saint mary’s university 2015 violence risk assessment · violence risk assessment, the human...
TRANSCRIPT
SAINT MARY’S UNIVERSITY 2015 VIOLENCE RISK ASSESSMENT
A REPORT ON THE RESULTS OF A FACULTY AND STAFF SURVEY
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3-4
BACKGROUND 5-6
I.1 PURPOSE 5 I.2 METHODOLOGY 5 I.3 PARTICIPANTS 5-6
FINDINGS 7-25
II.1 SAFETY PROGRAMS & POLICIES AT SAINT MARY’S 7-8 II.1.1 PROGRAM FAMILIARITY 7 II.1.2. SOURCE OF FAMILIARITY 7 II.1.3 PERCEIVED PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS 8 II.2 SAFETY CLIMATE 9-11 II.2.1 COWORKER SAFETY 10 II.2.2 EMPLOYER SAFETY 10-11 II.3 RESPONSE KNOWLEDGE 11 II.4 EXPERIENCES WITH VIOLENCE 11-16 II.4.1 EXPERIENCES REPORTED 12 II.4.2 BARRIERS TO REPORTING 12-13 II.4.3 FOLLOW-UP RESPONSE TO REPORTING 13-14 II.4.4 ADDITIONAL EVENT INFORMATION 14-15 II.4.5 RELATIONSHIP 15 II.4.6 LOCATION 16 II.5 VICARIOUS EXPERIENCES OF VIOLENCE 16-19 II.5.1 EXPERIENCES REPORTED 17 II.5.2 BARRIERS TO REPORTING 17-18 II.5.3 FOLLOW-UP RESPONSE TO REPORTING INDIRECT EXPERIENCES 18-19 II.6 RISK FACTORS 19-23 II.6.1 WORK SCHEDULE 19-20 II.6.2 WORK AREA LOCATION 21-22 II.6.3 EXPOSURE TO HAZARDOUS SITUATIONS 22 II.6.4 POSITION OF AUTHORITY 22-23 II.7 PREPAREDNESS FOR VIOLENCE 23-25 II.7.1 SAINT MARY’S RESPONSIBILITY TO PREPARE FACULTY & STAFF 24 II.7.2 PERCEPTIONS OF VULNERABILITY 25 II.8 COMMITMENT TO SAINT MARY’S 25 APPENDICES 26-31
3
Executive Summary
Background
Under provincial occupational health and safety legislation, Saint Mary’s is legally
required to evaluate risks and potential for violence every five years. To conduct this
violence risk assessment, the Human Resources department partnered with the Saint
Mary’s Occupational Health and Safety Committee and a group of researchers
specializing in workplace violence, health, and safety. The risk assessment was
conducted using surveys that were distributed to all full-and part-time employees at Saint
Mary’s University. Survey content was designed to investigate the occupational risks of
violence associated with campus environments in relation to employees’ direct and
indirect experiences of workplace violence. Results were coded and analyzed and have
been compiled in summary format for the purpose of this report.
Both part-and full-time faculty and staff members at Saint Mary’s University were asked
to complete the Violence Risk Assessment survey in the Spring of 2015. In total, 225
employees (116 females, 96 males, 2 other, and 11 “prefer not to disclose”) responded to
the survey in its entirety. Of these employees, 59.11% (n = 133) were staff members,
34.67% (n = 78) were faculty members, and 6.22% (n = 14) did not indicate their
affiliation as a staff or faculty member
Key Findings
Safety Programs & Policies at Saint Mary’s
Staff are much more familiar with programs and policies than faculty
Staff familiarity with programs and policies stems primarily from training, while
faculty familiarity of programs and policies largely stems from word-of-mouth
Over 85% of faculty have limited to no familiarity with the “Violence in the
Workplace Prevention and Response” policy
Conflict Resolution is the most frequently used program, while the Lone Worker
Program and the Safe-Walk Program are the most under-utilized programs
On average, faculty are somewhat unaware of what to do when violence occurs,
how to report a violent incident, and where to access reporting material
Both faculty and staff indicated that they know how to contact security should
they require the assistance of security services
Safety Climate
According to this sample of employees, Saint Mary’s has a neutral to somewhat
positive safety climate
Staff reported more positive perceptions about safety climate than faculty
Compared to faculty, staff reported more positive perceptions of coworker and
employer safety
4
Experience with Violence
The majority of employees have never experienced violence on campus
The most frequently cited types of violence experienced by Saint Mary’s
employees were property damage and theft
A relatively large proportion of employees who experience violence do not report
the violent incident; the most frequently cited barrier to reporting violence was
that the event “did not seem serious enough” to report
63% of employees who reported an incident of violence experienced some form
of follow-up contact from the University (e.g., security, human resources)
Over half of participants who reported witnessing a violent event did not report
the incident, with the highest proportion of participants citing “other” reasons for
not reporting (e.g., “the incident was reported by someone else”)
Risk Factors
The majority of employees believe that campus exits/entrances are well-lit
The majority of employees report that there is controlled access to where they
work
The majority of employees do not feel that their work area is designed for easy
escape—an even greater proportion of employees report that their work spaces are
set up so that they are furthest from the door when meeting with other individuals.
This design is problematic as it places employees in a position where they are not
able to easily remove themselves from a potentially violent situation
Over 20% of employees are frequently in a position where they may have to
deliver bad news, deny requests, and make decisions that can negatively impact
others’ lives
Faculty are in positions of authority more frequently than staff—faculty engage in
behaviours that could upset and/or anger others more frequently than staff
Violence Preparedness
Most employees are unsure as to whether or not they are prepared to handle an
occurrence of violence on campus
Compare to faculty members, staff members feel significantly more prepared to
handle an occurrence of violence on campus
Only 15.5% of employees reported that Saint Mary’s has provided them with
enough information or training to respond to a violent situation in a safe way
Most employees feel that it is Saint Mary’s responsibility to provide employees
with the information needed to respond to a violent situation in a safe way
Just less than one-third of employees reported that there is something about the
campus environment that makes them feel vulnerable to violence
Commitment & Job Satisfaction
The vast majority of employees are satisfied or very satisfied with their job
Most employees at Saint Mary’s are not thinking about quitting, leaving their
job, or looking for employment elsewhere
5
I. BACKGROUND
I.1 Purpose
The purpose of this study was to conduct a violence risk assessment for Saint Mary’s
employees. Under provincial occupational health and safety legislation, Saint Mary’s is
legally required to evaluate current risks and potential for violence every five years. The
current project met these requirements by investigating the occupational risks of violence
associated with campus environments in relation to employees’ direct and indirect
experiences of workplace violence. This report provides a full review of the findings
highlighting program awareness, occupational risk factors, prevalence of violent incidents,
response and reporting knowledge, and safety climate. By learning more about faculty
and staff experiences, safety knowledge, and current risks on campus the University can
work towards reducing risks and building a safer learning community.
