Cal State L.A.
Training in the Area of
PREVENTING VIOLENCE IN THE WORKPLACE
UNIVERSITY MULTI-HAZARD PLAN
BUSINESS CONTINUITY PLANNING
Lt. John Hernandez
Public Safety/University Police
Cal State L.A.
Between 1993 and 1999 in the United States, an average of 1.7 million violent
victimizations per year were committed against persons age 12 or older who
were at work or on duty, according to the National Crime Victimization Survey
(NCVS). In addition to the nonfatal violence measured by the NCVS, about 900
work-related homicides occurred annually. Workplace violence accounted for 18%
of all violent crime during the 7-year period.
Of the occupations examined, police officers experienced workplace violent crime
at rates higher than all other occupations (261 per 1,000 police officers). College
or university teachers were victimized the least among occupations examined (2
per 1,000 college teachers)*. This report focuses on nonfatal violence in the
workplace — rape and sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple
assault — as measured by the NCVS. In addition, data from the Bureau of Labor
Statistics are included to describe the nature of workplace homicide. All tables
describe nonfatal victimizations occurring while at work or on duty, unless
otherwise noted as including homicide.
• Of the occupations examined, police officers experienced workplace violent
crime at rates higher than all other occupations (261 per 1,000 persons).
• The workplace violent crime rate for whites (13 per 1,000 in the
workforce)was 25% higher than the black rate (10 per 1,000) and 59%
higher than the rate for other races (8 per 1,000).
• This contrasts with overall violent crime (including both workplace and non-
workplace violence) for which blacks have the highest rates.
• Most workplace victimizations were intraracial. About 6 in 10 white and
black victims of workplace crime perceived their assailant to be of the same
• Private sector and Federal Government employees were victimized at
• Elementary school teachers experienced workplace violence at a rate lower
than junior high and high school teachers (17 versus 54 and 38 per 1,000 in
the workforce, respectively).
• Almost 4 of every 10 robberies occurring while the victim was at work or on
duty were committed against persons in retail sales or transportation.
• More than 80% of all workplace homicides were committed with a firearm.
From 1993 to 1999 the number of workplace homicides declined 39%.1
* Italics Added
Homicides. Closely following highway accidents as the next most prevalent event
leading to deadly injury was homicide, which accounted for 27 percent of the fatal
occupational injuries sustained by women in 2003. In contrast, homicides
represented less than one-tenth of fatalities to male workers. During 2003,
there were 632 work-related murders. Women accounted for 119 of the victims. At
roughly 19 percent, the female share was proportionally higher for work-related
homicides than it was for fatalities in general. Although homicides accounted for
more than a fourth of the fatal injuries sustained by women on the job, many more
men were victims of homicide.
The majority of homicides for both sexes were shootings. Some 61 percent of
female homicide victims and 81 percent of male homicide victims were killed with
guns. Given that the vast majority of male victims were killed with guns, women
accounted for proportionally more of the homicides for which the source was
something other than a gun. For instance, half of the homicides from stabbings
were incurred by women. Additionally, the 29 female stabbing victims represent
almost 7 percent of the total number of female workplace fatalities. Female work-
related homicides differed from those incurred by men not only in the manner that
the act was carried out, but also by the identity of the perpetrator. For one, female
murder victims were much more likely to have been killed by a family member than
were male victims. From 1997 to 2003, homicides carried out by a relative
accounted for 10 percent of female cases and less than 1 percent of male cases.
In contrast, male workers were the vast majority (85 percent) of victims killed
during robberies. More than 40 percent of male homicide cases identified
a robber as the perpetrator, versus 30 percent of female cases.
