School and Workplace Violence: Assessment, Prediction, and Reporting of Violence

1. School and Workplace Violence: Assessment, Prediction, and Reporting of Violence KPA Teleconference August 20, 2007 D. Ida Dickie Spalding University

2. Epidemic or Not • The media promotes the problem of school violence or work place violence as an epidemic. • The media’s inaccurate depiction of the issue contributes to an increased fear in the general public • The reality: Base rate is very low

3. School/Workplace Violence • Devoe et al., (2003)- Children between 5 and 19 were 70 times more likely to be murdered away from school. • US Dept of Labor (2007)-Work place homicide declined over 50% from 1994-2006. • Low base rate of the problem does not mean attention should not be given to the problem of school place violence

4. Definition of School Place Violence • Different forms of anti-social aggression and violence have different antecedents and require different types of assessment and Intervention. • Strong empirical literature base of risk factors to predict general aggression, violent behaviour and other anti-social behaviour during adolescent and to some degree it is normative during adolescence.

5. Broad definition Versus Specific Type of School violence • If use a broad definition and include bullying, threats and fist fights in definition then base rate increases and the empirical literature and existing assessment and prediction instruments may be useful. • BUT IT IS THE SPECIFIC/TARGETED VIOLENCE OF SCHOOL SHOOTINGS THAT PEOPLE WANT TO BE ABLE TO PREDICT

6. Who are we talking about- targeted violence • Is there an accurate profile of school-shooter/ Work place –shooter • Individual Factors- Difficult temperament, Substance Abuse, Psychiatric Conditions, Attitudes and beliefs • Family Factors-Poor monitoring, exposure to violence, poor attachment • School/Peers- peer rejection, bullying, social isolation, low school commitment

7. Risk Factors and School Violence • Verlinden et al. (2000)- 1/3 of the variables contained in targeted school violence checklists were not included in checklists for generalized adolescent violence • Particularly 1) poor achievement in school, 2) low commitment to school 3) history of school discipline problems 4) bringing a weapon to school- may not be important in predicting targeted school violence

8. Key Findings from Secret Services and Department of Education task Force- Safer Schools Initiative http://www.secretservice.gov/ntac/ssi_final_report.pdf • There is no accurate or useful profile of students who engaged in targeted school violence. • Incidents of targeted violence at school rarely are sudden, impulsive acts.

9. Key Findings • Prior to most incidents, other people knew about the attacker’s idea and/or plan to attack. In most cases, those who knew were other kids–friends, schoolmates, siblings, and others. However, this information rarely made its way to an adult. • Most attackers did not threaten their targets directly prior to advancing the attack.

10. Key Findings • Most attackers engaged in some behavior, prior to the incident, that caused others concern or indicated a need for help. • Most attackers had difficulty coping with significant losses or personal failures. Many had considered or attempted suicide.

11. Key Findings • Many attackers felt bullied, persecuted, or injured by others prior to the attack. • Most attackers had access to and had used weapons prior to the attack.

12. Key Findings • In many cases, other students were involved in the attack in some capacity. • Despite prompt law enforcement responses, most attacks were stopped by means other than law enforcement intervention and most were brief in duration.

13. Definition of Workplace Violence • Workplace Aggression and Workplace Violence • Gregorie (2000)- Four types • Type 1- offender has no legitamate relationship to workplace- theft, robbery, terrorist, hate crime- 80% this type • Type 2- had received some service provided by the workplace-ex-patient, customer • Type 3-offender employed by workplace-disgruntled employee • Type 4-offender has indirect involvement with workplace- current spouse, friend etc

14. Who Commits Workplace ViolenceSource: Critical Incident Response Group, 2001 pp 21-22 • Ominous specific threats • Hyper-sensitivity to criticism • Recent fascination with weapons • Increasing Belligerence • Obsession with supervisor or co-worker • Pre-occupied with violent themes • Outbursts of anger • Extreme disorganization • Noticeable changes in behaviour • Homicidal/suicidal comments or threats.

