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

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

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 Low base rate of the problem does not mean attention should not be given to the problem of school place violence

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.

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

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

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

Key Findings from Secret Services and Department of Education task Force- Safer Schools Initiative 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Who Commits Workplace Violence Source: Critical Incident Response Group, 2001 pp 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.

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

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

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

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

Clinical Predictions and Base rate Yes School Shooter No School Shooter Yes School Shooter 6 Correctly identified as School Shooters 4 Missed No School Shooter 399,996 Falsely identified 599,994 Correctly identified as not school shooters

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)

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

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

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

Actuarial Predictions and Base rate Yes School Shooter No School Shooter Yes School Shooter 9 Correctly identified as School Shooters 1 Missed No School Shooter 99,999 Falsely identified 899,991 Correctly identified as not school shooters

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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