For the instances in which the killer was either a current or former coworker, the
victim was generally male. Just 18 of the 80 murder victim cases in which a
coworker was identified as the perpetrator were women. Despite the larger
number of male fatalities, about the same proportion of homicides for each sex
were committed by a coworker. Generally, the number of homicides to female
workers fell steadily during the last 12 years. (See table 2.) Excluding the 70
fatalities sustained by female workers in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, an
annual mean of 174 women were murdered at the workplace between 1992 and
1998. This average decreased to 129 for the years 1999 to 2003. As is true for all
workers, the proportion of workplace fatalities to women that were a result of
homicide also fell during the 1992 to 2003 period. In 1992, more than 40 percent
of the women who died on the job were murder victims. In 2003, this proportion
was considerably lower at just under 27 percent and, with the exception of 1995,
Duhart, Detis T. Ph.D., Violence in the Workplace 1993 – 99 / Bureau of Justice Statistics Special
Report – December 2001
the years in between exhibited a considerable downward trend in violence
resulting in the death of female workers. 2
The U. S. Department of Justice (DOJ) National Crime Victimization Survey3
statistics, published in July 1994, found that almost one million workers were
victims of violence while working. The survey excludes homicides since it was
based on interviews with victims. According to the survey, one in six violent crimes
in the United States - an estimated 8% of rapes, 7% of robberies and 16% of
assaults - occurs at work. An indicator of the seriousness of the workplace
violence problem was the finding in the study that 30% of the victims were
confronted with armed offenders, one-third of whom carried handguns. The study
noted that 16% of violent workplace incidents resulted in physical injuries and 10%
required medical care.
Nonfatal assaults were primarily encounters between patients and nursing staff in
health care institutions. Other occupations where violence at work produced lost
work time included private security guards, truck drivers, and sales workers.
Almost two-thirds of nonfatal assaults occurred in service industries, such as
nursing homes, hospitals, and establishments providing residential care and other
social services (halfway homes, for example). Retail trade industries such as
grocery stores and eating and drinking places accounted for about one-fifth of
Both men and women who work in government have greater numbers and
higher rates of assault than the private sector employees. The annual rate of
nonfatal assault against women working in state government is 8.6 times higher
than women in the private sector; women working in local government are 5.5
times more likely to be assaulted than private sector women.
More than half of all workers fatally injured on the job in the New York, Northern
New Jersey, Long Island, Metropolitan area in 1993 died as a result of an assault
or violent act. Additionally, according to data from the 1993 Census of Fatal
Occupational Injuries, only Los Angeles, with 48 percent of workplace deaths
attributable to violence, came close to the 51 percent rate for this area. Nationally,
21 percent of occupational or workplace deaths resulted from violence. Of the 364
fatal occupational injuries in the New York Area, 186 resulted from assaults and
Hoskins, Anne B.: Occupational injuries, illnesses, and fatalities among women, Monthly Labor
Review, October 2005
Bachman, Ronet. National Crime Victimization Survey: Violence and Theft in the Workplace.
Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, July 1994.
The 1993 Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries, part of the redesigned BLS safety
and health statistics program, provides the most complete count of fatal work
injuries available because it uses multiple state and federal data sources. The
data for the New York -Northern New Jersey-Long Island area presented in this
report are a product of cooperative programs conducted with the participation of
the New Jersey Department of Health, the New York State Department of Health,
the New York City Department of Health, the Connecticut Department of Labor
and the Pennsylvania Department of Health. Data for the other metropolitan areas
were gathered from similar programs in health and labor departments in the states
The New York, Northern New Jersey, Long Island, NY - NJ - CT - PA
Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area is comprised of 14 counties in
New Jersey, 12 Counties in New York, four counties in Connecticut and one
county in Pennsylvania.4
In addition to the human cost, businesses suffer economic losses when they are
the victims of workplace violence. According to the U. S. Department of Justice
survey5, assaults at work cost 500,000 employees 1,751,100 lost days of work
each year, which averages out to 3.5 days per crime. In terms of just lost wages,
the estimated annual total was more than $55 million. When lost productivity,
legal expenses, property damage, diminished public image, increased security and
other factors are included, total losses from workplace violence probably can be
measured in the billions of dollars.
Middle Atlantic Regional Office - Bureau of Labor Statistics data released 2/9/95.
Bachman, Ronet. National Crime Victimization Survey: Violence and Theft in the Workplace.
Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, July 1994.
