Violence against public servants: risks and possible solutions
Steve Munns, director and psychologist in the Federal Government agency Services Australia and PhD Scholar at the School of Regulation and Global Governance (ANU) highlights the issue of violence and aggression perpetrated against frontline public servants.
Violence against public servants has resulted in serious injury and even death. Photo of many arrows in a dart board by Photos Hobby
At approximately 9:51am on 1 September 2014, Russell John Tully, wearing a balaclava and armed with a loaded shotgun, entered the Ashburton office of Work and Income New Zealand, a division of the Ministry of Social Development. Moving swiftly and deliberately, he shot at four employees, killing two of them. Mr Tully was subsequently found guilty of murder and sentenced by the High Court to a term of imprisonment.
A formal review into this extreme incident found the Ministry could do more in relation to the safety of its employees. The Australian Government and the Australian Public Service (APS) took heed, leading to a number of policy and risk prevention strategies being introduced to protect frontline staff across various APS departments. These mitigation strategies themselves have raised many questions, in particular: are the policies more reactive than preventive, do various APS agencies and departments share best practice procedures and most importantly are they effective?
I am currently undertaking my PhD research to understand the factors that contribute to service user aggression against public servants. It is hoped that at the conclusion of my study I may be able to advice organisations on proactive evidence-based risk mitigation strategies that will in turn reduce the incidence of violence or aggression occurring against their staff in the future.
In my prior roles I have witnessed numerous service user threats that have taken place face to face, on the phone as well as via offensive materials being sent through email or social media. Personal physical attacks against staff or objects being damaged in the office environment have left staff with physical or psychological injuries.
The ‘label’ public servant gives the impression that the staff member is impenetrable to the incivilities thrown at them, but being a public servant is a job being carried out by someone’s mum or dad, a sister or brother, they may have children and often live in the areas in which they work. They are susceptible to the same emotional reactions when abnormal situations arise in their workplace as anyone else.
De-escalation techniques, and context specific training could help reduce violence. Photo of bureaucrat and citizen in an altercation by Library of Congresson Unsplash
My research is still in its preliminary stage, but some issues have warranted further investigation. Many large organisations across private and public sectors can operate in silos, seldom sharing best practice strategies around mitigating risk for aggression and violence.
Often the service user that is aggressive against one organisation does so against others they are involved with, yet this goes unnoticed. This lack of consistency in engaging individuals could easily be overcome through a regulated networked approach. This approach could take place across private, public (multiple jurisdictions) and NGO sectors.
The other area of concern is with respect to client aggression training which has been a key tactic in helping to reduce service user aggression. Literature suggests that client aggression training should be employee role and location specific and have a healthy component focused on de-escalation techniques delivered in an experiential format to ensure proficiency.
Budget constraints in many organisations private, public and NGO have seen this training move to short online modules which may or may not be compulsory. Unfortunately, with no practical way to ensure participation and appraise that staff have acquired the appropriate skills the ability to have a direct impact on reducing violence or aggression in the work environment may be lost.
De-escalation is a way of using verbal and non-verbal techniques to defuse potentially violent or aggressive behaviour from service users who may be highly agitated, frustrated, angry, fearful or intoxicated. When confronted with an aggressive service user in a face to face situation, it is important that you are fully aware of the situation and of your own emotional state prior to engaging with them.
One of the most important techniques is listening, as this will allow the service user to ventilate. This in turn may help them return to a more composed state. Maintaining a calm and open posture indicates that you are acknowledging what they have to say and that you do not pose a threat. Validating their emotions by relaying that you understand what the service user may be feeling by saying words to the effect of “I can see how something like that could cause some anger”, and seek to understand by clarifying exactly what their issue may be. Unfortunately, more often than not aggressive situations are caused through misunderstandings.
It is hoped as this research matures, I will be able to look more closely at the triggers that lead to violent or aggressive situations. This will be undertaken in a balanced way focusing on the service user, the staff member, and the organisational environment. By better understanding how contextual factors interact with service user historical behaviour the development of evidence-based approaches to management of violent or aggressive incidents may be achieved.