I.2 Methodology
To conduct the violence risk assessment at Saint Mary’s, the Human Resources
department partnered with the Saint Mary’s University Occupational Health and Safety
Committee and a group of researchers specializing in workplace violence, health, and
safety. The risk assessment was conducted using an online and paper-and-pencil survey
that was distributed to all full-and part-time employees at Saint Mary’s University. The
online survey was hosted via Qualtrics, a survey software program. Prior to distributing
the survey, the researchers consulted the academic literature on workplace violence to
determine the general content of the survey. The researchers also consulted with experts
in Occupational Health and Safety at Saint Mary’s University to include the most relevant
university-specific content. The survey was approved by all partners and the University’s
Research Ethics Board (REB); in alignment with ethics protocols, all participants had the
opportunity to provide their free and informed consent.
After all data were collected from participants, research assistants uploaded the data from
the paper-and-pencil survey to an online database. The results of all surveys were
exported to a statistical software program (SPSS), where they were coded and analyzed
by two research assistants. This review reports on these data and analyses, primarily in
the form of frequencies and descriptive statistics. No identifying information was
collected or reported in this review. Please note that unless otherwise noted, there were
no significant differences between faculty and staff results.
I.3 Participants
Both part-and full-time Faculty and Staff members at Saint Mary’s University were asked
to complete the Violence Risk Assessment survey in the Spring of 2015. In total, 225
employees (116 females, 96 males, 2 other, and 11 “prefer not to disclose”) responded to
the survey in its entirety. Of these employees, 59.11% (n = 133) were staff members,
34.67% (n = 78) were faculty members, and 6.22% (n = 14) did not indicate their
affiliation as a staff or faculty member. The average age of employees was 41.5 years old,
and the majority of employees (45.6%) reported having been with Saint Mary’s between
6
1 and 10 years (see Figure 1). The majority (82.67%) of employees were from Canada,
with the next highest percentage from the United States (3.11%). Almost all employees
(91%) reported English as their first Language, with the next highest percentage of
employees reporting French as their first language (2.6%). Only 7.6% of employees
identified themselves as belonging to a visible minority group.
Figure 1. Employee Tenure
Survey respondents varied greatly in both position and department/faculty, with the
largest percentage of employees reporting their primary area of work as the Faculty of
Arts (11.83%) or the Faculty of Science (11.83%). Employees from the Sobey School of
Business (10.12%) and from Facilities Management (10.12%) were also relatively well
represented in the sample. The breakdown of department and faculty for the sample of
employees who responded to this survey is presented in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Faculty or Department
46%
21%
9%
4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
1-10 Years 11-20 Years 21-30 Years 31-40 Years
Faculty of Arts
Faculty of Science
Business
Facilities Management
Student Services
ITSS
Financial Services
Library
7
II. FINDINGS
II.1 SAFETY PROGRAMS & POLICIES AT SAINT MARY’S
II.1.1 Program Familiarity
Faculty and staff were asked to indicate their level of familiarity with nine safety
programs/policies currently in place at Saint Mary’s University. Participants were asked
to rate their familiarity using a 6-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (Not at all
Familiar) to 6 (Extremely Familiar). Participant familiarity with each of these programs
and policies, reported as percentages, is represented in Appendix A.
When examining reported familiarity with various safety programs and policies at Saint
Mary’s University, the data suggest several key findings.
1. More than half of faculty and staff participants have limited to no familiarity with
the Lone Worker Program. This program is by far the least recognized program.
2. A higher proportion of staff are familiar with all of the programs and policies, as
compared to faculty.
3. Less than 15% of faculty indicated they were moderately or very familiar with the
Violence in the Workplace Prevention and Response Policy. Not one faculty
participant indicated they were extremely familiar with the policy.
II.1.2 Source of Familiarity
As a follow-up to the first question regarding program and policy familiarity, faculty and
staff were asked how they became familiar with the programs and policies listed. They
were asked to disclose all of the avenues by which they had heard about each program
and/or policy. Results, represented in percentages, are presented in Appendix B.
Key findings include:
1. The majority of participants learned about the various programs and policies
through training and word-of-mouth
2. Staff familiarity of programs and policies stems primarily from training, with the
exception of the Lone Worker Program and the Safe-Walk Program. The majority
of staff report having heard about these two programs through word-of-mouth.
3. Faculty familiarity of programs and policies stems primarily from word-of-mouth.
However, a high percentage of faculty reported hearing about programs and
policies via other avenues that were not specified.
8
II.1.3 Perceived Program Effectiveness
Faculty and staff that indicated that they had used one or more of the programs and/or
policies were asked to provide an effectiveness rating of that program(s). Specifically,
participants were asked to indicate how effective they perceived the program and/or
policy to be for their situation.
Responses were scored on a 6-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (Completely
Ineffective) to 6 (Completely Effective). Table 1 provides the percentage of participants
that a) rated the program/policy as being somewhat, mostly, or completely ineffective; b)
rated the program/policy as being somewhat, mostly, or completely effective; and c)
indicated that they have not used the program/policy.
Key findings include:
1. Conflict Resolution Services is the most used program by both faculty and staff,
followed by the Health and Safety policy. Many employees (70%) who have not
used the Conflict Resolution Office stated that they haven’t had conflicts
significant enough to require the service.
