Chapter 10
The Situational Assessment and Management Team
Abstract
After training employees on the violence prevention program and giving particular attention to warning behaviors commonly associated with those moving toward violence, it is vital to build the team that will assess and manage the cases that are reported. We refer to these teams as the situational assessment and management (SAM) team. Such teams rightly would include responsible representatives from the various groups within the organization with the ability to make timely decisions, such as legal, security, human resources, and facilities. Each team member must be trained in the proper method of assessing and managing cases of disturbing or threatening behavior, and the team must work as one unit with input from all. The objectives of the team are twofold: (1) to prevent violence and (2) to respond both during and after an incident has occurred. These two components are also called backstage and onstage.
Keywords
intimidation
investigation of threats
investigation
situational assessment and management
threat assessment
threat management
threat response
violence prevention
“Any committee is only as good as the most knowledgeable, determined and vigorous person on it. There must be somebody who provides the flame.”
—Lady Bird Johnson
“If you want to kill any idea in the world, get a committee working on it.”
—Charles Kettering
This chapter begins with two rather contradictory quotes, both of which have merit. Lady Bird Johnson is correct when she stated, “There must be somebody who provides the flame.” If you are reading this book, then more than likely, you are the flame. But Charles Kettering’s quote is also apropos. In many organizations, committees are where ideas go to die. The situational assessment and management (SAM) team, however, may be dealing with life and death issues, imminent threats, people who are in danger, and people who are in fear. A sluggish committee has no place in these situations. So how do you avoid the committee conundrum?
First, create a team, not a committee. Teams work together to accomplish specific goals and everyone on the team needs to understand that this team may be literally dealing with someone’s life or death. Second, set ground rules for how the team will operate and have everyone sign off. You and your team are free to set your own ground rules, but some of your ground rules might include the following:
• A statement of purpose, which clearly outlines that the SAM team is to provide safety and security to the organization, and occasionally this must be done under dire circumstances. When dire circumstances are present, this becomes the team’s priority above everything else in which the individual team members may be involved.
• Everyone gets to have a chance to speak and offer his or her opinion.
• Every opinion or idea has some merit and should be discussed.
• No plan will be perfect, so choose the best plan rather than waiting for a perfect plan to appear. If we were living in a perfect world, this team would not be needed.
• Sometimes a plan that accomplishes the goal of prevention or security may be labeled unfair, based on past practices and precedents. Remind everyone that you are not working in a perfect universe. It is unfair that this problem you are trying to solve came up and it is unfair that you have to make decisions that are not fair, but that’s the situation that you are facing.
• Be able to articulate why you chose a particular plan.
• Understand the weaknesses of the plan and have backup tactics ready should a weakness be exploited.
• If a team member responds that something in the plan won’t work, then that member should also offer an alternative which will.
• This team will be tackling issues that the organization has not confronted in the past. Therefore, when discussing the merits of a plan, a rationalization such as, “We’ve never done it this way in the past,” is a moot point as the organization has never faced the current circumstances in the past either.
• If the team gets off course, then someone needs to call for a course correction.
The Assessment Process
Assembling the Team
The mission of your SAM team is twofold: (1) prevention and (2) response during and after a threat or violent incident.
The prevention or backstage mission is made up of four parts and will require representation from many functional groups. This may seem like too many people to have involved in your team; you might imagine that this many people might have a hard time finding agreement on all of the issues. There is some truth to this, however, without their direct participation, each of these functional groups is capable of throwing rationalizations, objections, and denials at your proposals later on. It is better to have them onboard at the beginning when they will have the benefit of participating in all of the discussions and agreements that are made by the SAM team. Also, they are participating in the backstage portion of the mission, and although there is some time sensitivity to their mission, they are not the portion of the team that is dealing with an imminent threat, which will be a part of a smaller and more focused group.
Backstage Team and Tasks
We recommend that the following backstage tasks should be carried out by the backstage team, who are members of different functional groups in the business.
Enhancing Policies, Procedures, and Processes
Human resources—In most organizations, the human resource team is the gatekeeper of policies and they are the most familiar with how policies are written, approved, and disseminated to the rest of the organization. Additionally, they must approve any policies that touch the associates of the organization.
