[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 171 (Wednesday, September 4, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54473-54476]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-21441]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Office of Justice Programs

[CDC-2013-0020; NIOSH-269]


Request for Information: Collection and Use of Nonfatal Workplace 
Violence Information from the National Crime Victimization Survey

AGENCY: The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 
(NIOSH) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Bureau of Justice 
Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.

ACTION: Request for public comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 
(NIOSH) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Bureau of Justice 
Statistics (BJS) of the Office of Justice Programs, Department of 
Justice (DOJ), are collaborating to request public comments to inform 
BJS's approach in collecting and reporting data related to nonfatal 
workplace violence in the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). 
NIOSH and BJS request input on these issues. The instructions for 
submitting comments can be found at www.regulations.gov. Written 
comments submitted to the Docket will be used to inform BJS with the 
planning and collection of workplace violence data in the NCVS. Dates: 
Public Comment Period: Comments must be received by November 27, 2013 
to be considered by BJS and NIOSH. Addresses: Written comments: You may 
submit comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: NIOSH Docket Office, Robert A. Taft Laboratories, 
MS-C34, 4676 Columbia Parkway, Cincinnati, OH 45226.
     Instructions: All submissions received must include the 
agency name and docket number [CDC-2013-0020; NIOSH-269]. All relevant 
comments, including any personal information provided, will be posted 
without change to http://www.regulations.gov.
    All information received in response to this notice will be 
available for public examination and copying at the NIOSH Docket 
Office, 4676 Columbia Parkway, Cincinnati, Ohio 45226.

I. Background

    The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) 
is the federal agency responsible for conducting research to prevent 
workplace injuries and illnesses. Workplace violence is a common threat 
to worker safety and health, and NIOSH has a long history of conducting 
research on the prevalence, risk factors for, and prevention of work-
related violence.
    The U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau 
of Justice Statistics collects data on rape, sexual assault, robbery, 
aggravated assault, and simple assault against persons age 12 or older 
through the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). The NCVS 
gathers data from a continuous, nationally representative sample of 
approximately 86,000 households comprising nearly 156,000 persons age 
12 or older in the United States, reported and not reported to the 
police. The NCVS provides information about victims (e.g. age, gender, 
race, Hispanic origin, marital status, income, and educational level), 
offenders (e.g. gender, race, approximate age, and victim/offender 
relationship), and the nature of the crime (time and place of 
occurrence, use of weapons, nature of injury, and economic 
consequences).
    NCVS respondents who report that they were a victim of a violent 
crime (rape, sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, or simple 
assault) while working or on duty are included in NCVS special reports 
on workplace violence. BJS published special reports on workplace 
violence in 1994, 1998 (covering 1992-96), 2001 (covering 1993-99), 
2011 (covering 1993-2009) and 2013 (focused on government workers, 
1994-2011). These reports are available on the BJS Web site as part of 
their violence in the workplace series at http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbse&sid=56
    All of the workplace violence special reports used the same 
classification system to determine work-relatedness of the incidents. 
To qualify as workplace violence the incident must have:

[[Page 54474]]

     Involved someone 16 years of age or older,
     Had the activity variable coded as ``working'',
     Involved a violent crime,
     Involved a person who had a job or worked at a business 
the week preceding the survey or during the 6 months preceding the 
survey, and
     The event must have occurred within the United States.
    Additionally, workplace violence to teachers commuting to and from 
work were included to make the data comparable to estimates presented 
in the Department of Education/BJS report, ``Indicators of School Crime 
and Safety.'' The NCVS is a nationally representative household survey 
so it excludes persons who are homeless, persons living in military 
barracks or stationed outside of the U.S., and those persons living in 
institutionalized group quarters, such as prisons, mental health 
facilities, and certain hospitals and assisted-living facilities. In 
2002, NIOSH and BJS conducted The Workplace Risk Supplement to the 
NCVS, which was administered to employed respondents who were 16 years 
or older in all households selected for the NCVS during the 6-month 
reference period from January through June 2002. This supplement used 
the same classification system described for the special reports.

