Suchergebnisse

According to the Swedish Work Environment Act, the primary responsibility for ensuring a safe and healthy work environment is placed with the employer. The current project study state agencies in the light of this responsibility. The authorities that are analysed in this project - for example the Social Insurance Agency, the Migration Board and the National Board of Institutional Care has in common that their clients' personal welfare is affected by the decisions made by these authorities. The analysis is based around of how to create knowledge about violence and threats in risk assessments in government agencies. The common occurrence of negative decisions in these authorities is a known risk factor for producing threats and violence aimed at the public officials responsible for the decisions. At the same time these are authorities whose performance and impartiality is vital to maintain a democratic society. This project aims at providing a deeper understanding of how the knowledge that forms the base for the risk-assessment of threats and violence in these authorities is gathered and produced. Since the explanatory models for violence at work must be sought in complex causal relationships involving both the individual and surrounding systems, it has been relevant to look for inspiration in the knowledge produced by other research traditions than criminology which is my main field. Thus two perspectives from Resilience Engineering did assist the systematic charting of the correlations between exposure to violence at work and the situational conditions that contribute to producing incidents of threats and violence.

According to the Swedish Work Environment Act, the primary responsibility for ensuring a safe and healthy work environment is placed with the employer. The current project aims at studying state agencies in the light of this responsibility. The authorities that was analyzed in this project - for example the Social Insurance Agency, the Migration Board and the National Board of Institutional Care has in common that their clients' personal welfare is affected by the decisions made by these authorities. The analysis is based around of how to create knowledge about violence and threats in risk assessments in government agencies. The common occurrence of negative decisions in these authorities is a known risk factor for producing threats and violence aimed at the public officials responsible for the decisions. At the same time these are authorities whose performance and impartiality is vital to maintain a democratic society. This project aims at providing a deeper understanding of how the knowledge that forms the base for the risk-assessment of threats and violence in these authorities is gathered and produced. Since the explanatory models for violence at work must be sought in complex causal relationships involving both the individual and surrounding systems, it has been relevant to look for inspiration in the knowledge produce by other research traditions. Two perspective from safety science perspective that I call stabile and habile did assist the systematic charting of the correlations between exposure to violence at work and the situational conditions that contribute to producing incidents of threats and violence. One result of the study is that safety management has so far paid relatively little attention to the habile perspective and thus the aim of the Swedish Work Environment Act is not fulfilled. ; Violence and risk assessment i swedish government agencies

An analysis based on a comparison of three Swedish victim surveys examines violence at work on the basis of the questions on exposure to threats and violence. The questions that are included are very similar in all three of surveys: Statistics Sweden's surveys of The Swedish population's living conditions (ULF), Swedish Work Environment Authority's survey The Work environment and Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention's survey The Swedish Crime Survey (NTU). However the prevalence's are very different. How can this be explained? ; Postdoc grant (FORTE): Violence and Threat Risk Assessment in three government agencies

According to the Swedish Work Environment Act, the responsibility for ensuring a safe work environment is placed with the employer. This project aims at studying three state agencies in the light of this responsibility. The three authorities - the Social Insurance Agency, the Migration Board and the National Board of Institutional Care has in common that their clients' personal welfare is affected by the decisions made by these authorities. The common occurrence of negative decisions in these authorities is a known risk factor for producing violence aimed at the public officials. The project is aimed at providing a deeper understanding of how the knowledge that forms the base for the risk-assessment of violence in these authorities is gathered. Three studies will be performed, each analyzing different source: 1) Guidelines 2) Interviews with employees responsible for safety issues in the authorities 3) Incident reports or occurrence investigations. Questions are directed towards understanding the production of knowledge about violence. What assumptions about violence are visible? What occurrence of violence do the authorities have to handle? What factors are causing the problems of violence? Can the roots of violence be trace to the inside or the outside of the authority? What activities will be risk-assessed (or not)? When do the rights of the clients and employees collide? How can harms be avoided? ; QC 20150508 ; Postdoc grant (FORTE): Violence and Threat Risk Assessment in three government agencies

An analysis based on a comparison of three Swedish victim surveys examines violence at work on the basis of the questions on exposure to threats and violence. The questions that are included are very similar in all three of surveys: Statistics Sweden's surveys of The Swedish population's living conditions (ULF), Swedish Work Environment Authority's survey The Work environment and Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention's survey The Swedish Crime Survey (NTU). However the prevalence's are very different. How can this be explained? ; QC 20150504 ; Postdoc grant (FORTE): Violence and Threat Risk Assessment in three government agencies