Employee relations and legal—The employee relations and legal departments sometimes have the same function. Not all organizations have both departments, but representatives from either or both departments need to be a part of the team to ensure that all recommended policies, procedures, and processes are legal and do not violate any laws, government regulations, or collective bargaining agreements.
Risk—The risk department should be included as they usually have the most interaction with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). As they will be the first part of your organization approached by OSHA to audit or investigate your violence prevention plan, their input will be invaluable.
Security—Because the security department is in charge of the safekeeping of your staff and premises, their expertise in all facets of physical security and investigations is tantamount.
Operations—Many times the operations office is overlooked, but they are the ones who will feel the brunt of any changes. If the recommended policies, procedures, and processes are not operationally practical, they will not be executed effectively, thus voiding all of the work by the backstage team and rendering your violence prevention plan ineffective.
Enhancing Physical Security
Security—The security team is knowledgeable of the gaps in physical security and will have suggestions for contractors and hardware that will remedy the issues.
Employee relations and legal—Similar to their function regarding policies, procedures, and processes, the employee relations or legal department’s participation is necessary to ensure that all recommended physical security enhancements are legal and do not violate any laws, government regulations, or collective bargaining agreements.
Facilities management—The most common physical security enhancements are made to video recording and access control systems. Sometimes the facility may be getting these systems for the first time; others may be getting a larger, state-of-the-art system. Regardless, any changes or additions to the premises necessitate that facilities management be a part of the discussion to ensure that the premises can accommodate the systems that are being proposed.
Information technology—Any hardware or software enhancements will involve information technology (IT), whether it is the networking of video and alarm systems or server connectivity for a new access control systems. The IT team needs to be in on the beginning of any systems-related discussions.
Construction—If anything is going to be physically installed, such as a conduit run, or if any alterations are made to the facility, the construction team needs to be included in the early discussions in order to make your installations go as smoothly as possible.
Finance—As with everything you try to do in an organization, it always comes down to money. If you are lucky enough to have been granted a budget, there will frequently be overruns. If you haven’t been given a budget, you will need to find money somewhere. This is where a savvy finance representative is extremely beneficial. This individual may be able to find budgeted funds somewhere that are not being used or are being underused. A good finance person can save the day!
Enhancing Staff and Management Training
Human resources and staff member education—Larger organizations generally have an education department solely committed to the development of training programs for their associates. In smaller companies, the development of training programs may fall within the human resource department. In either regard, you need to have the gatekeeper of the organization’s training function on board.
Security—The members of the security department will have much of the content expertise for the training program and thus belong on the portion of the team that is developing the training.
Operations—Operations needs to be a part of the training development team to ensure that the way the training will be delivered is feasible to work within the constraints of the operations of the business. This is not to say that they can or should veto the training, but if the training format or length of the training cannot practically be executed within the business, then the members of the operations department need to articulate those reasons and help find a solution to those problems.
Finance—As with physical security, finance is necessary to help you find any funding that you may need for the training program.
Onstage Team and Tasks
We recommend that the part of your SAM team that will be responding to threats and has what we refer to as the onstage mission responsibilities, be made up of representatives from four groups: security, human resources, legal department, and operations.
1. Security—The security team will be responsible for investigating the threat and the person making the threat. They will also play a role in helping to determine how best to respond and manage the threat.
2. Human resources and/or employee benefits—The human resource and/or employee benefits team will help put together the threat response and management plan. They will also be key in helping to some fundamental components, such as severance packages and psychological counseling plans.
3. Employee relations and/or legal—The employee relations and/or legal department representatives will also play a key role in the development of response and management plans from their perspective of ensuring that everything being done does not violate any laws, government regulations, or collective bargaining agreements.
4. Operations—Operations needs to be a part of the response and management plans as operations will usually play a part in the plan’s execution or be affected by the plan. The team members from operations need to understand what is being proposed, understand how it will affect operations, and make sure the plan is executable by their staff. If the plan is not operationally feasible, you need to know that as the plan is being formulated so you can find options to work around the issues. You don’t want to spend valuable time putting together a plan only to find out at the point of execution that is not feasible.