Another cost borne by employers is liability for the injuries suffered by victims of
workplace violence and/or liability claims in negligent or wrongful deaths occurring
on the job. Third parties assaulted and/or seriously injured in the workplace have
won significant awards in suits against businesses or others with responsibility in
the workplace who were found to be negligent in this area. And while workers'
compensation insurance is generally the employee's only remedy for on-the-job
injuries from assaults, in certain states, employees have successfully sued their
employers in civil court.
Mass shootings receive a great deal of coverage in the media, as we saw with the
Orlando, Fla., office shootings in November 2009 and in the shootings at the
manufacturing plant in Albuquerque, N.M., in July 2010. Out of 421 workplace
shootings recorded in 2008 (8 percent of total fatal injuries), 99 (24 percent)
occurred in retail trade. Workplace shootings in manufacturing were less common,
with 17 shootings reported in 2008. Workplace shooting events account for only a
small portion of nonfatal workplace injuries.
Over the past 4 years, 2004-08, an average of 564 work-related homicides
occurred each year in the United States. In 2008, a total of 526 workplace
homicides occurred, or 10 percent of all fatal work injuries. About 4 out of every 5
homicide victims in 2008 were male. The type of assailants in these cases differed
for men and women. Robbers and other assailants made up 72 percent of
assailants for men, and 51 percent of assailants for women. Relatives and other
personal acquaintances accounted for only 4 percent of assailants of homicides
for men, but 28 percent for women1 .
In 2008 there were 30 multiple-fatality workplace homicide incidents, accounting
for 67 homicides and 7 suicides. On average, about two people died in each of
Shootings accounted for 80 percent of all homicides in 2008 (421 fatal injuries).
Co-workers and former co-workers were the assailants in 12 percent of all
shootings. Robbers were the assailants in another 40 percent of cases in 2008.
Nearly half of these shootings (48 percent) occurred in public buildings, thereby
Sales and related occupations accounted for 26 percent of decedents in
shootings. Most shootings occurred in the private sector (86 percent) whereas 14
percent of shootings occurred in government. Of the shootings within the private
sector, 88 percent occurred within service-providing industries, mostly in trade,
transportation, and utilities.6
According to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH):
WORKPLACE VIOLENCE is any physical assault, threatening behavior or verbal
abuse occurring in the work setting. It includes but is not limited to beatings,
stabbing, suicides, shootings, rapes, near suicides, psychological traumas such as
threats, obscene phone calls, an intimidating presence, and harassment of any
nature such as being followed, sworn at or shouted at.7
Types of Violence:8
1) Type I - The person committing the violent act has no
legitimate relationship to the workplace, although he/she
may pretend to be a consumer of University goods or
services, and usually enters the workplace specifically to
commit a criminal act.
• University employees who have face-to-face
contact, exchange money, work late at night, and
often work alone or in very small numbers are at
greatest risk of a Type I event.
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), July 14, 2010. Fatality data are from the Census of Fatal
For statistical purposes, the law enforcement community defines Workplace Violence as the
commission of proscribed criminal acts or coervice behavior which occurs in the work setting. It
includes but is not limited to homicides, forcible sex offenses, kidnaping, assault, robbery,
menacing, reckless endangerment, harassment and disorderly conduct. The term coercive
behavior is intended to convey the sense that workplace violence may take many forms in addition
to the use of force. The aggressor may use berating language, physical or verbal threats or
damage personal property.
Workplace Security Handbook, CSULA Workplace Security Committee, Summer Quarter 1996
2) Type II - An assault or threat is made by a person who is
either the recipient or the object of a service provided by
an employee of the workplace. Type II events involve both
fatal and non-fatal injuries to University individuals who
provide goods or services to the public.
• Public Safety personnel (police), health care,
student service providers, faculty, sales/cashiering
personnel who provide professional, public safety,
administrative, or business services to the public
are the greatest risk of a Type II event.
3) Type III- An assault by an individual who has some
employment related involvement with the workplace,
usually involving a threat of violence, or a physical act of
violence resulting in a fatal or non-fatal injury, by a
current/former University employee, supervisor/manager; a
current or former spouse/lover; a relative or friend; or
some other person who has a personal dispute involving
an employee of the workplace. This is not associated with
a specific type of University workplace or occupation.
