Search results

Preventing violence against public servants From safety science, we have learned that in light of increasing demands and system complexity, we must adapt our approach to safety. We have to include new practices to look for what goes right, focus on frequent events, remain sensitive to the possibility of failure, to be thorough as well as efficient, and to view an investment in safety as an investment in productivity. But most people still think of safety as the absence of accidents and incidents (or as an acceptable level of risk). In this perspective, which is termed Safety-I, safety is defined as a state where as few things as possible go wrong. According to Safety-I, things go wrong due to technical, human and organizational causes – failures and malfunctions. Humans are viewed predominantly as a liability or hazard. The safety management principle is to respond when something happens or is categorized as an unacceptable risk. Accordingly, the purpose of accident investigation is to identify the causes and contributory factors of adverse outcomes, while risk assessment aims to determine their likelihood. Both approaches then try to eliminate causes or improve barriers, or both. However, the Safety-I view does not explain why human performance practically always goes right. The reason that things go right is not people behave as they are told to, but that people can adjust their work so that it matches the conditions. As systems continue to develop, these adjustments become increasingly important for successful performance. The challenge for safety improvement is to understand these adjustments, beginning by understanding how performance usually goes right. Despite the obvious importance of things going right, safety management has so far paid relatively little attention to this view – Safety-II. ; Violence and Threat Risk Assessment in government agencies

Preventing violence against public servants From safety science, we have learned that in light of increasing demands and system complexity, we must adapt our approach to safety. We have to include new practices to look for what goes right, focus on frequent events, remain sensitive to the possibility of failure, to be thorough as well as efficient, and to view an investment in safety as an investment in productivity. But most people still think of safety as the absence of accidents and incidents (or as an acceptable level of risk). In this perspective, which is termed Safety-I, safety is defined as a state where as few things as possible go wrong. According to Safety-I, things go wrong due to technical, human and organizational causes – failures and malfunctions. Humans are viewed predominantly as a liability or hazard. The safety management principle is to respond when something happens or is categorized as an unacceptable risk. Accordingly, the purpose of accident investigation is to identify the causes and contributory factors of adverse outcomes, while risk assessment aims to determine their likelihood. Both approaches then try to eliminate causes or improve barriers, or both. However, the Safety-I view does not explain why human performance practically always goes right. The reason that things go right is not people behave as they are told to, but that people can adjust their work so that it matches the conditions. As systems continue to develop, these adjustments become increasingly important for successful performance. The challenge for safety improvement is to understand these adjustments, beginning by understanding how performance usually goes right. Despite the obvious importance of things going right, safety management has so far paid relatively little attention to this view – Safety-II. ; QC 20160810 ; Violence and Threat Risk Assessment in government agencies

This reference offers the nuanced understanding and practical guidance needed to address domestic violence, sexual assault, and human trafficking in diverse religious communities. Introductory chapters sort through the complexities, from abusers' distorting of sacred texts to justifying their actions to survivors' conflicting feelings toward their faith. The core of the book surveys findings on gender violence across Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Eastern, and Indigenous traditions--both attitudes that promote abuse and spiritual resources that can be used to promote healing. Best practices are included for appropriate treatment of survivors, their children, and abusers; and for partnering with communities and clergy toward stemming violence against women. Among the topics featured: Ecclesiastical policies vs. lived social relationships: gender parity, attitudes, and ethics. Women's spiritual struggles and resources to cope with intimate partner aggression. Christian stereotypes and violence against North America's native women. Addressing intimate partner violence in rural church communities. Collaboration between community service agencies and faith-based institutions. Providing hope in faith communities: creating a domestic violence policy for families. Religion and Men's Violence against Women will gain a wide audience among psychologists, social workers, marriage and family therapists, and other mental health professionals who treat religious clients or specialize in treating survivors and perpetrators of domestic and intimate partner violence, stalking, sexual assault, rape, or human trafficking.

Frontmatter -- Contents -- Preface -- Acknowledgements -- One. What is Violence Against Women? -- Two. It Often Hurts to be a Woman in Canada -- Three. "But Women Do It Too!": Understanding Women's Use of Violence in Intimate Relationships -- Four. "Who Would Do Such a Thing?": Explaining Violence Against Women in Canada -- Five. Why Can't Abused Women Leave Home? -- Six. The Consequences of Violence Against Women -- Seven. "What Can We Do?": Policy Options -- Notes -- Bibliography -- Index

A major accomplishment of women's rights scholars and activists has been to make violence against women (VAW) visible. After decades of struggle, in a dramatic turn, VAW has become a highly politicized topic since the mid 1990's, and even more so after 9/11. An unfortunate side-effect of the increased recognition of harm done to women is that the issue of VAW is sometimes co-opted by the state and used in service of their political projects. In this paper I present the political co-optation of VAW as one of the pressing challenges facing scholars who conduct research on the problem of VAW. The issues detailed here have been debated in the transnational feminist theory literature and the feminist international relations (IR) literature for the last two decades. Yet, the issues detailed in this paper rarely appear in mainstream VAW research. This paper is an effort to encourage cross-fertilization between these fields and to outline key issues of engagement regarding the issue of the politicization of VAW. After detailing the problem of political co-optation I then go on to offer ideas about how to proceed as scholars and activists in a political climate where the issue of VAW is routinely misused as a tool by the state to serve political ends.