Addressing the Immediate Threat
This is a fairly short discussion. If the threat is imminent, what needs to be done to immediately secure the premises? For example,
• Do you need armed security?
• Are off-duty police officers needed?
• Should the facility be put on lockdown?
One of the most overlooked tactics is to remove the person being targeted from the facility. In instances of pursuit by a former relationship partner or coworker, the quickest way to make the facility safe is to remove the intended subject. The former relationship partners and coworkers have an uncanny ability to know when their target is in the building and when they are not—so get them out, send them home, send them on vacation, send them on an extended business trip, and so forth This is one of those instances where your response plan might be considered to be unfair to the targeted associate. It might be, however, it is also unfair that this individual’s presence on the premises puts everyone else’s lives at risk. As mentioned earlier, there are no perfect plans so choose the best plan available.
The Investigation
A prompt and thorough investigation is necessary to limit the liability exposure that your organization may eventually face. It shows that you handled the complaint in a timely manner; it proves that prompt remedial action was taken; it proves that the company’s internal complaint procedure is effective; and it shows that appropriate decisions were made via the facts determined by your thorough investigation.
The first rule of investigations, situational assessments, and building a threat response plan is a simple one: Make sure that what you do does not make the situation worse. Let’s start with some bad news: You can’t learn the art and science of conducting investigations, interviewing people, and detecting deception from a book. Whoever is conducting the investigation needs to be professionally trained, whether that individual is someone from your organization or a contracted third-party investigator. When we say professionally trained, we mean professionally trained in the art and science of interviewing and interrogation and professionally trained to conduct investigations and interviews in the private sector. Agents of the government, such as law enforcement and military investigators, have an expanded range of authority and power to investigate criminal or national security matters that are not granted to private sector investigators. For example, if the person making the threat does not work for your organization, you as an agent of a private sector business, do not have the power or authority to make that person submit to your interview. Whoever is conducting your investigation needs to understand and abide by the differences between public sector and private sector power of authority. There are also people who have not been properly trained who tend to use investigation techniques garnered from movies and television shows, which are at best unethical and in the worst case, illegal. Those techniques include, but are not limited to:
• Promises of leniency that the investigator never intends to keep
• Intimidation by threat of extreme prosecution or harsh treatment
• Inferences to vast amounts of nonexisting, incriminating evidence
If detrimental employment action resulted from confessions or other information gained via these tactics, the business can be exposed to legal liability and damage to its reputation and brand. The courts will most certainly rule that the investigator used tactics that could cause an innocent person to confess in order to avoid the realization of the threats that had been made. They can also take a person who already perceives that he or she has a serious grievance with the organization and escalate this individual’s behavior to the point of violent actions up to and including homicide. If an associate, who already exhibits the warning behaviors discussed in Chapters 5 and 6, perceives that his or her career is being harmed by a supervisor or coworker and now experiences this type of intimidation at the hands of someone representing the upper management of the company, then that individual may feel that the only alternative left is some type of violence. Having lost any hope of getting a fair shake from the company can leave these individuals in very dangerous states of mind.
Business-related investigations must be handled with tact, they must be handled ethically, and they must allow the person being investigated to present his or her side of the story. There are a number of companies that teach the skills and ethical tactics required for a private sector investigation. One of the standouts is Wicklander-Zulawski & Associates (www.w-z.com). They offer their seminars all across the United States. If you want to get training for your organization, you can access their schedule via their website to see when they will be holding a seminar near you. Additionally, if you have a number of people within your organization you desire to train, arrangements can be made for them to come to you.
While we are not going to attempt to teach interviewing and investigation techniques via this chapter, we do wish to discuss some things that should be included in investigations of threats and those that pose them. One of the very first things that should be done is to trace the threat back to its point of origination. You should understand that by the time the threat is related to you, it is at least fourth-hand information and everyone who passed it along has added to or subtracted from the original statement that has been considered to be a threat. (See the following box for an example.) Some people are predisposed to panicking when a supposed threat is made, so the threat may get embellished as it passes through their hands. Other people may be in denial that an act of violence could ever happen where they work, so they may downplay the threats when they pass them along.