2. The Lone Worker Program and the Safe-Walk Program are the two most under-
utilized programs, but many of those who used them rated them as effective.
Table 1. Program Effectiveness
Ineffective Effective Never Used
Lone Worker Program 0% 5.5% 94.5%
2.3% 9.9% 87.8%
Prevention and Resolution of Harassment
and Discrimination Policy
4.1% 12.3% 83.6%
7.6% 9.3% 83.1%
Violence in the Workplace Policy 2.7% 8.3% 89.0%
2.3% 11.4% 86.3%
Conflict Resolution Services 9.3% 38.7% 52.0%
12.2% 23.7% 64.1%
Safe-Walk Program 0% 4.1% 95.9%
2.3% 7.5% 90.2%
Occupational Health and Safety Policy 5.4% 29.8% 64.8%
6.8% 35.6% 57.6%
Emergency Response System 4.0% 17.3% 78.7%
6.1% 36.4% 57.5%
Mass Notification System 4.1% 25.7% 70.2%
6.1% 42.4% 51.5%
Online Emergency Response Video 4.2% 14.0% 81.8%
3.8% 32.6% 63.6%
*Note: Faculty responses are recorded in the top row and staff responses are recorded in
the bottom row corresponding to each program/policy title.
9
II.2 SAFETY CLIMATE
Safety Climate is one of the leading indicators of safety performance (Payne, Bergman,
Beus, Rodriguez, & Henning, 2009) making it an important construct to measure and
track over time. Safety climate is associated with many notable safety outcomes, such as
safety participation, safety compliance, and injury rates (Barling, Loughlin, & Kelloway,
2002; Inness, Turner, Barling & Stride, 2010; Neal, Griffin, & Hart, 2000). When striving
to improve safety, understanding the safety climate can help organizations identify where
changes are needed.
Safety climate reflects the perceived prioritization of safety, as determined through
shared perceptions of safety attitudes and behaviours of organizational members
(Guldenmund, 2000; Zohar, 2000), as well as from perceptions of organizational safety
systems (Cooper, 2000). The safety climate measure used in the current survey assesses
each of these components. Specifically, the scale measures participant perceptions of
their coworkers’ and employers’ (i.e., Saint Mary’s University) safety attitudes and
behaviours, as well as their perceptions of the current safety system in place at Saint
Mary’s. The scale was found to be internally consistent (α = .90).
Safety climate index scores were computed using the means for the overall scale and each
subscale. Means were computed based on responses on a 5-point Likert-type scale
ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). Participants were also allowed
to respond “I don’t know” to each statement. The means and standard deviations in Table
2 represent only the responses rated on the 1 to 5 agreement scale.
Table 2. Climate Index Score
Mean (SD)
Overall Safety Climate Index
3.61 (.71)
Perceived Coworker Safety 4.08 (.77)
Perceived Employer (SMU) Safety 3.35 (.93)
Perceptions of the Safety System 3.25 (.90)
An independent samples t-test was conducted to determine if there was a significant
difference in perceived safety climate between faculty (M = 3.53, SD = .74) and staff (M
= 3.73, SD = .66). A significant difference between the two groups was detected, t(208) =
-1.97, p < .05. Staff reported more positive safety climate perceptions than faculty.
To understand these differences better, additional t-tests were conducted on each of the
subscales to determine whether or not faculty and staff perceptions differ on all facets of
safety climate or in just a specific area.
The analysis revealed significant differences between faculty and staff ratings on two of
the three facets: perceived coworker safety and perceived employer safety. Faculty (M =
10
3.26, SD = .92) and staff (M = 3.37, SD = .85) ratings did not significantly differ with
regard to perceptions of the Saint Mary’s University safety system t(200) = -.87, p = ns.
II.2.1 Coworker Safety
An independent samples t-test revealed a significant difference between faculty (M = 3.92,
SD = .79) and staff (M = 4.20, SD = .70) perceptions of coworker safety t(208) = -2.72,
p < .05. On average, staff agreed with statements that specified their coworkers as having
strong safety values and consistent safety behaviours. Faculty neither agreed nor
disagreed with these statements indicating neutral perceptions of their coworkers safety.
It must also be noted that more faculty than staff indicated they were unable to rate their
coworkers’ safety values and behaviours (i.e., they selected “I don’t know” on the
survey). This is not surprising given the differences between faculty and staff jobs.
Faculty often work more independently than staff and may not have as many
opportunities to observe their coworkers’ attitudes and behaviours. However, because of
this difference, the number of faculty who rated coworker safety using the agreement
scale was fewer than the number of staff.
II.2.2 Employer Safety
An independent samples t-test also revealed a significant difference between faculty (M =
3.22, SD = .90) and staff (M = 3.50, SD = .00) perceptions of employer safety t(207) =
-2.14, p < .05. On average, staff agreed more with statements that specified that Saint
Mary’s University consistently enforces and prioritizes safety.
Once again, it must also be noted that more faculty than staff indicated they were unable
to rate items relating to Saint Mary’s safety attitudes and behaviours (i.e., they selected “I
don’t know” on the survey). Unlike faculty who are in many ways self-managed, staff
often report to a supervisor or manager who may more frequently relay health and safety
information, provide training, and encourage safe work behaviours.
Key findings include:
1. The overall safety climate index score for all participants is 3.61, suggesting a
neutral to slightly positive safety climate.
2. Both faculty and staff perceive that their coworkers place a stronger value on
safety than Saint Mary’s University. That is, faculty and staff rated coworker
safety more highly than employer safety.
3. Faculty and staff ratings were significantly different for two facets of safety
climate: perceived coworker safety and perceived employer safety. Staff reported
more positive perceptions of coworker and employer safety, as compared to
faculty.
11
4. Faculty are much more likely than staff to report being unable to rate coworker
and employer safety.
II.3 RESPONSE KNOWLEDGE
Response knowledge was assessed by asking participants to indicate their level of
agreement with a series of statements regarding violence response knowledge, reporting
knowledge, investigation processes, and Saint Mary’s Commitment to preventing
violence on campus. Ratings were based on a 6-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1
(Strongly Disagree) to 6 (Strongly Agree). Higher means indicate participants agreed
more strongly with the statement. Means and standard deviations are reported for faculty
and staff participants in Appendix C.