According to the Swedish Work Environment Act, the responsibility for ensuring a safe work environment is placed with the employer. This project aims at studying three state agencies in the light of this responsibility. The three authorities - the Social Insurance Agency, the Migration Board and the National Board of Institutional Care has in common that their clients' personal welfare is affected by the decisions made by these authorities. The common occurrence of negative decisions in these authorities is a known risk factor for producing violence aimed at the public officials. The project is aimed at providing a deeper understanding of how the knowledge that forms the base for the risk-assessment of violence in these authorities is gathered. Three studies will be performed, each analyzing different source: 1) Guidelines 2) Interviews with employees responsible for safety issues in the authorities 3) Incident reports or occurrence investigations. Questions are directed towards understanding the production of knowledge about violence. What assumptions about violence are visible? What occurrence of violence do the authorities have to handle? What factors are causing the problems of violence? Can the roots of violence be trace to the inside or the outside of the authority? What activities will be risk-assessed (or not)? When do the rights of the clients and employees collide? How can harms be avoided? ; Postdoc grant (FORTE): Violence and Threat Risk Assessment in three 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. ; 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

Policies to prevent school violence in Sweden and in the United States are different, yet alike. In the US, school violence seems to be a growing problem but in Sweden it is decreasing. Not only have the US had substantially more school shootings; they have also implemented more preventive measures to combat school violence. This paper examines how school violence is handled in Sweden and the United States. The study is based on qualitative content analysis of educational steering documents and interviews with middle and high school principals. Both in Sweden and the US, a crime perspective (that students increasingly are subjected to zero tolerance policies that are used primarily to punish, repress and exclude them), dominates how violence are treated and handled in schools. In the US students are increasingly subjected to a "crime complex" where harsh disciplinary practices by security staff increasingly replace normative functions teachers once provided both in and outside of the classroom. One obvious difference between the two countries is the emergence of a great number of federal and state laws in the US, such as the Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994. Schools in the US are also increasingly turning towards alternative methods like restorative justice as a mean for creating safer schools and social equity. One main point of the paper is also that the key to violence prevention might be found in a comparison of how normalized masculinity is operating in everyday dynamics, rather than differences in policies. ; Postdoc grant (FORTE): Violence and Threat Risk Assessment in three government agencies

Based on content analysis of steering documents and interviews with principals in primary schools, this paper examines measures to prevent violence in Sweden and US. In comparison, US has implemented more preventive measures, from federal and state laws to restorative justice but is still struggling with much higher levels of violence. ; Postdoc grant (FORTE): Violence and Threat Risk Assessment in three government agencies

Policies to prevent school violence in Sweden and in the United States are different, yet alike. In the US, school violence seems to be a growing problem but in Sweden it is decreasing. Not only have the US had substantially more school shootings; they have also implemented more preventive measures to combat school violence. This paper examines how school violence is handled in Sweden and the United States. The study is based on qualitative content analysis of educational steering documents and interviews with middle and high school principals. Both in Sweden and the US, a crime perspective (that students increasingly are subjected to zero tolerance policies that are used primarily to punish, repress and exclude them), dominates how violence are treated and handled in schools. In the US students are increasingly subjected to a "crime complex" where harsh disciplinary practices by security staff increasingly replace normative functions teachers once provided both in and outside of the classroom. One obvious difference between the two countries is the emergence of a great number of federal and state laws in the US, such as the Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994. Schools in the US are also increasingly turning towards alternative methods like restorative justice as a mean for creating safer schools and social equity. One main point of the paper is also that the key to violence prevention might be found in a comparison of how normalized masculinity is operating in everyday dynamics, rather than differences in policies. ; QC 20150508 ; Postdoc grant (FORTE): Violence and Threat Risk Assessment in three government agencies

Based on content analysis of steering documents and interviews with principals in primary schools, this paper examines measures to prevent violence in Sweden and US. In comparison, US has implemented more preventive measures, from federal and state laws to restorative justice but is still struggling with much higher levels of violence. ; QC 20150508 ; Postdoc grant (FORTE): Violence and Threat Risk Assessment in three government agencies

National governments took action to delay the transmission of the coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) by implementing different containment measures. We developed an online survey that included 44 different containment measures. We aimed to assess how effective citizens perceive these measures, which measures are perceived as violation of citizens' personal freedoms, which opinions and demographic factors have an effect on compliance with the measures, and what governments can do to most effectively improve citizens' compliance. The survey was disseminated in 11 countries: UK, Belgium, Netherlands, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Finland, India, Latvia, Poland, Romania, and Sweden. We acquired 9543 unique responses. Our findings show significant differences across countries in perceived effectiveness, restrictiveness, and compliance. Governments that suffer low levels of trust should put more effort into persuading citizens, especially men, in the effectiveness of the proposed measures. They should provide financial compensation to citizens who have lost their job or income due to the containment measures to improve measure compliance. Policymakers should implement the least restrictive and most effective public health measures first during pandemic emergencies instead of implementing a combination of many restrictive measures, which has the opposite effect on citizens' adherence and undermines human rights.