II. Purpose of Request for Comments

    NIOSH and BJS are collaborating to improve and enhance the 
collection of nonfatal workplace violence data through the NCVS. This 
is part of a larger BJS effort to re-design and increase the utility of 
nonfatal violence data collected through the NCVS.
    NIOSH and BJS are seeking input on: (1) Methods to identify work-
related violence using the existing variable structure within the NCVS, 
and (2) other suggested enhancements to improve the ability of the NCVS 
to describe the prevalence, patterns, and trends in workplace violence. 
Responses to this request for information will be considered by BJS in: 
(1) The re-design of the NCVS, (2) an on-line NVCS reporting tool, and 
(3) future BJS workplace violence reports. NIOSH and BJS also 
anticipate utilizing this information in a jointly issued technical 
report on methodological issues with identifying and reporting on 
nonfatal workplace violence through the NCVS.

III. Identifying Workplace Violence in the NCVS

    NIOSH defines workplace violence as ``violent acts, including 
physical assaults and threats of assault, directed toward persons at 
work or on duty.'' The Occupational Safety and Health Administration 
(OSHA) defines workplace violence as any act or threat of physical 
violence, harassment, intimidation, or other threatening disruptive 
behavior that occurs at the work site. These are broad definitions and 
most data collection systems will not capture all incidents of 
workplace violence. For example, data on workplace violence collected 
through the NIOSH/Consumer Product Safety Commission, National 
Electronic Injury Surveillance System- Work Supplement (NEISS-Work), 
which is collected from a nationally representative sample of hospital 
emergency departments, is more likely to capture workplace violence 
that results in physical injuries than other forms that do not result 
in injury such as threats, harassment and intimidation, http://www2a.cdc.gov/risqs/wrtechinfo.htm.
    Additionally, the NIOSH and OSHA definitions are restricted to 
incidents that occur at work and do not encompass violence that may 
have a work-association but not have occurred at work, such as violence 
associated with commuting to and from a workplace. BJS and NIOSH plan 
to address these issues and the implications for assessing trends in 
workplace violence using the NCVS and other data sources in the 
anticipated jointly-issued technical report on workplace violence 
methodological issues in the NCVS.
    Determining work-relatedness of the violent incidents recorded by 
the NCVS is not straightforward. Many factors influence the decision to 
include the case as a workplace violence incident. The work-related 
variables that are currently collected in the NCVS appear below. Any 
combination of these variables is possible. Immediately below the 
variable list are alternatives for variable combinations that are 
currently being used or considered in determining work-relatedness in 
the NCVS. There are advantages and disadvantages to different methods, 
including the ability to assess trends using historical data and being 
more inclusive or exclusive in identifying work associations.
    Input is requested regarding the best combination of variables to 
determine work-relatedness of the violent incident. In particular, what 
would be your first and second choices for a combination of variables 
to identify work-related violence and why?
    NCVS crime incident report instrument: http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=dcdetail&iid=245#Questionnaires

IV. Currently Collected Variables in the NCVS That May Be Considered to 
Establish Work-relatedness

Household-level Variables

    1. Does anyone in this household operate a business from this 
address?
    2. Is there a sign on the premises or some other indication to the 
general public that a business is operated from this address?

Person-level Variables

    3. Did you have a job or work at a business last week?
    4. Did you have a job or work at a business during the last 6 
months?
    5. Did that (job/work) last 2 consecutive weeks or more?
    6. Which of the following best describes your job?
Medical Profession
 Physician
 Nurse
 Technician
 Other
Mental Health Services Field
 Professional (Social worker/Psychiatrist)
 Custodial care
 Other
Teaching Profession
 Preschool
 Elementary
 Junior high or middle school
 High school
 College or university
Technical or Industrial School
 Special education facility
 Other
Law Enforcement Security Field
 Law enforcement officer
 Correctional officer
 Security guard
 Other
Retail Sales
 Convenience or liquor store clerk
 Gas station attendant
 Bartender
 Other
Transportation Field
 Bus driver
 Taxi cab driver
 Other
Something Else
    7. Is your job with a private company, federal government, state, 
county, or local government, or yourself?
    8. While working at your job, do you work mostly in city, suburb, 
or rural area or combination of these?
    9. Are you employed by a college or university?