Traits and Characteristics of the Violent Offender9
• Low Frustration or Low Stress Tolerance
• Impulsive Behavior
• Emotional Ability, Mood, and or Depressive Illnesses
(Quick tempered, short fused…)
• Childhood Abuse
• Social Withdrawal
• Overly Sensitive
• Altered Consciousness or Orientation to Self, Place,
Time, and Event (Hallucinations, hears voices, etc.)
• Threats of Violence (Towards self or others, can be
• Blames Others (Projects blame onto others)
• Chemical Abuse (Alcohol, opiates, other illegal drugs,
• Mental Health Problems (Requiring in-patient
• History of Violence
• Odd, Bizarre, or Magical Thinking (Superstitious,
violent fantasies, thoughts of persecution)
• Somatic Problems (Severe acne, scars, speech
impediments which may contribute to poor self image,
self esteem, isolation)
• Preoccupation with Themes of Violence
Workplace Violence Telecourse, Commission on Peace Officers Standards and Training 1999
• Pathological Triad/School Problems (Fire setting,
cruelty to animals, fighting, inability to get along with
• Obsessive-Compulsive Behavior(anxiety based/ driven)
10 | P a g e
The School Shooter: A Quick Reference Guide
BAU-1 (703) 632-4333
SOME THINGS TO REMEMBER
• There is not a “profile” of a school shooter-instead the students who carried out the attacks differed from one
another in numerous ways.
• School shootings are rarely impulsive acts.
• They are typically thought out and planned in advance.
• Prior to most school shootings other students knew the shooting was going to occur but failed to notify an adult.
• Very few of the attackers ever directed threats to their targets before the attack.
• The most common goal was retribution. The justifications and excuses offered indicated this stemmed not from
an absence of values but from a well-developed value system in which violence was acceptable.
• In many cases, other students were involved in the attack in some capacity.
• Many offenders experienced a significant personal loss in the months leading up to the attack, such as a death,
breakup, or divorce in the family.
• Many offenders engaged in repetitive viewing of violent media and were often fascinated with previous school
shootings. Repeated viewing of movies depicting school shootings, such as “Zero Day” and “Elephant,” may
indicate a fascination with campus attacks.
• Be aware of the subject’s online videos, blogs, and social networking activities.
Assessing Threatening Communications - Five Dimensions (Mohandie, 2000)
• Organized vs. disorganized thought processes
• Fixed vs. variable themes
• Focused vs. general target identification
• Violent action imperative vs. alternative coping means
• Short time imperative vs. lack of urgency
Threat assessment - 11 Key Questions (U.S. Secret Service, 2002)
1. What are the student’s motive(s) and goals?
2. Have there been any communications suggesting ideas or intent to attack?
3. Has the student shown inappropriate interest in school attacks, weapons, and/or mass violence?
4. Has the student engaged in any attack-related behaviors?
5. Does the student have the capacity to carry out an act of targeted violence?
6. Is the student experiencing hopelessness, desperation and/or despair?
7. Does the student have a trusting relationship with at least one responsible adult?
8. Does the student see violence as an acceptable/desirable way to solve problems?
9. Is the student’s version of events consistent with his/her actions?
10. Are other people concerned about the student’s potential for violence?
11. What circumstances might affect the likelihood of an attack?
• 24% motivated by desire for attention or recognition.
• 27% motivated by suicide or desperation.
• 34% motivated by attempt to solve a problem.
• 54% had multiple motives.
• 61% motivated by desire for revenge.
• 75% felt bullied/persecuted/threatened by others.
• 27% of attackers exhibited interest in violent movies.
• 37% of attackers exhibited interest in violence in their own writings, poems, essays, and journal entries.
• 59% of attacks occurred during the school day.
• 63% of attackers had a known history of weapons use.
• 68% acquired the weapon used from their own home or that of a relative.
• 93% of attackers engaged in some behavior prior to the attack that caused others to be concerned.
• 93% of attackers planned out the attack in advance.
