How OSHA’s General Duty Clause Regulates Workplace Violence: The 2026 Enforcement Reality
Why federal regulators do not need a dedicated standard to cite, fine, and force abatement at any employer where a workplace assault was foreseeable.
The OSHA General Duty Clause is the most important workplace-violence enforcement instrument employers misunderstand. After Integra Health and BHC Northwest, federal regulators no longer need a dedicated violence standard to cite, fine, and force abatement at any employer where an assault was foreseeable. Three numbers define the 2026 enforcement reality.
The OSHA General Duty Clause is a single sentence written in 1970, and it is the legal mechanism federal regulators now use to fine employers tens of thousands of dollars per incident when a worker is assaulted, stabbed, or shot on shift. There is no dedicated federal workplace-violence standard. There is no separate inspection regime. There is just Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act and a citation history that stretches from a 2012 home-health stabbing in Florida to a 2020 D.C. Circuit ruling against a Pennsylvania psychiatric hospital. Both employers lost.
This report explains what the OSHA General Duty Clause actually requires of an employer in 2026, what changed after the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC) affirmed Integra Health and BHC Northwest, why the long-promised healthcare workplace-violence standard was sidelined and what its absence means, and how the four legal elements of a General Duty Clause citation map onto the operational reality of a modern detection-and-response program. It is written for risk officers, in-house counsel, occupational health leaders, and the security executives who own the program. It is not a substitute for legal advice on a specific citation.
What the General Duty Clause actually says, and what it doesn't
Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. § 654(a)(1)) requires every covered employer to "furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees." That is the entire text. There is no mention of violence, weapons, or assault. There is no schedule of required controls. There is no enumerated list of high-risk industries.
The clause was drafted as a backstop. Congress understood in 1970 that OSHA could not write a specific standard for every hazard in every industry, so it gave the agency authority to cite employers for any "recognized hazard" the agency could prove was foreseeable, serious, and feasibly abatable. Workplace violence is a more recent application, and the legal architecture for it was built in the courtroom, not at the agency's rulemaking desk.
Two pieces of agency guidance frame the modern enforcement posture. The first is OSHA's 1996 Guidelines for Preventing Workplace Violence for Healthcare and Social Service Workers, refreshed in 2004 and again in 2016. The guidelines are not enforceable on their own, but compliance officers cite them as the agency's authoritative statement of recognized hazards and feasible controls. The second is OSHA Instruction CPL 02-01-058, Enforcement Procedures and Scheduling for Occupational Exposure to Workplace Violence, which tells field offices how to scope inspections, identify recognized hazards in healthcare and other high-risk settings, and structure General Duty Clause citations. CPL 02-01-058 is the operational playbook compliance officers carry into a hospital, residential treatment facility, or behavioral health unit after a serious incident.
What the clause does not do is define the program an employer must build. It defines the test the employer must pass when an inspector arrives.
The four-element framework: how OSHA proves a General Duty Clause violation
To sustain a General Duty Clause citation against an employer, the Secretary of Labor must prove four elements. This is not a regulatory checklist. It is the legal burden adopted by the OSHRC and federal courts of appeals, and it is the framework that determines whether a workplace-violence citation survives review or gets vacated. Risk leaders who do not understand the four elements cannot manage exposure to a citation, because every operational decision is either a defense against one of the four or evidence in favor of one.
The Four-Element General Duty Clause Citation Test
Established by OSHRC and federal court precedent. The Secretary of Labor must prove all four to sustain a workplace-violence citation. Failure on any single element vacates the citation.
Element 01
A hazard existed
Workplace violence, in a form serious enough to cause death or major physical harm, was present in the work environment. Patient-on-staff assaults, customer-on-clerk robberies, intruder threats, and known-history aggression all qualify.
Test: documented incidents, near-misses, OSHA 300 logs, security reports.
Element 02
The hazard was recognized
Either the employer recognized it or the industry recognized it. Industry recognition is independently sufficient. CPL 02-01-058 and the 2016 OSHA Guidelines establish industry recognition for healthcare, social assistance, late-night retail, and behavioral health.