[[Page 54475]]

Incident-Level Variables

    10. Was the victim injured? How (Type of injury)?
    11. What were you doing when this incident (happened/started)?
     Working or on duty
     On the way to or from work
     On the way to or from school
     On the way to or from other place
     Shopping, errands
     Attending school
     Leisure activity away from home
     Sleeping
     Other activities at home
     Other

    12. Were you employed at the time of the incident?
    13. What was the type of work performed at the time of the 
incident?
    14. Is this business incorporated?
    15. What was the business type?
    16. What was the type of industry at the time of the incident?
    17. Collapsed industry code.
    18. Collapsed occupation code.
    19. While working at this job, did you work mostly in a city, 
suburb, rural area, or combination of any of these?
    20. Did this incident happen at your work site?
    21. Did you usually work days or nights?
    22. Is this your current job?
    23. Did you lose time from work because of the injuries you 
suffered in this incident?
    24. How many days did you lose because of injuries?
    25. Did you lose any pay that was not covered by unemployment 
insurance, sick leave or some other source?
    26. About how much pay did you lose?
    27. Did you lose any (other) time from work because of this 
incident for such things as cooperating with a police investigation, 
testifying in court, or repairing or replacing damaged or stolen 
property?
    28. How much time did you lose altogether because of cooperating 
with a police investigation, testifying in court, or repairing or 
replacing damaged or stolen property?
    29. During these days, did you lose any pay that was not covered by 
unemployment insurance, paid leave, or some other source?
    30. About how much pay did you lose?
    31. Were there any (other) household members 16 years or older who 
lost time from work because of this incident?
    32. How much time did they lose altogether?

Alternatives for determining work-relatedness
Variable alternatives currently used or under consideration and some 
advantages and disadvantages are:
Alternative I: Current Coding Scheme Used by the BJS:
     Age 16 (victims age 16 or older),
     Had a job or worked at a business last week or during the 
last 6 months,
     Excludes outside of U.S.
     Activity at time of incident--working,
     Violent crime
    Advantages--can be used to generate rates of workplace violence by 
occupation and other aspects, facilitates trend analyses with earlier 
data, relatively consistent with NIOSH and OSHA definitions of 
workplace violence (with exception of non-robbery threats of violence, 
harassment and intimidation which are not included in the NCVS 
definition of a violent crime and the inclusion of commuting injuries 
for teachers)
    Disadvantages--calculations of rates of workplace violence by 
occupation may not be as accurate because job at the time of incident 
may be different from current job. The percentage of workplace violence 
that occurred in which the job at the time of the incident was 
different from the job at the time of the NCVS interview increased from 
44% in 2007 to about 56% in 2011.
Alternative II
     Age 16 or older,
     Had a job or worked at a business last week or during the 
last 6 months,
     Job at time of incident was the same as job mentioned at 
beginning of NCVS interview,
     Excludes outside of U.S.,
     Activity at time of incident-working,
     Violent crime.
    Advantages--relatively consistent with NIOSH and OSHA definitions 
of workplace violence, allows for a more accurate calculation of rates 
of workplace violence by occupation than what is done currently 
(everyone has the same job for the numerator and denominator).
    Disadvantages--persons that experienced workplace violence at a 
time where their job does not match their job at the NCVS interview are 
excluded. As mentioned above, the percentage of workplace violence in 
which the job at the time of the incident was different from the job at 
the time of the NCVS interview has increased in recent years from 44% 
in 2007 to about 56% in 2011. These cases would be excluded from 
estimates of workplace violence by using Alternative II.
Alternative III
     Age 16 or older,
     Excludes outside of U.S.,
     Activity at time of incident-working,
     Violent crime
    Advantages--relatively consistent with NIOSH and OSHA definitions.
    Disadvantages--calculations of rates of workplace violence by 
occupation may not be as accurate because job at the time of incident 
may be different from current job.
Alternative IV
     Age 16 or older,
     Had a job or worked at a business last week or during the 
last 6 months,
     Excludes outside of U.S.,
     Activity at time of incident-working or on the way to/from 
work,
     Violent crime
    Advantages--includes violence committed on the way to and from work 
as well as while working.
    Disadvantages--calculations of rates of workplace violence by 
occupation may not be as accurate because job at the time of incident 
may be different from current job. Inconsistent with NIOSH and OSHA 
definitions of workplace violence which exclude violence during the 
commute to or from work.
Alternative V
     Age 16 or older,
     Excludes outside of U.S.,
     Activity at time of incident- working,
     Employed at the time of the incident,
     Violent crime.
    Advantages--know for certain the victim was employed at the time of 
the incident, relatively consistent with NIOSH and OSHA definitions.
    Disadvantages--calculations of rates of workplace violence by 
occupation may not be as accurate because job at the time of incident 
may be different from current job.
Alternative VI
     Age 16 or older,
     Excludes outside of U.S.,
     incident happened at your worksite,
     violent crime.
    Advantages--know for certain where the crime took place.
    Disadvantages--excludes workplace violence that occurs while a 
person is on duty away from the worksite and thus inconsistent with 
NIOSH and OSHA definitions of workplace violence.
    V. The second item for which we are requesting input is any other 
suggested enhancements to improve the ability of the NCVS to report on 
workplace violence. Two enhancements that are currently being explored 
by BJS and