Key findings include:
1. Staff means are higher for every statement, indicating staff have higher levels of
knowledge of violence response and reporting protocols.
2. On average, faculty are somewhat unaware of what to do when violence occurs,
how to report a violent incident, and where to access the appropriate reporting
materials.
3. Faculty and staff are largely unaware of the investigation process associated with
following up violent incidents at Saint Mary’s University. Moreover, faculty only
slightly agree that if campus violence is reported, it will be handled appropriately.
4. Both faculty and staff indicated they know how to contact security should they
require security services
II.4 EXPERIENCES WITH VIOLENCE
An important component of this survey was to examine the prevalence of workplace
violence at Saint Mary’s University. Participants were asked to use a 6-point Likert-type
rating scale ranging from 1 (Never) to 6 (Everyday) to indicate how often they had
personally experienced any of the incidents listed within the past year. The percentage of
incidents reported is displayed in Figure 3. Please note that because experiencing
incidents of workplace violence tends to be a rare occurrence, the graph starts at the 80%
mark (the most frequently reported experience was only reported by 19% of the
participants; in other words, 81% of participants reported never having experienced it).
12
Figure 3. Prevalence of Violent Experiences (Direct)
II.4.1 Experiences Reported
As a follow-up to the types and frequency of violent incidents experienced, participants
were asked to report the frequency with which they reported a violent incident they were
involved in. These frequencies are reported in Figure 4.
Figure 4. Frequency of direct experiences reported
II.4.2 Barriers to Reporting
Faculty and staff who indicated that they did not report any of the violent incidents were
asked to indicate why they did not report the incident. A list of barriers to reporting was
provided to participants and they were instructed to select all that applied. Additionally,
participants were given the opportunity to provide their own reasons for not reporting an
incident they were directly involved in.
96.0%
93.5%
86.9%
98.8%
86.6%
2.0%
3.3%
9.0%
12.2%
8.9%
2.0%
1.6%
5.3%
3.2%
hit, kicked, punched, or shoved
objects thrown at me
threatened with physical assault
threatened with a weapon(s)
had something stolen from me
had my property damaged
Never Rarely Occasionally Sometimes Frequently Everyday
16.9%
8.0%
4.1%
13.2%
0%2%4%6%8%
10%12%14%16%18%
All Most Some None
13
Some of the most commonly reported barriers are presented in Table 3, in rank order
from most cited to least cited.
Table 3. Barriers to reporting
Barriers % Cited
It didn’t seem serious enough to me 7.9%
Other (see below for qualitative findings) 5.1%
I didn’t think others would think it was serious or important 2.9%
I was afraid of being blamed 2.9%
I was afraid I would be believed 2.2%
I wanted to deal with it on my own 2.2%
I was afraid of retribution from the person(s) who did it 2.2%
I felt I was over-reacting 1.8%
I didn’t want the person(s) involved to get in trouble 1.8%
I didn’t have time to deal with it 1.8%
I was ashamed or embarrassed 1.4%
I wanted to forget that it happened 1.4%
I felt responsible 1.1%
*Note: Participants were asked to select any and all options that applied, therefore,
percent totals do not add up to 100.
Participants were asked to specify why they did not report the incident if they selected
“other”. Some representative quotes from this open-ended question are below.
“I didn’t feel anything would be done about it” (this explanation was provided
most frequently)
“No point, they wouldn’t be able to stop it from reoccurring or catch the person
who did it”
“No confidence that the administration is capable of dealing with such problems”
“Incident occurred while doing field work – no mechanism to report”
“Perpetrator was in a direct position of power over me”
When asked previously about response knowledge and investigation processes (see page
11), both staff and faculty indicated they were unfamiliar with Saint Mary’s violent
incident investigation process. Additionally, faculty indicated they only slightly agreed
that, if reported, violent incidents would be handled appropriately. These findings suggest
staff, and especially faculty, may be hesitant to report certain incidents due to uncertainty
around follow-up action and appropriateness of the University response. This is reflected
in some of the qualitative responses above.
II.4.3 Follow-up Response to Reporting
Participants that indicated they had experienced and reported a violent incident(s) were
asked if anyone followed-up with them after their report was submitted. The frequency of
14
follow-up contact is expressed as percentages based on the number of participants who
had reported a violent incident (see Figure 5).
Figure 5. Frequency of Follow-Up
Participants were also asked how satisfied they were with the follow-up they received.
Satisfaction was measured on a 6-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (Completely
Dissatisfied) to 6 (Completely Satisfied). On average, participants indicated that they
were somewhat satisfied with the follow-up (M = 4.27, SD = 1.69). Written comments
provide more information from those who were satisfied and dissatisfied (see Appendix
D).
II.4.4 Additional Event Information
To gain more information about the violent events that faculty and staff have experienced,
participants were asked to indicate which type of event they perceived as being the most
severe and were then instructed to think about that event while answering questions
related to source, relationship with the offender, and location. Results for these questions
are presented below in Figure 6. Property theft, property damage, and being threatened
with physical assault were among the most frequently reported severe experiences.
Figure 6. Event Type
63%15%
9%
13%Everytime
Most of the time
Only some of the time
Never
7%
8%
26%
3%
37%
18%
…being hit, kicked, punched, or shoved
…having objects thrown at me
…being threatened with physical assault
…being threatened with a weapon or
weapons…having something stolen from me
…having my property damaged
15
In most cases, both faculty and staff were unaware of the offenders’ affiliation with Saint
Mary’s University. This is most likely linked to reports of property theft and damage, as
many participants indicated that these incidences took place when they were not present.
When offenders were known, staff report the highest number of incidents as stemming
from others staff members (e.g., coworker violence), while faculty report the highest
number of incidents as stemming from students (see Figure 7).
Figure 7. Source of Violence
II.4.5 Relationship
The next two questions asked participants about their relationship with the other
person(s) involved.
Figure 8. Relationship to other person involved
Qualitative results for the “other” category indicate the relationship with the other
person(s) was unknown. That is, participants did not know the position of the other
individual(s).
