Violence Prediction and Risk Analysis - Pacific Institute for the Study of Conflict and Aggression
Home Page
Our Philosophy
Evolution & Guidelines
Empirically-Based Methods
Workplace Violence
Training & Workshops
Books For Sale
Wanted:
Researchers & Authors
Downloadable Documents
Book Recommendations
Position Statement
American Psychology and Post 9-11 Terrorism
Dr. Harold Hall, Director

Workplace Violence Risk Assessment Checklist

 Harold V. Hall, PhD, ABPP
 Pacific Institute for the Study of Conflict and Aggression

The following items comprise a research instrument, which is a first step toward identification of factors associated with workplace violence reported in the clinical-empirical literature. The items are not exhaustive, fixed or mutually exclusive, and the entire checklist should be considered a work-in-progress. The checklist is meant for an interdisciplinary audience such as administrative supervisors, human resources managers, vocational counselors, and mental health personnel. Readers are cautioned that a simple sum of risk factors and the use of specific cutoffs do not equate to varying degrees of risk. The presence of one or two factors may suggest high risk of workplace violence. Generally, some form of previous threatened, attempted or consummated violence to others, self or property must be present to reasonably predict future violence. Finally, the final summary ratings are judgments by assessors, which may lead to a referral for comprehensive assessment and intervention, if appropriate.

For a downloadable/printable  version of this checklist, click here.
NOTE: You will need Adobe Acrobat Reader to view and print this file.


Get Adobe Acrobat Reader here if you need to!

 

Today's Date:                                                                      Employer:
Employee's Name:                                                             DOB:                      
Raters Name and Title:
HISTORICAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC ITEMS CHECK IF
PRESENT
Previous threatened, attempted or consummated violence toward others

 
Past use or threatened use of weapons outside work  
Previous damage or destruction of work-related property  
Male gender  
Substance abuse or dependence (alcohol and/or drugs)  
Poor compliance with company attempts to remediate worker  
Belligerence towards customers or clients  
Reckless or hazardous behavior on the job  
Previous direct or veiled threats to harm other employees
History of major mental illness
Early maladjustment
    
RECENT EVENTS  
Any of the above items for last six months (specify by numbers)  
Stress or desperation in workplace, domestic, or financial matters  
Acquires firearms or related lethal equipment or weapons  
Signs of rehearsal (e.g., practice at firing range, assembles weapons)  
Exposure to or increased of destabilizers (e.g., alcohol, drugs)  
Fascination with or statements about other incidents of workplace violence  
Poor compliance with recent directives of management  
Lost job or perceives that job will soon be lost soon  
Stalking, including repeated harassment, of other employees  
Threats of suicide or homicide  
Ongoing fantasies of hurting co-workers  
Wishes to harm co-workers or management
    
WORK ATTITUDES AND TRAITS  
Sees self as victimized by management or treated unfairly  
Sense of identity wrapped up in job  
Does not take criticism well; hypersensitive to perceived slights  
Authority issues regarding control from others present  
Tends to be a loner on and/or off job  
Hostile attitudes or behaviors towards aspects of work  
Erratic and/or irresponsible work traits  
Attitudes that condone or support workplace violence  
Minimizes or denies post maladaptive work behaviors  
Creates, fosters, or allows a work atmosphere of fear and intimidation  
Tends to have poor assertiveness skills  
Meets the criteria for psychopathy
    
ORGANIZATIONAL DEFICIENCIES   
Failure to screen work applicants for violence potential and mental problems 
Failure to implement physical security measures to protect employees and clients/customers
Failure to implement a prevention-of-violence plan for relevant employees
Failure to act immediately to direct, implied, or veiled threats of violence
Failure to create a crisis plan for ongoing violence
Failure to have an EAP, stress control, and anger management programs
Failure to have an out-referral program to community providers
Failure to train employees in the warning signs of violence
Failure to have in place outplacement services for laid-off or fired employees
Failure to have clear policies for harassment, prejudice grievance resolution, and discriminatory behavior
Failure to train employees to negotiate and communicate effectively with peer and management
Organization is in a state of flux, such as downsizing
Organization has a history of violence on worksite
Organization has reduced or eliminated positive reinforcers such as secure pension benefits
Organization employs intrusive methods to monitor employees, especially electronic monitoring
Organization has top-down style of management that is perceived as highly controlling
Organization allows employee conflicts to occur without immediate intervention and follow-up
Organization uses inconsistent disciplinary actions
Management is perceived as unfair, disrespectful, or discourteous to staff
Management forces staff to wait before interaction, combined with noxious characteristics of management
The worksite is physically uncomfortable
Organization is moderate or large in size (more than 40 employees)
Performance standards are not linked to employee expectations
Performance standards do not have built-in employee input
The organization does not have written and regularly reviewed procedures for all of the above
 
PRELIMINARY RISK JUDGMENT

Low:

 
  

Moderate:

 
  

High:

 
List suggestions for further assessment or intervention here:

  

  
Specify date and staff members to re-evaluate risk status:

  

  
Additional relevant comments:
 
 
 
 
 

 

Workplace Violence Risk Assessment Checklist (WVRAC)

Scoring Instructions
(To be utilized after examiner is familiar with program and manual)
STEP 1. Check if basal violence is present. One or more of the following must be endorsed:  

____   Previous threatened, attempted, or consummated violence towards others.

____   Past use or threatened use of weapons outside work.

____   Previous damage or destruction of work-related property.

____   Previous direct or veiled threats to harm other employees.

____   Stalking, including repeated harassment, of other employees.

____   Threats of suicide or homicide.

Predict no violence will occur if none of the above are checked. In this case, there is no need to refer the case for a comprehensive forensic assessment unless you are unsure as to whether historical violence has occurred. If uncertain, you should have individuals other than the predictee fill out the WVRAC, and compare responses. In addition, you may want to assess for unreported violence (see Chapter 4 in Hall, H.V., & Pritchard, D. (2002). Workplace Violence Risk Analysis: Effective Prediction and Intervention Strategies. Kamuela, HI: The Pacific Institute for the Study of Conflict and Aggression).

 
STEP 2.

Check to see how many items from each category of the WVRAC are present (History, Recent Events, Work Attitudes and Traits, and Organizational Deficiencies).

If two items are checked from each category on the WVRAC (a total of at least eight items), you have reasonable grounds for referring this person for a comprehensive risk analysis. You should refer this individual for further evaluation because the employee may be "HOT" for violence (i.e., has history, opportunity, and triggers associated with violence). The empirical basis for this conclusion is contained in Hall, H.V., & Ebert, R. (2002). Violence Prediction: Guidelines for the Forensic Practitioner, Second Edition. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publisher.

 
STEP 3.

All other persons may or may not be referred, depending on individual circumstances. The presence of historical factors is required if the case is referred (see Step 1). There is an association between number of factors present and the possibility of acting out. The more items checked on the WVRAC, the greater the likelihood of violence to others.

Generally, scores above 10 (with at least one history item) may be referred for further evaluation. Previous analysis has shown that almost all violent employees have scores above 10. Note that some items have point values greater than 1, which are added to the total in order to determine whether the score exceeds 10.

 

Copyright © 2000-2001, Pacific Institute for the Study of Conflict and Aggression, Kamuela, Hawaii  96743.
Address email inquiries to: PacInst@ViolencePrediction.com