Background Checks
The next piece we want to discuss is conducting background checks. At some point during the investigation or situational assessment phase, someone will ask about conducting a background check on the subject being investigated and assessed. A background check should be done, but you need to understand the limitations of the background check. The first thing to understand is that past history is not as relevant as recent history. For example, the United States fought two wars against England—in 1776 and in 1812. That is past history. In recent history Great Britain is our closest ally. So if you are conducting a background check on a 40-year-old man who has a conviction for assault and battery that occurred when he was 18 and drunk at a party, his history actually shows that he has not chosen violence as a means of problem resolution for the past 22 years. The only important part to note about past history is what, if anything, the subject says about it. If the individual talks about it, does the person accept responsibility for his or her actions or does the person blame his or her past problems on other people or institutions, such as the police or a prior employer?
Conversely, recent history is very important. For example, we were called to consult on an organization’s associate who threatened to kill his manager. In looking at the associate’s address, it was recognized as being a halfway house for parolees just out of prison. A background check showed that the associate had been paroled 2 months earlier after serving 18 months for throwing his former manager through a plate glass window. That recent history was very useful in determining whether this individual was capable of violence and it was also useful in getting his parole violated and having him sent back to prison.
The next thing to understand about background checks is that a lack of violent history does not mean that the person is not capable of violence. We can find examples of this all through history, but let’s start our examination with the Columbine High School killers. Prior to their shootings at Columbine, did they have a recorded history of violence? What about the Virginia Tech killer or the Boston Marathon bombers or the Aurora, Colorado, movie theater killer, or the killer at Mother Emmanuel Church in Charleston, South Carolina? We could go on, but the point is clear. Just because someone hasn’t been violent in the recent past doesn’t mean the person can’t become violent in the future. As we will discuss in the section on situational assessments, the most important factors to investigate are the person’s current words and actions, the context in which those words and actions are being made, and the environment in which the person making the threats is immersed.
In the following sections, we’ll discuss the elements that should be present in a thorough investigation.
Guiding Principles
We have determined that there are three principles to guide your investigation:
• Principle 1—Your purpose is to reveal the truth.
• Principle 2—Be objective and do not let yourself be influenced by the conjecture or bias of someone else. Do not go into the investigation with any preconceived notion of what the truth is and do not be influenced by anyone who makes statements of bias toward anyone whom you will be interviewing. In our experience, whenever someone tells us, “she is making this all up” or “he is bad news and we need to get rid of him,” they are dead wrong in about 50% of the incidents. Let the facts bring you to your own valid conclusions.
• Principle 3—Conduct and document investigations that are thorough, fair, and will stand up under any scrutiny. If someone claims that unfair disciplinary actions were taken as a result of your investigation or, if a violent incident occurs and your organization is sued, your investigation will be put under a microscope. A clear and thoroughly documented report detailing your exhaustive investigation can stop claims of a negligent investigation dead in their tracks.
Reasons for a Prompt Investigation
There are several very important reasons why you should conduct an investigation as soon after an incident as possible:
• With each passing day, evidence begins to disappear either intentionally or by mistake. Documents get lost, electronic evidence gets deleted, or people discard the piece of evidence not realizing its importance.
• An early, thorough investigation leads to a better assessment of facts and liability so that your organization can make consistent and informed decisions
• A timely investigation helps protect you from accusations that you did not take the matter seriously.
Gathering Evidence
Depending on the nature of the investigation, there may be many different pieces of evidence to collect. Some, but by no means all, of the evidence available might include:
• The subject’s personnel file that should contain his or her work history (including other places the person may have lived), performance appraisals, and any disciplinary history
• Incident reports detailing accurate accounts of any incidents that happened in the past
• Documented recollections of witnesses who can provide statements into current issues, including additional information about the demeanor of the subject as well as any outside interests or recent behavioral changes
• The schedule of who was working when incidents occurred and may be potential additional witnesses
• And electronic media, which may provide greater insight into mindset of the subject, such as:
• Voicemails
• Emails
• Text messages
• Social media screenshots
If a video record exists, it is a key evidentiary resource that must be retrieved and protected as soon as possible. The inability to provide the video of the incident may tend to create a perception that the organization is hiding something. It is always best to check video records of all areas, not just the one in question, so that you can:
• Determine if a video record of the alleged issue exists anywhere on the premises. Failure to do so means that your investigation was not thorough.