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Student Faculty Staff Unknown
Faculty
Staff
22%
5%
5%
28%
40%
Colleague
Supervisor or Boss
Employee or Subordinate
Student
Other
16
II.4.6 Location
Participants were asked to specify where they experienced a violent event(s).
Figure 9. Location of violent event
The majority of incidents are taking place in private and shared offices, parking lots, and
other locations on campus (see Figure 9, above). Qualitative results for the ‘other’
category indicate that incidents are also taking place in residence (most commonly report),
lobbies and common areas on campus, lunchrooms, and washrooms.
II.5 VICARIOUS EXPERIENCES OF VIOLENCE
To get the best sense of violence prevalence at Saint Mary’s University, it is important to
assess both direct and indirect experiences. The current section explored faculty and
staffs’ vicarious (i.e., indirect) experiences of workplace violence.
Participants were once again asked to use a 6-point Likert-type rating scale ranging from
1 (Never) to 6 (Everyday) to indicate how often they have witnessed or observed any of
the incidents listed within the past year. The percentage of incidents reported is displayed
in Figure 10. Please note that because incidents of workplace violence tend to be a rare
occurrence, the graph starts at the 80% mark (the most frequently reported experience
was only reported by 17% of the participants; in other words, 83% of participants
reported never having experienced it).
20%
5%
4%
20%
15%
4%
7%
2%
2%
21%
Parking lot on campus
Classroom on campus
Lab on campus
A private office on campus
A group office on campus
Off campus
Online
Over the phone
At a university-sanctioned event,
social gathering, or partyOther location on campus
17
Figure 10. Prevalence of violent experiences (indirect)
II.5.1 Experiences Reported
As a follow-up to the types and frequency of violent incidents witnessed, participants
were asked to report the frequency with which they reported a violent incident they were
indirectly involved in.
Figure 11. Frequency of indirect experiences reported
II.5.2 Barriers to Reporting
Over half of participants who reported witnessing a violent event did not report the
incident. To understand these figures better, participants were asked why they did not
report the incident and what barriers they encountered.
A list of barriers to reporting was provided to participants and they were instructed to
select all that applied. Additionally, participants were given the opportunity to provide
their own reasons for not reporting an incident they were directly involved in. Some of
the most commonly reported barriers are presented in Table 4.
87.8%
94.1%
84.5%
97.4%
82.7%
84.6%
7.6%
3.4%
9.6%
1.7%
8.9%
9.4%
hit, kicked, punched, or shoved
objects thrown at someone
threatened with physical assault
threatened with a weapon(s)
saw someone steal something
saw someone's property get damaged
Never Rarely Occasionally Sometimes Frequently Everyday
35.2%
4.2% 7.0%
53.5%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
All Most Some None
18
Table 4. Barriers to reporting
Barriers % Cited
Other 7.2%
It didn’t seem serious enough to me 3.2%
I didn’t think it was any of my business 2.9%
I didn’t think others would think it was serious or important 1.8%
I was afraid of retribution from the person(s) who did it 1.1%
I was afraid I would be believed 0.7%
I didn’t think I should get involved 0.7%
I didn’t think others would understand 0.4%
I was worried that others would overreact 0.4%
I didn’t have time to deal with it 0.4%
I wanted to forget that it happened 0.4%
I was afraid of being blamed 0.4%
I thought it was a private matter 0.4%
I didn’t want the person(s) involved to get in trouble 0.4%
*Note: Participants were asked to select any and all options that applied, therefore,
percent totals do not add up to 100.
Participants were asked to specify why they did not report the incident if they selected
“other”. The majority of responses suggested those directly involved reported the incident.
Some representative quotes from this open-ended question are below.
“Security was on the scene in seconds”
“The person it happened to reported it”
“I didn’t think to report it”
“Incident was already reported by someone else”
“I instructed the people involved to report it”
“I encourage the people I witnessed to report it and they confirmed they
would”
“Others say it, perhaps they reported it”
II.5.3 Follow-up Response to Reporting Indirect Experiences
Participants that indicated they had indirectly experienced and reported a violent incident
were asked if anyone followed-up with them after their report was submitted. The
frequency of follow-up contact is expressed in percentages based on the number of
participants who had reported a violent incident (see Figure 12).
19
Figure 12. Frequency of follow-up
II.6 RISK FACTORS
According to much of the workplace violence literature, there are several workplace
factors that can increase the likelihood that an employee will experience a violent
incident at work (LeBlanc & Kelloway, 2002). For the purpose of this review, these risk
factors have been grouped into four categories: work schedule, the physical location of
one’s work area, the duties and responsibilities inherent to one’s job, and the level of
authority one has over others. To determine the level of risk experienced by employees
at Saint Mary’s, participants were asked to use a 6-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1
(Never) to 6 (Everyday) to rate how often they experience specific risk factors in each of
these categories. Findings from each of these risk factor categories are presented below.
II.6.1 Work Schedule
Given that employees with irregular schedules are at a greater risk for violence at work
(LeBlanc & Kelloway, 2002), it is important to understand the proportion of the
employee population at Saint Mary’s that regularly works irregular hours. Specifically,
we evaluated and report on the percentage of employees who work after hours (i.e., past
5:00 pm Monday to Friday) or on weekends or holidays.
Key findings include:
1. There were no significant differences between the number of irregular hours
worked by faculty and staff. On average, faculty and staff members seem to be at
a statistically equivalent risk level for workplace violence during irregular hours.
2. Most employees only work on campus after hours or on weekends occasionally or
sometimes, with relatively few reporting that they never or rarely work on campus
during irregular hours.
57%
6%
20%
17% Everytime
Most of the time
Only some of the time
Never
20
Figure 13. Frequency of work after-hours or on weekends
In addition to the variability in work schedule, the number of hours that employees spend
at work can also increase their chances of workplace violence. This increased risk is
largely attributable to their increased probability of being on campus when a violent event
occurs on campus.
