s current life
situation?






Name of the subject
Address and phone number
Date of birth and Social Security Number
Place of employment, name and phone number of the supervisor
Emergency contact and phone number
Physical description or photo
Make, model, and license plate of vehicle
WVP 10/02 STP
TAT Investigation and Response
what has happened since the subject left our employ?
whether the subject has continued one-sided communication?
WVP 5/04 STP
E-3 33
Tab E Chapter 3
Yes
Have we assembled information about attack-related behaviors?





 Have we determined the accessibility of the target?
 Have we determined how familiar the subject is with the target’s
routines?
 Does the target believe the subject capable of violence?
 Is the target willing to make lifestyle changes?



If this is a case of domestic battery or stalking, assemble additional information.
Have there been three or more instances of violence in past year?
Has the target ever needed medical attention because of violence by the
subject?
Has the subject conducted surveillance on the target?
Has the relationship between subject and target recently ended?
Have there been calls, visits, letters, or packages to the worksite?
Is the target living in a secret location?
Has the subject ever killed or injured a pet?
Has the subject ever assaulted non-family members?
4.

Is there an unusual interest in violence?
Any evidence of ideas or plans for violence?
Any communication of ideas of violence to others?
Is there an identifiable target?
Has there been any contact or attempts to contact target by subject?
Have we determined the vulnerability of the target?
3.
No








































Determine a course of action.
Should we:
conduct a security audit?
identify ways to reduce or eliminate the stimulus?
try direct confrontation?
maintain contact with friends or relatives?
keep in touch with the treating physician/mental health provider?
monitor the situation by:
 maintaining communication with the subject?
 using pretext calls?
 using surveillance?
offer leave with pay?
obtain a fitness for duty evaluation?
develop a Return to Work Agreement?
develop a Last Chance Agreement?
offer treatment?
use a mediator?
E-3 34
WVP 5/04 STP
TAT Investigation and Response
request a law enforcement interview?
WVP 5/04 STP


E-3 35
Tab E Chapter 3
offer a separation package?
offer to assist the subject in:
 obtaining SSI benefits?
 obtaining disability retirement benefits?
write to mental health providers regarding their duty to warn?
terminate the employee?
initiate a corporate restraining order?
send a “stay away” letter?
obtain a court order?
request that the subject be arrested?
5.
Yes
No




























Determine the long-term impact on the company.
Have we checked to see how much security and/or treatment the
company is prepared to pay for?
Does the employee have coverage for the course of treatment
suggested?
Does the company have a fiduciary responsibility?
Do we need to provide intervention for the target or for other
employees?
Do we need to change our physical security arrangements?
If the subject has been incarcerated, do we need to make contingency
plans to cover the time of his or her release from custody?
E-3 36
WVP 5/04 STP