The mere idea of workplace violence calls to mind some of the most horrific images from the last two decades. Schools, grocery stores, and dozens of other facilities have been the sites of mass shootings or physical attacks. There have also been hundreds of smaller but equally terrifying reports of targeted attacks on individuals. The frequency and prevalence of workplace violence have led the state of California to take preventative action in the form of Senate Bill 553 (SB-553).
Starting July 1, 2024, SB-553 requires most employers within the California Labor Code 6401.7 and 6401.9 to create, execute, and maintain a Workplace Violence Prevention Plan (WVPP). Unless your business falls into an exempted category like healthcare or law enforcement, or your company has only remote workers, this means you, as an employer, are responsible for establishing a WVPP.
While this new legislation may seem overwhelming for employers, Jensen Hughes, a global consulting firm specializing in safety, security, and risk-based consulting, stands ready to assist businesses in navigating these new requirements.
Debra Kirby Debra Kirby, a Chicago-based expert in workplace security, serves as Global Service Line Leader for Threat Violence Risk Management and Investigations at the firm. She and her team are passionate about workplace violence prevention and see SB-553 as an opportunity for employers to identify, assess, and engage with the behaviors that can lead to workplace violence—and ultimately prevent it from happening.
“What we’re seeing nationally is that legislatures are recognizing the damage of workplace violence and the toll that it takes on businesses and communities,” Kirby says. “Illinois, Texas, and other states are implementing similar measures, but California SB-553 is the most progressive and far-reaching to date.
Understanding SB-553 Workplaces confront micro-aggressions, verbal assaults, and harassment regularly and the first step is for employers to enact policies and procedures that show the organization has absolutely no tolerance for physical violence.
SB-553 requires a “forward-leaning” approach, explains Kirby, essentially mandating most employers in California to have a workplace violence program to address the potential for violence. It holds employers accountable for creating a customized prevention plan, conducting internal training, maintaining records, and ensuring staff members know how to protect themselves and report incidents and threats.
Although Cal/OSHA provides fact sheets and guidelines on creating a WVPP, narrowing in on what a workplace experiences on a daily basis is crucial, and Kirby says a good plan should be centered on the risks in that workplace.
“It’s really focused on an employer’s mitigation of risk, and the actions taken and the prevention of workplace violence,” Kirby says.
Ideally, employers should assess the risks employees face and customize their WVPPs to address what they see are potential dangers in their unique workspace. But SB-553 also gives employees a voice, requiring employers to involve their staff in helping to identify potential risks with the person or team responsible for developing the WVPP.
Additionally, SB-533 requires employers to establish reporting and record-keeping procedures to help understand critical risks and workplace hazards, which is essential for an effective workplace violence prevention program. Employers must establish procedures for identifying who within the organization is responsible for the creation and implementation of the plan, how to handle reports of workplace violence and who is leading the record-keeping effort. They must also record any threats, risks and incidents shared by employees and make records available to employees.
Workplace Violence Prevention Training When working with clients to assess risks or develop prevention plans, Kirby looks for clarity around essential areas, such as how an employee can communicate a threat or a possibility of violence. She wants to ensure that employees know how to report a threat—it may be in the plan, but if an employee isn’t clear on something, it will not be effective. That’s why she emphasizes training and testing of the reporting system, emergency procedures, and evacuation plans.
Employee training is a requirement of SB-553 and a critical component of any workplace violence prevention program. While it may not be top of mind for many companies, training can help staff understand the company’s WVPP and be prepared for reporting and responding to incidents. Practical, real-world training also shows your employees that you’re committed to their safety and boosts confidence.
“Consistent training works,” says Kirby. “It’s an opportunity for leaders to connect with their teams, but also improve their practices and maintain that culture.”
Kirby says training should be specific, connect with employees on key issues, and address the factors unique to their workplace. When it comes to who should be trained, SB-553 requires training for all on-site employees, although it may be completed virtually. Remote workers are exempt from the training, though Kirby thinks it’s good practice to still include remote workers in their workplace prevention plans.
Helping Companies Develop WVPPs SB-553 represents a significant step forward in workplace violence prevention, and Kirby and her team are prepared to help California employers address the requirements of this new legislation.
“Jensen Hughes provides a range of services,” she says. “We can help develop a program, conduct a risk assessment, and establish good practices through questioning and surveying employees.”
Not complying with SB-553 has consequences. The fines can be between $7,000 and $25,000, and bouncing back from an incident takes a toll on a company’s reputation, morale, and even valuation, not to mention a loss of focus or productivity.
Jensen Hughes can help validate that policies are consistent with SB-553 and other industry standards while providing training for employees and personnel responsible for carrying out record-keeping, assessing risks, and coordinating plans in the aftermath of an incident.
If there is an incident at a workplace, the employer is legally bound to act, assess those risks, and enact protocols designed to prevent it from happening again, or they can be held liable. Likewise, for incident reporting, if threats are reported but the responsible party fails to investigate them, employees will be less likely to report things in the future.
Kirby’s team can step in and provide threat management support, conduct investigations, provide threat risk assessment factors, and help manage a threat risk.
“A good plan identifies consistent practices and engagement relative to not only the reporting but the investigation, and then the consequences of what happens,” Kirby says.
Post-incident, they can review and identify what was successful and where an employer needs additional help. The law requires plans to be updated annually, but there should also be an internal review, particularly after an incident.
Embracing Violence Prevention Strategies Overall, Kirby says a progressive growth approach is best for most employers. At the end of the day, she is optimistic about how SB-553 will evolve.
“I believe that this is the start of an iterative approach to evaluating workplace violence. The ongoing conversation around the mitigation of workplace risks and violence makes California businesses healthier and more involved.”
As California businesses prepare for the law, Kirby emphasizes the importance of viewing this not as a burden but as an opportunity. By embracing comprehensive violence prevention strategies, organizations have the chance to protect their most valuable asset — their people.
For More Information Under the law, Cal/OSHA has until December 2025 to fully establish standards around SB-553. See their fact sheet for more details.
Contact Jensen Hughes at to see how they can help you navigate SB.
Copyright © 2024 California Business Journal. All Rights Reserved.