Key findings include:
1. While the majority of employees (38.83%) report working on campus for a typical
work week (i.e., between 31 and 40 hours/week), a large percentage (30.51%) of
employees report spending slightly more time on campus (i.e., 41-50 hours/week),
and some (11.46%) even report being on campus for more than 51 hours/week
(see Figure 14).
2. According to these data, 24.4% of faculty and 34.6% of staff report working on
campus between 41-50 hours on campus. Similarly, 10.3% of faculty members
and 12.8% of staff report spending more than 51 hours on campus. Employees
working extended hours are at a slightly higher risk of experiencing or observing
workplace violence than employees working fewer hours.
Figure 14. Number of hours spent on campus each week
34%40%
26%
0%
20%
40%
Frequently/Everday Occasionally/Sometimes Rarely/Never
5% 7% 7%
39%
31%
11%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
10 Hours or Less 11-20 Hours 21-30 Hours 31-40 Hours 41-50 Hours 51+ Hours
21
II.6.2 Work Area Location
Another risk factor for violence in the workplace is related to the physical location of
one’s work area. Risk factors, such as poorly lit entrances/exits, can be hazardous to
employees, especially those who are entering or exiting buildings on campus during
irregular hours. In addition to the risks posed by poorly lit entrances/exits, areas of
concealment (e.g., bushes, cement pillars, obstructing furniture) can also be hazardous.
While areas of concealment can be dangerous to employees, research suggests that one’s
visibility to the general public can also pose a risk to the safety of employees (LeBlanc &
Kelloway, 2002), as it can lead employees to be more accessible to members of the public
who may pose a threat. To evaluate the risks associated with employees’ work areas, we
asked employees to estimate how often their work areas are visible to others (e.g.,
students, members of the public), the extent to which entrances/exits are well lit, and
whether their work areas are free from areas of concealment (see Figure 15). Participants
were asked to respond to each of these questions using a frequency scale ranging from 1
(Never) to 6 (Everyday).
Key findings include:
1. The majority of employees (82.4%) believe that campus entrances/exits are
consistently well lit, suggesting that the entrances/exits to most campus buildings
pose a marginal risk to the safety of employees.
2. Most employees (74.3%) believe that the area surrounding their work space is
frequently or always free from areas of concealment, meaning that most
employees feel safe from hazardous obstructions.
3. The majority of employees (60.4%) believe that their work area is typically
visible to others, suggesting that the majority of employees work in areas where
they are in direct or indirect contact with students or members of the general
public, who may pose additional risks.
Figure 15. Visibility of work areas
82%60%
74%
13%
24%13%
4%16% 13%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Entrances and exits
are well lit
Work areas are
visible to others
Work areas are free
from concealment
Frequently/Everyday
Occasionally/Sometimes
Rarely/Never
22
In addition to the visibility of work areas, the physical accessibility of work areas also
poses a risk to employees. Employees who are easily accessible to members of the
general public are at a greater risk for experiencing violence than employees who have
controlled access to their work areas. To evaluate this risk among employees at Saint
Mary’s, employees were asked to respond to questions that asked about the level of
access that others have to their work area, and whether or not their work spaces have been
designed so that they are closest to the door when meeting with other individuals (e.g.,
students, other employees, members of the public).
Key findings include:
1. The majority (63.2%) of employees report that there is controlled access to where
they work, suggesting that most employees are not easily accessible to others who
do not have access. This finding is somewhat contradictory to the earlier finding
that 60.4% of employees have work areas that are frequently visible to others.
Perhaps the combination of these findings suggests that employees may be
visible, but not necessarily accessible to others who may pose a risk for violence.
2. Despite the encouraging finding above, only 43.3% of employees reported that
they feel that their work area is designed for easy escape. For instance, 73.2% of
employees reported that their work spaces are set up so that they are furthest from
the door when meeting with other individuals. This work space design is
problematic as it places employees in a position where they must physically move
past a potentially dangerous individual in order to exit the room.
II.6.3 Exposure to Hazardous Situations
Employees who must deal with people under the influence of drugs or alcohol are at a
greater risk for violence than employees whose jobs do not require them to deal with
these individuals (LeBlanc & Kelloway, 2002). At Saint Mary’s, only 6.1% of employees
have to deal with people under the influence of drugs or alcohol on a frequent basis. The
great majority of these employees are those who work within the Residence Services and
Facilities Management departments. The specific nature of these interactions was not
examined within the scope of this survey and review.
II.6.4 Position of Authority
Employees who are in a position of authority are at a higher risk for experiencing
violence at work than employees who do not hold positions of authority or leadership.
To evaluate the extent to which authority is a risk factor for faculty and staff members at
Saint Mary’s, the survey asked employees to rate how often they must engage in the
following responsibilities/duties: deliver bad news, deny services or requests, and/or
make decisions that influence other peoples’ lives. Participants used a response scale
ranging from 1 (Never) to 6 (Everyday). Employees who have to carry out these duties
may be put in positions where they must deal with people who are upset, angry, or
threatening.
23
Key findings include:
1. Only 21.11% of employees are frequently or always in a position where they may
have to deliver bad news, deny services or requests, and make decisions that
influence other peoples’ lives.
2. The majority (44.51%) of employees are never or rarely in a position where they
have to exert this type of authority on others.
3. Faculty members (M = 9.46, SD = 1.15) engage in authoritative behaviours at a
statistically higher frequency than staff members (M = 8.75, SD = 1.30; t(209) =
4.01, p=.001). Thus, compared to staff members, more faculty members are in
positions of authority where they must engage in authoritative behaviours that
could upset and/or anger others.
Figure 16. Frequency of being in a position of authority or power
II.7 PREPAREDNESS FOR VIOLENCE
Employee perceptions of their preparedness to deal with violence is somewhat influenced
by safety climate and by general knowledge of workplace safety programs and policies at
Saint Mary’s University. Thus, to better understand the impact that such knowledge and
climate has on employees’ preparedness for violence, the survey asked employees about
their perceived ability to respond to violence on campus. Specifically, employees were
asked to respond “yes”, “no”, or “maybe” to questions that asked about how prepared
they feel to deal with violence on campus, and whether or not they feel Saint Mary’s has
prepared them to handle a violent situation at work.