15. What contributes to School/Workplace Violence • Societal Level- Culture of violence-resort to violence if problems can’t be solved • Easy access to weapons- right to bear arms • School environment can be very invalidating • Social selection and hierarchal ordering of young people • Support for those who are high achievers in school and workplace • Downsizing

16. What Predicts Violence • A variety of demographic, behavioural, biological and social factors are associated with violence in both Juveniles and Adults. • Debate about whether the knowledge of risk prediction and assessment can be applied to targeted violence like school and workplace shootings

17. Risk Assessment and Prediction Methods • Pure Clinical predictions • Actuarial Predictions • Guided Professional Judgements • Prospective Profiling • Threat Assessment Approach

18. Clinical Approaches • Inaccurate in the short-term (Melton et al., 1997) • Some research suggests better than chance in the long term (McNeil et al., 1998) • Other prediction and assessment techniques demonstrate superiority to the clinical approach • Biggest problem with this approach is the failure to account for the base-rate

19. Clinical Predictions and Base rate

20. Clinical Prediction • Decision relying on clinical judgement alone subject to several cognitive errors • 1) rely on risk predictors not supported by the literature- mental illness • 2)Excessive weight on a few risk factors that are easily assessable and salient (previous violent history)

21. Actuarial Assessment and Prediction • Use of empirically verified risk factor that are statiscally combined to maximize prediction success. • Examples of VRAG,SORAG • Static, dispositional and dichotomous versus Dynamic , contextual and continuous Risk

22. Actuarial Risk prediction • Problems: 1) generalizability to samples outside of original sample 2)failure to incorporate rare risk factors that are specific to individual cases 3)failure to include protective factors that may lower risk. • No actuarial risk assessment tool currently exist for targeted school or work place violence

23. Actuarial contd. • Targeted school violence is a very specific outcome than those commonly associated with actuarial prediction schemes. • If we used actuarial instruments predicting more generalized aggression we would miss the specific problem of targeted violence

24. Actuarial Predictions and Base rate

25. Guided Professional Judgements • Combine the flexibility of clinical judgements with the scientific rigour of the actuarial method • Examples- HCR-20 or SVR-20 • No valid measures for targeted school violence. • The Secret Service 10 key findings may help designing one.

26. Prospective Profiling • Includes a range of identification and assessment techniques use in law and non law settings to determine characteristics of who may have committed a crime or who is likely to . • Called Prospective profiling in targeted school and workplace violence • Prospective profiling- identify types of individuals likely to become a problem and assess individuals who have been deemed a problem

27. Prospective Profiling • Not overly accurate because relies on past characteristics to predict future characteristics of a perpetrator. • i.e. Washington Sniper shooter • High false positive rate and a false sense of security.

28. Threat Assessment • A risk management Strategy rather than risk prediction scheme. • Gathers information about: • 1)motivation for behaviour • 2)communication about ideas and intentions • 3)unusual interest in targeted violence • 4)evidence of attack-related behaviours and planning • 5)mental condition • 6)cognitive abilities • 7)recent losses • 8)consitency between communication and behaviors • 9)concern by others about individuals risk • 10)individual life environment factors that may increase or decrease risk

29. Principles of Threat Assessment • Three principles: • 1)targeted violence results from specific process of cognition and behaviours • 2)caused by an interaction among the perpetrator, past stressful events and current set of circumstances and the targets of the violence • 3)succesful prevention requires close attention to behaviours that precede violent acts

30. Threat Assessment • Makes a distinction between making a threat and posing a threat • Targeted violence is not random or spontaneous but planned- which can be preventable.

31. Threat Assessment • Most promising approach to assessment and prediction of targeted violence. • Problems include a labour intensive approach and school or work place setting often do no have the resources. • Not sure how well generalize to preventing assassinations to other types of targated violence

32. Violence Prevention Approaches • Given the problems inherent in developing a prediction scheme- more resources spent on; • 1)School and Workplace environment- open communication, more validating and supportive. • Fostering connection to the school and workplace • Consistent and fair application of rules ands procedures • Promoting healthy relationships in these environments

33. Conclusion • Profiling not effective • Guided Professional Judgements inappropriate for assessing and predicting targeted school violence • Actuarial tools a problem in targeted violence because base rate so low. • Best approach is a deductive, fact based approach such as threat assessment

34. Conclusions • Research needed to investigate how normative the characteristics are that the Secret Services report identified among the school shooter population are among regular adolescents to develop a prediction tool • Resources should be given towards focusing on promoting healthy work and school environments, in addition to the development of prediction and assessment schemes.

35. Reference • Verlinden, S., Hersen, M., Jay, T., (2000). Risk Factors in School Shootings. Clinical Psychology Review, 20(1), 3-56.