• 95% of attackers were current students.
• Odds are one in 1 million that a student will die at school as a result of a violent act.
• Investigators should probe to discover if the subject has engaged in research, planning, or preparation (e.g.,
researched weapons or made attempts to obtain a weapon). Movement from thought to action represents a
severe escalation of the risk of violence.
• In around 80% of school shootings at least one person had information that the attacker was thinking about or
planning the school attack. In nearly 2/3, more than one person had information about the attack before it
occurred. In nearly all of these cases, the person who knew was a peer, a friend, schoolmate, or sibling.
11 | P a g e
• Despite prompt law enforcement responses, most attacks were stopped by means other than law enforcement
• Be conscious of the “Werther Effect,” defined as a duplication or copycat of another suicidal act. School
shootings are typically well-publicized, sensationalized events that can trigger an increase in similar acts for
roughly days or weeks after the attack.
• www.safetyzone.org (DOE and DOJ)
Information compiled from the Safe School Initiative Report, United States Secret Service and Department of Education, (2002); School
Violence Threat Management, Dr. Kris Mohandie, (2000); The School Shooter: A Threat Assessment Perspective, CIRG/NCAVC,
12 | P a g e
Warning signs of escalating behavior:10 (Chart)
FIVE WARNING SIGNS OF ESCALATING BEHAVIOR
Warning Signs Suggested Responses
Behavior characterized by bewilderment or • Listen to their concerns
distraction. Unsure or uncertain of the next • Ask clarifying questions.
course of action. • Give them factual information.
Behavior characterized by reaction or resistance • See steps above.
to information. Impatience. Feeling a sense of • Relocate to a quieter location or setting. (Do
defeat in the attempt of accomplishment. May try not meet alone with the individual)
to bait you. • Reassure them.
• Make a sincere attempt to clarify concerns
Placing responsibility for problems on everyone • See steps above.
else. Accusing or holding you responsible. • Disengage and bring a second party into the
Finding fault or error with the action of others. discussion.
They may place blame directly on you. Crossing • Use teamwork approach.
over to potentially hazardous behavior. • Draw client back to the facts.
• Use probing questions.
• Create “yes” momentum.
Anger – judgment call required
Characterized by a visible change in body posture • Use venting techniques.
and disposition. Actions included pounding fists, • Don’t offer solutions.
pointing fingers, shouting or screaming. This • Don’t argue with comments made..
signals very risky behavior. • Prepare to evacuate or isolate.
• Contact supervisor/University Police.
Hostility – judgment call required
Physical actions or threats which appear • Disengage and evacuate.
imminent. Acts of physical harm or property • Attempt to isolate the person if it can be done
damage. Out-of-control behavior signals that safely.
they have crossed over the line. • Alert supervisor and contact the University
These suggestions are designed to de-escalate potentially violent situations. If at any time
a person’s behavior starts to escalate beyond your comfort zone – DISENGAGE /
Discontinue the contact that you have with the individual.
Workplace Violence Prevention, E2 Supplement 3, Specialty Technical Publishers 8/2003
13 | P a g e
Personal conduct to minimize violence:11 (Chart)
Do: Do not:
• Project calmness, move and speak • Use styles of communication which
slowly, quietly and confidently. generate hostility such as apathy,
• Be an empathetic listener. Encourage brush off, coldness, condescension,
the person to talk and listen patiently. robotism, going strictly by the rules or
• Focus your attention on the other giving the run-around.
person to let him/her know you are
• Reject all of a client's demands from
interested in what he/she has to say.
• Maintain a relaxed yet attentive the start.
posture and position yourself at a right • Pose in challenging stances such as
angle rather than directly in front of standing directly opposite someone,
the other person. hands on hips or crossing your arms.
• Acknowledge the person's feelings. Avoid any physical contact, finger
Indicate that you can see he/she is pointing or long periods of fixed eye
• Ask for small, specific favors such as • Make sudden movements which can
asking the person to move to a quieter be seen as threatening. Notice the tone,
volume and rate of your speech.