Key findings include:
1. Most employee (47%) are unsure as to whether or not they are prepared to handle
an occurrence of violence on campus.
22%
34%
44%
Frequently/Always
Occasionally/Sometimes
Never/Rarely
24
2. Compared to faculty members (M = 3.27, SD = 0.63), staff members (M = 3.63,
SD = 0.75; t(209) = 3.56, p = .005) feel significantly more prepared to handle an
occurrence of violence on campus. Based on previous findings (see page 8,
Appendix A, and Appendix B), this difference may be explained by staff
members’ greater likelihood of attending relevant training programs.
Figure 17. Sense of preparedness for violence on campus
II.7.1 Saint Mary’s Responsibility to Prepare Faculty and Staff
To further understand the role that Saint Mary’s has in impacting employee preparedness
for violence, the survey also asked employees about the extent to which they feel Saint
Mary’s has prepared them to handle violence on campus.
Key findings include:
1. Largely, employees are uncertain as to whether or not Saint Mary’s has
adequately prepared them to deal with on-campus violence, with only 15.5% of
employees reporting that Saint Mary’s has provided them with enough
information or training to respond to a violent situation in a safe way.
2. Yet, almost all employees feel that it is Saint Mary’s responsibility to provide
them with the information to respond to a violent situation in a safe way.
Figure 18. Sense that Saint Mary’s has prepared employees to respond to violence
27%
47%
26% Yes
Maybe
No
43%
42%
15% No
Maybe
Yes
25
II.7.2 Perceptions of Vulnerability
Related to employee perceptions of their preparedness for violence, the survey also asked
employees to indicate how vulnerable to violence they feel while on campus. Two key
findings were revealed through these questions. First, only 12.8% of employees feel
nervous or anxious about coming to work because of violence on campus. Yet, 26.8% of
employees reported that there is something about the campus environment that makes
them feel vulnerable to violence. To illustrate this perception, a selection of qualitative
data is provided in Appendix E. This data has been grouped into three distinct themes
that emerged from the data: 1) Parking Lots/Outdoor Walkways, 2) After-Hours Building
Access and Public Accessibility, and 3) Emergency Preparedness.
II.8 COMMITMENT TO SAINT MARY’S
Given that employee perceptions of health and safety are often correlated with
commitment levels (Hakanen, Schaufeli, & Ahola, 2008), we surveyed employees in the
areas of commitment and turnover intentions. Affective commitment is generally defined
as an employee’s emotional attachment to his/her workplace (Meyer & Allen, 1991),
while continuance commitment tends to be defined as ‘commitment routed in necessity’
(i.e., where the costs associated with leaving a job outweigh the benefits; Meyer & Allen,
1991). Thus, affective commitment, but not continuance commitment, is related to
employee job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behaviours. Survey responses
suggest that more employees are affectively committed to Saint Mary’s than those who
are continuously committed. The remaining employees do not have a particularly strong
level of commitment toward Saint Mary’s in one way or another.
Figure 19. Employee commitment to Saint Mary’s
In alignment with high levels of affective commitment, 66.9% of employees report that
they are satisfied or very satisfied with their job. Similarly, the majority of employees
(71.70%) at Saint Mary’s are not thinking about quitting, leaving their job, or looking for
employment elsewhere
20%14%
34%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Emotionally Committed Committed due to Necessity Not Strongly Committed
26
Appendix A. Faculty & Staff Familiarity with Safety Programs at Saint Mary’s
Not at all
Familiar
Slightly
Familiar
Somewhat
Familiar
Moderately
Familiar
Very
Familiar
Extremely
Familiar
Lone Worker Program 63.6% 14.3% 9.1% 7.8% 3.9% 1.3%
53.0% 11.9% 9.0% 9.0% 8.2% 9.0%
Prevention and
Resolution of
Harassment and
Discrimination policy
26.0% 26.0% 23.4% 13.0% 7.8% 3.9%
22.6% 15.8% 16.5% 21.8% 12.8% 10.5%
Violence in the
Workplace Prevention
and Response policy
42.9% 22.1% 20.8% 7.8% 6.5% 0%
26.1% 17.2% 16.4% 19.4% 12.7% 8.2%
Conflict Resolution
Services
11.5% 11.5% 17.9% 20.5% 21.8% 16.7%
5.3% 8.3% 13.5% 29.3% 23.3% 20.3%
Safe-Walk program 25.6% 23.1% 14.1% 23.1% 10.3% 3.8%
20.3% 15.0% 20.3% 16.5% 18.8% 9.0%
Occupational Health
and Safety policy
20.5% 16.7% 24.4% 21.8% 14.1% 2.6%
9.0% 11.9% 16.4% 25.4% 23.9% 13.4%
Emergency response
system
19.5% 10.4% 28.6% 14.3% 16.9% 10.4%
6.7% 6.0% 11.2% 29.9% 25.4% 20.9%
The mass notification
system at Saint Mary’s
13.0% 11.7% 18.2% 22.1% 20.8% 14.3%
6.8% 5.3% 11.3% 24.1% 27.1% 25.6%
The online emergency
response video
41.0% 9.0% 7.7% 10.3% 14.1% 17.9%
29.1% 10.4% 11.2% 14.2% 16.4% 18.7%
*Note: Faculty responses are recorded in the top row and staff responses are recorded in
the bottom row corresponding to each program/policy title.