[[Page 54476]]

NIOSH are: (1) The ability to report NCVS data by a workplace violence 
typology used by NIOSH and public health researchers (Type I--Criminal 
Intent, Type II--Customer/client, Type III--Worker-on-Worker, and Type 
IV Intimate Partner Violence [detail available at http://www.public-health.uiowa.edu/iprc/resources/workplace-violence-report.pdf]), and 
(2) revisions to the categories of occupations that are used in 
reports. One of the factors that will need to be considered with 
respect to occupation categories is the NCVS sample size and the 
ability to reliably report on specific occupations.
    In a recent review of the NCVS data collection instrument, there 
were a number of potential limitations that were identified. These 
include, but are not limited to:
    1. The victim-offender relationship variable is first conditioned 
on whether the victim knows the perpetrator or not. This complicates 
the use of such relationships as ``customer/client or patient.'' A 
worker who was assaulted by a customer who was also a stranger would be 
skipped out of the victim-offender relationship variable. Only 
customers that were considered casual acquaintances or well known to 
the victim would be filtered into the specific relationship coding. So 
it is possible that many offenders who were customers or clients end up 
in the stranger coding.
    2. Currently, NCVS collects limited occupation types (see section 
IV, 6). These categories are primarily considered high-risk 
occupations for certain victimization types. The categories do not 
reflect changes in the workforce since 1990. Input is requested 
regarding potential enhancements to the collection and reporting of 
nonfatal workplace violence in the NCVS. In particular, do you think it 
would be useful for BJS to include the public health typology of 
workplace violence in future workplace violence reports and in the on-
line NCVS reporting tool? Do you have suggestions for reporting on 
specific occupation or occupation groups and/or methods to address 
limitations regarding the NCVS sample size? Do you have suggestions for 
addressing the potential limitations identified in the survey, such as 
issues with the relationship variable?

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Daniel Hartley, 1095 Willowdale 
Road, Morgantown, West Virginia 26505, telephone (304) 285-5812. Email: 
[email protected].

    Dated: August 20, 2013.
John Howard,
Director, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    Dated: August 26, 2013.
William Sabol,
Acting Director, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
[FR Doc. 2013-21441 Filed 9-3-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-19-P