• Establish ground rules if unreasonable
behavior persists. Calmly describe the • Challenge, threaten or dare the
consequences of any violent behavior. individual. Never belittle the person or
• Use delaying tactics which will give make him/her feel foolish.
the person time to calm down. For • Criticize or act impatiently toward the
example, offer a drink of water (in a agitated individual.
disposable cup). • Attempt to bargain with a threatening
• Be reassuring and point out choices. individual.
Break big problems into smaller, more • Try to make the situation seem less
manageable problems. serious than it is.
• Accept criticism in a positive way.
• Make false statements or promises you
When a complaint might be true, use
statements like "You are probably cannot keep.
right" or "It was my fault." If the • Try to impart a lot of technical or
criticism seems unwarranted, ask complicated information when
clarifying questions. emotions are high.
• Ask for his/her recommendations. • Take sides or agree with distortions.
Repeat back to him/her what you feel • Invade the individual's personal space.
he/she is requesting of you. Make sure there is a space of three feet
• Arrange yourself so that a visitor to six feet between you and the person.
cannot block your access to an exit.
Safety Planning and Reporting:
Workplace Violence Prevention, E2 Supplement 4, Specialty Technical Publishers 8/2003
14 | P a g e
Office Safety Plans
1) In addition to a well-defined disaster plan, every office
should have an office safety plan that includes procedures
for responding to any incident or crisis. These plans
should include the following:
• Use of planned, “code words”, phrases, etc. to alert
colleagues to a crisis without alerting the person or
persons causing the crisis.
• Planned response to a colleague using a code word,
• Quick access to communications equipment, including
location of office phones, emergency phones, elevator
phones, and other persons with cellular telephone
• Arrangement of office furniture to allow access to an
escape route if needed.
• Development of a, “Buddy System”, for faculty and staff
to ensure that there is at least other person who can be
called on when classes are in session and the offices
are open for business.
Example Response Plan Template
For Dealing with Potentially Dangerous Individuals
15 | P a g e
Office and Classroom Plan
I. Recognition of a Crisis:
(When to act):
II. Communication with Colleagues in Your Office
A. With whom should faculty/staff consult:
(senior staff, administrator, administrator-in-charge,
B. Office Procedure:
1) How does an individual notify colleagues when
assistance is needed? (code word, panic button,
2) How does one respond to a colleague’s SOS?
C. Classroom Procedure:
1) Location of the nearest phone and person that
you can depend on:
16 | P a g e
2) Is the department office open when you are in the
Department Phone# - ____________________
3) Have you arranged your desk/chair near an exit if
a crisis requires a quick escape from the class /
Emergency Number / Police Department - Dial 911, Business 3-3700
Example Incident Report Template
Person Reporting: __________________ Date:____________
Name(s) of Involved Persons: ____________________________
17 | P a g e
Date of Incident: ___________ Time of Incident: ______________
Location of Incident: _________________________________________
Context/Background leading up to Incident: _______________________
Explanation of Incident (who, what, when, where, how many):
Action or actions taken (Includes consultations, by whom and when):
Completing Person: ____________________ Date: ______________
Title: _________________ Office Location: _____________________
Phone Number: ____________________________________
Behavioral Concern form that can be forwarded to the University Police:
18 | P a g e
19 | P a g e
It is essential that incidents of violence and potential incidents of violence are
reported administratively, including incidents that have the involvement of the
University Police. These incidents may, or may not include violations of law - and
proper documentation and investigation of these incidents can result in
administrative remedies to address the situation. Administrators commonly do not
have access to the information that the police develop when a criminal
investigations is ongoing, and it is only through these documented incidents that
they can develop the administrative remedies to address these
situations/incidents. When documentation is completed, either in the form of a
detailed memorandum incorporating all of the elements of an incident report, or an
actual incident report form that your area/division/department develops, it is
important that you send it through your administrative/supervisory area as each
process is separate. You should request that it be forwarded to the appropriate
entity to deal with the incident, for example:
Incident of Violence Involving Student
Imminent/Occurred (Criminal Violation)
Police Respond, Incident is Documentation/Report
Stabilized & Reported Completed by Staff
Criminal Investigations Unit Forwarded to the VP
pursues criminal case for Student Affairs
DA/CA Files Case, Forwarded Forwarded to the Campus Judicial
To Criminal Court for Disposition Officer for Disposition
This is an illustration of the bifurcated process
20 | P a g e
Routing of Reports: (Reports and explanatory memorandums should
always go through your department)
1) At Cal State L.A., the individual designated by President
Rosser as being responsible for student conduct is the
• Dr. Anthony Ross, Vice President for Student Affairs
2) The individual / department responsible for faculty
conduct is the following:
• Dr. Ashish Vaidya, Provost and Vice President for
• Human Resource Management (Accessed through the
3) The department responsible for staff conduct is the
• Human Resource Management
We have covered a lot of information on Workplace Security and Workplace
Violence Prevention but there is one point that needs to be stressed. When you
are confronted with a situation where an act of violence has been committed, or is
potentially imminent, it is important that you contact the police either by calling
911, or having a coworker call 911.