27
Appendix B. Sources of Familiarity with Safety Programs at Saint Mary’s
Training Society
or Club
Volunteer
Activity
Orientation/
Welcome
Week
Word
of
Mouth
Other N/A
Lone Worker Program 2.6% 0% 0% 2.6% 19.2% 9% 66.7%
11.9% 1.5% 0% 3.7% 24.6% 9.7% 53.7%
Prevention and Resolution
of Harassment and
Discrimination policy
7.7% 0% 0% 10.3% 28.2% 29.5% 25.6%
32.8% 0.7% 0% 4.5% 17.2% 21.6% 25.4%
Violence in the Workplace
Prevention and Response
policy
7.7% 0% 0% 9.0% 25.6% 21.8% 33.3%
35.1% 0.7% 0% 2.2% 19.4% 18.7% 26.1%
Conflict Resolution
Services
17.9% 1.3% 2.6% 12.8% 29.5% 32.1% 16.7%
37.3% 1.5% 0.7% 7.5% 26.9% 23.9% 6.7%
Safe-Walk program 3.8% 0% 1.3% 6.4% 33.3% 19.2% 30.8%
15.7% 0.7% 0% 3.7% 48.5% 16.4% 18.7%
Occupational Health and
Safety policy
19.2% 1.3% 1.3% 11.5% 21.8% 24.4% 21.8%
44.8% 2.2% 0.7% 5.2% 23.9% 17.9% 9.0%
Emergency response system 19.2% 0% 0% 2.6% 24.4% 35.9% 20.5%
53.7% 0.7% 0% 2.2% 16.4% 21.6% 8.2%
The mass notification
system
19.2% 0% 0% 3.8% 21.8% 41.0% 16.7%
53.0% 0.7% 0% 2.2% 14.9% 20.9% 10.4%
The online emergency
response video
16.7% 0% 0% 2.6% 11.5% 24.4% 44.9%
43.3% 0.7% 0% 2.2% 12.7% 13.4% 29.1%
*Participants were asked to check all that apply, thus percentage totals will not equal
100. Faculty responses are recorded in the top row and staff responses are recorded in
the bottom row. N/A indicates a participant was not familiar with the program/policy
28
Appendix C. Violence Reporting Knowledge
Mean (SD)
I know what to do when violence occurs on campus 3.83 (1.32)
4.31 (1.14)
I know how to report incidents of violence that occur on campus 3.82 (1.49)
4.29 (1.27)
I know where to find incident report forms 2.88 (1.61)
3.62 (1.66)
I have filled out an incident report at some point while working at Saint
Mary’s
2.26 (1.71)
3.20 (2.02)
I know who I should talk to about reporting an incident of violence on
campus
3.53 (1.63)
4.33 (1.40)
I know when and how to request assistance from security on campus 4.58 (1.19)
4.87 (.96)
I know what to do if assaulted by a student or another staff or faculty
member, or anyone else on campus
3.99 (1.39)
4.41 (1.31)
I understand the investigation process associated with following-up
violent acts at Saint Mary’s
2.79 (1.39)
3.23 (1.61)
If I report campus violence, I feel that it will be handled appropriately 3.99 (1.19)
4.17 (1.23)
I feel that Saint Mary’s is committed to preventing violence on campus 4.24 (1.23)
4.55 (1.08)
*Note: Faculty responses are recorded in the top row and staff responses are recorded in
the bottom row corresponding to each statement.
29
Appendix D. Satisfaction with Follow-up after Violent Incident
Reasons for Satisfaction with Follow-Up
“It was nice that someone acknowledged the incident and checked in to see how I
was doing.”
“An effort was made to work towards a more safe situation in future”
“Follow up was sincere, prompt”
“The response from Security Staff was excellent. They were very thorough,
thoughtful and informative”
“[In response to a threat], key personnel went to every end to address things”
“The reports were taken seriously and handled in a multifaceted manner by the
OHS representative, the OHS Committee and Security”
“I had two follow-up meetings and felt very secure”
“Everyone took all the steps they could to help. I never felt that the residence
department could have done more and didn't”
Reasons for Dissatisfaction with Follow-Up
“I felt that my co-worker should have been reprimanded in some way as they had
been reported numerous times by me and others”
“The administration always side with students rather than staff. Sanctions were
issued and never followed-up on.”
“I was ignored”
“The conflict resolution process is broken.”
“No mechanism to report violence that occurs off campus although still while
acting as a SMU faculty member (e.g. field work)”
“The conflict resolution officer has no real power to effect change in behavioural
problems among colleagues……… the colleagues I had conflicts with were not
faced with any penalties”
“I didn't think I was taken seriously”
“Not comfortable with how I was told to deal with situations”
30
“I believe workplace violence and or threats should be subject to the same process
if it occurred in the public sphere and internal mediation/ discipline alone is not
satisfactory”
“…reluctance to act quickly”
“Sometimes with student behaviour issues, more should be done via student
discipline”
31
Appendix E. Reasons for Feelings of Vulnerability
Theme 1: Parking Lots & Outdoor Walkways
“The parking lot at the Gorsebrook and the Oaks could have more lighting or a security
patrol after 5 pm for those who work late.”
“I think we may need more surveilliance cameras around the exterior of the buildings,
especially at certain entrances. Students still smoke in these areas, so it leads me to
believe that we either don’t have cameras or we don’t review the videos often enough.”
“There is a section of Robie between the main entrance driveway and the driveway to the
Sobey parking lot that is dark at night. In front of the Alumni and Continuing Ed houses.
There should be better lighting in this area for people walking to the Oaks parking lot in
the evenings.”
Theme 2: After-Hours Building Access & Accessibility to the Public
“During weekends, the McNally exterior doors are unlocked so any stranger can walk in
while staff is working alone in offices.”
“Building are often accessible on holidays and weekends when they should be locked;
access doors between buildings are left open when they should be locked.”
“Although uninviting, I would like to see some sort of barriers in place in certain office
areas. Often, I work in an open space that cannot be secured easily or quickly. I feel too
vulnerable.”
Theme 4: Emergency Preparedness
“Despite the video on emergency responses that tells us to know how to lock classroom
doors, there are some classrooms that do not lock, to the best of my knowledge, and when
I asked the appropriate individuals for information on how to do this, no one responded.”
“In the emergency response video there are discussions about what to do about a shooter.
MMTAUD and AT101 are big lecture halls with very little ways of locking the classroom
if that were needed. When there was the potential shooter downtown in Fall 2014,
reviewing emergency procedures with students in these rooms was difficult because
doors can’t lock and there is lots of glass.”
“There is insufficient “shelter in place” locations in the event of a lockdown situation—
too many windows, non-locking doors, etc. Many faculty, staff, and students don’t know
what to do in the event of a serious event on campus, such as a gas leak or active shooter.
A training on emergency response would be helpful.”