• Identify who was in the area where the incident occurred, as they should be interviewed as potential witnesses.
• Identify where other people were at the time of the incident as this might rule them out as witnesses.
• Confirm or refute any current or future statements of fact.
And again, the video records should be saved regardless of whether or not they prove the allegation being investigated. If, and this is very important, the incident was of a serious or sensitive nature, such as an incident resulting in the death or serious injury of someone, the system’s hard drive should be swapped out and saved to preserve the integrity of the recorded evidence.
Interviewing the Alleged Victim
Before interviewing the alleged victim, it is important to recognize if the alleged victim is, in fact, being harassed or abused. This is a delicate subject that the alleged victim would probably prefer not talking about, especially to a stranger. The alleged victim is undoubtedly experiencing some anxiety about coming forward. Recognize this and thank the individual for having the strength to talk to you. Be empathetic but neutral until all of the facts are revealed.
Most victims are concerned about retaliation from the accused or even from the business in terms of their peers, supervisors, and managers. Reassure them that your organization has a policy of no retaliation (see Chapter 1; this is OSHA mandated), however, make sure they understand that you cannot protect them if they do not report any perceived acts of retaliation.
If the person being accused is or used to be an employee, you will want to determine if there is any prior history or relationship between the alleged victim and the accused. You will also want to determine if there is any ulterior motive for making a claim against the accused, such as a desire to transfer to another department or facility or to provide leverage against any poor performance reviews. Always ask if there is physical evidence, such as notes, cards, emails, text messages, social media posting, and so forth. In today’s world of Internet communication, there may be an abundance of electronically stored evidence, so be thorough in your pursuit of any possible physical or electronic evidence that may be available.
Interviewing the Accused
As mentioned earlier in this chapter, if the person accused of threats or other misconduct is not an employee of your organization, you may not be able to interview this individual. If you cannot interview the person, your investigation will center on interviews with the alleged victim and witnesses, background information that can be obtained and assessed, and physical or electronic evidence relating to the threat(s) and disturbing behavior.
If you can interview the accused, then this is where your investigator must be well trained to understand the ethical tactics that can be used and experienced enough to know how to control the interview, detect deception, and motivate the subject to be truthful. Unfortunately as mentioned earlier, you cannot learn this in a book. Please get your investigation staff professionally trained.
Final Thoughts on Investigations
You may be called on to testify about the finding of your investigation and how you conducted your investigation. You will need to be able to articulate good reasons for the determinations that were taken as a result of your investigation and articulate good reasons for everything you did during the interview, such as why you interviewed some people and not others. Because of that, treat every interview as if it may be the last time you may be able to talk to the person. The individuals might move away or decide not to talk to you again. Before ending an interview, take a moment to think and determine if there is anything else about which you need to inquire.
Final things to remember include the following:
• Precise factual details are important; conjecture or opinions have very little value when they are not backed up by facts.
• Beware of the most common and serious omissions and mistakes that mark your investigation as not being thorough:
• A comment or fact is mentioned in the case report but not documented in any statements. If the person who supplied that fact will not document it in writing, then that should be so noted in the case report. Otherwise there is no documentary evidence to support what is being purported as factual evidence.
• Allegations mentioned verbally or in statements are not followed up on and/or the follow-up is not documented in the case report. Any allegations by anyone interviewed, whether the allegations are made in writing or made verbally, must be followed up on and so documented in your case report.
• Names mentioned during an interview as having been involved, as having witnessed, as having knowledge, or as having given permission or direction are not followed up on and/or not documented in the case report.
In other words before your investigation is completed, make sure to follow up on any and all loose ends!
Conducting Threat Assessments
It is important to recognize that many threats are uttered by people who are not actually capable of committing an act of violence. The threats are spoken out of anger and frustration and are only meant to intimidate and/or cause anxiety. Proper assessment training is needed to be able to determine which threats are serious and which aren’t. Unfortunately, this cannot be learned from a book. We cannot overstate the necessity of a professional threat assessment, and your relationship with a threat assessment professional should be established sooner rather than later. The moment a death threat is uttered is the wrong time to start vetting assessment companies and having your legal department begin combing through their contracts. We also recognize, however, that in some instances, the threat is imminent and you may not have the time to get a threat assessment team on site. So, while professional assessment training is needed for your staff and/or a professional assessment company should be on call, there are a few key components to a threat assessment that we can give you.