I also cannot stress enough, your role in setting boundaries for behavior in your
work setting, and following up with the reporting process. Merely contacting the
police is not enough, in fact, in the majority of incidents - there is not yet evidence
of violations of criminal law. That is why it is so important to start the
reporting/documentation process so that these potentially violent situations can be
stopped in their tracks before a major incident occurs.
The following section covers the University Multi-Hazard Plan based on
Cal State L.A. Multi-hazard Emergency Plan
21 | P a g e
Available on-line at:
Contained in the Multi-Hazard Plan:
Emergency Planning Basis
Emergency Management Plan
National Incident Management System
Standardized Emergency Management System
Incident Command System
Personal Planning Information
The Plan provides:
Functional Responsibilities assigned to positions and units
Designated staging areas
Hazardous Materials Storage locations
Emergency Generator locations
General Seismic Analysis of Buildings
22 | P a g e
Specific Areas Covered in the Multi-Hazard Plan:
Consideration of a full spectrum of response
Local and State emergencies
Review of campus response equipment
Hazard mitigation and analysis
Specific incident planning (floods, power disruptions, earthquake, fire,
Emergency Management Plan General Objectives
Overall management and coordination of emergency operations
Designed under Incident Command System protocols
Maintaining liaison with federal, state, and local entities
Coordination of mutual aid
Control of resources
Effective communications systems
Safety of the public
Evaluation of damages and losses
Response Protocols For:
Care & Shelter
Resources and Support
As contained in the plan:
The National Incident Management System (NIMS) provides a systematic,
proactive approach to guide departments and agencies at all levels of government,
nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector to work seamlessly to
prevent, protect against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate the effects of
incidents, regardless of cause, size, location, or complexity, in order to reduce the
loss of life and property and harm to the environment.
The Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) is the system
required by Chapter 7 of Division 2 of the Government
Code §8607. The standard organizational model is based on an approach
called the Incident Command System (ICS) which was developed by fire
23 | P a g e
departments to give them a common language when requesting personnel and
equipment from other agencies and to give them common tactics when
responding to emergencies.
The system is designed to minimize the problem common to many
emergency response efforts--duplication of efforts--by giving each person a
structured role in the organization, and each organization its piece of the
larger response. The ICS can be used by any combination of agencies and
districts in emergency response. It clearly defines the chain of command and
limits the span of control of any one individual. ICS is based upon a flexible,
scalable response organization providing a common framework within which
people can work together effectively.
PLANNING & OPERATIONS LOGISTICS FINANCE &
INTELLIGENCE SECTION SECTION ADMINISTRATION
When you return to your work areas, ask yourself the following questions to test
your preparedness, and that of your departments:
Police Jill VPAF
24 | P a g e
on Command Carnahan Finance
What have you done to be personally ready for a major event?
Have you designed and prepared “Grab-N-Go” bags or kits to support
your responsibilities in an emergency?
Does everyone in your workplace know their assignment in an
25 | P a g e
26 | P a g e
27 | P a g e
28 | P a g e
29 | P a g e
30 | P a g e