Here are seven important questions to be answered in the course of your threat assessment. You may not have the ability to get answers for all of them, but if you can answer three or four of them, you can generally get enough of a picture to determine your next steps.
1. What are the current words being used in the threat and what are the threatener’s current actions? The stakes are high if the threatener is using profane language, making direct threats, and becoming violent with inanimate objects.
2. What is the context in which the threats and actions are taking place? Context is everything. Words or actions taken out of context can twist their meaning. If someone in the office remarks to another employee something such as, “I’m going to you on Saturday,” then that sounds pretty bad. However if the threat was made in the context of a golf match they have arranged for Saturday morning, then no real homicidal intention is present.
3. What is going on in the environment in which the threatener is living? Are there additional stressors in the person’s life? For example,
Is the person about to lose his or her job?
Has the individual lost a loved one? Has the person been jilted by a lover or spouse?
Has the individual recently found him- or herself in dire financial straits and is about to lose his or her home or have his or her car repossessed?
Have there been recent acts of workplace violence reported in the media?
4. Does the threatener have a perceived grievance against the company or someone connected to the company and feels that he or she “owes them a bloodbath”?
5. Does the threatener feel that there are no other resources available to him or her other than violence? Has the individual tried to resolve this issue through the company or other avenues and been rejected?
6. Does the threatener have any fear of the penalties for his or her actions? Check witnesses and social media pages to see if the person expressed feelings of martyrdom or expressed no fear of the police, courts, and prison time.
7. Does the threatener have the capacity to make the threat a reality? Has the individual recently acquired the implements to carry out the threats or does the person have any special training that would help him or her accomplish the threat? For example, if a threat to blow up the threatener’s manager’s car is made, does the threatener have the training and access to explosives to actually make that threat a reality? Do not ignore that threat until you have answered those questions.
Let’s apply these seven questions to the case study presented in Chapter 1 and see how it could have been assessed. The following box is a recap of what was commonly known at the time of Amanda Brown’s murder.
Let’s see how many of the seven questions can be answered in order to determine an appropriate course of action.
1. What are the current words being used in the threat and what are her ex-husband’s current actions? Actually it is not known if a threat has been made, but it is known that he is calling incessantly and sounds enraged to the receptionist who takes his calls.
2. What is the context in which the threats and actions are taking place? It is known or should have been known that Amanda just moved and got a permanent restraining order, therefore the only place her ex-husband knows to find her is at the workplace.
3. What is going on in the environment in which her ex-husband is living? Amanda had divorced him and has now gotten a permanent restraining order barring him from making any contact with her.
4. Does her ex-husband have a perceived grievance against the company or someone connected to the company and feels that he “owes them a bloodbath”? He has no grievance against the company, but his past history shows that he physically assaulted Amanda on many occasions.
5. Does Amanda’s ex-husband feel that there are no other resources available to him other than violence? A civil court took her side and granted her divorce and a criminal court took her side and issued her a restraining order that was delivered by a sheriff’s deputy. In his mind, the entire justice system is against him.
6. Does her ex-husband have any fear of the penalties for his actions? This is tough to completely know, although he assaulted her during the tenure of the temporary restraining order.
7. Does Amanda’s ex-husband have the capacity to make the threat a reality? Well, we do not know of any direct threat, but we do know that he is calling incessantly and is enraged.
Based on what you have garnered from answering the preceding seven questions, which of the following would you do?
1. Not think much of it because the facility is in a low-crime neighborhood and, after all, Amanda had the permanent restraining order to protect her.
2. Notify the police and ask them to frequently drive by the facility.
3. Tell Amanda to stay home until you have more time to assess the situation, assess her ex-husband, and determine an appropriate course of action.
If you answered “C” then congratulations, you just saved Amanda Brown’s life.
..................Content has been hidden....................
You can't read the all page of ebook, please click here login for view all page.