Test: incident logs, prior employee complaints, industry literature.
Element 03
The hazard was likely to cause serious harm
Likelihood does not require frequency. A single foreseeable serious assault meets this element. The Integra ALJ ruling held that one fatal stabbing of a caseworker by a known-violent client satisfied this prong.
Test: nature of injuries from prior incidents, severity of foreseeable assault.
Element 04
A feasible means of abatement existed
Controls existed that would materially reduce the hazard. OSHA does not need to prove elimination, only material reduction. AI threat detection, panic infrastructure, controlled access, written WVPP, training, and post-incident review all qualify as feasible means.
Test: industry practice, peer-reviewed research, vendor catalogs, prior employer practice.
Sources: OSHRC Docket 13-1124 (Integra Health Management); BHC Northwest Psychiatric Hospital LLC v. Secretary of Labor, 951 F.3d 558 (D.C. Cir. 2020); OSHA Instruction CPL 02-01-058.
The fourth element is the one most often litigated. An employer cannot defeat a General Duty Clause citation by proving the hazard was unavoidable; it can only defeat the citation by proving no feasible control would have materially reduced the hazard. As the universe of feasible controls expands, the fourth-element defense narrows. AI-powered detection that did not exist in 2010 is now in production at thousands of sites in 2026, which means employers who do not consider it have a harder time arguing that no feasible control existed. This is the operational reality of the regulatory shift.
Integra Health and BHC Northwest: how OSHA built the modern enforcement posture
For most of the OSH Act's history, federal regulators were reluctant to use the General Duty Clause for violence. Two cases changed that. Together, Integra Health Management and BHC Northwest Psychiatric Hospital are the controlling precedents on which a 2026 OSHA workplace-violence citation rests. Risk leaders who do not know these cases by name will be making decisions in a vacuum.
Integra Health Management, OSHRC Docket 13-1124 (2019). Integra contracted with health insurers to send caseworkers into clients' homes to perform behavioral and medical assessments. Many of the clients had documented histories of mental illness and prior violence. In December 2012, a caseworker was stabbed to death by a 45-year-old schizophrenic male client during a home visit in Florida. The client had a 14-year violent criminal history. The caseworker had reported feeling unsafe to her supervisor multiple times before her death. Integra had a written workplace-violence policy, but the OSHA investigation found the policy was not implemented, the training was inadequate, and Integra had taken no protective action despite the caseworker's complaints. OSHA cited Integra for two serious General Duty Clause violations. The OSHRC affirmed in a 2019 decision that became the agency's first definitive holding that workplace violence is citable under Section 5(a)(1). The case is the foundational precedent.
BHC Northwest Psychiatric Hospital, D.C. Circuit (2020). Brooke Glen Behavioral Hospital, an inpatient psychiatric facility in Fort Washington, Pennsylvania with 146 beds across eight units, received an anonymous OSHA complaint in July 2016 alleging that workplace violence incidents were rising and partly driven by understaffing. The compliance officer documented at least 51 patient-on-staff assaults in the preceding year, including 17 incidents of staff being punched, kicked, or slapped, 16 bites or scratches, four blows with an object, and four spitting, hair-pulling, or grabbing incidents. OSHA cited the hospital under Section 5(a)(1) for exposing employees to the recognized hazard of patient-on-staff aggression. The Administrative Law Judge affirmed. On appeal, the D.C. Circuit upheld in a 2020 ruling that substantial evidence supported the conclusion that BHC's incomplete and inconsistently implemented safety protocols were inadequate to materially reduce the hazard, and that "a more comprehensively considered and applied program would materially reduce the hazard." The D.C. Circuit's key holding was that an employer's existing written policy is not a defense if the implementation is incomplete; the question is whether the program in operation, not the program on paper, materially reduces the foreseeable harm.
Together, Integra and BHC Northwest mean that an employer in any high-risk setting cannot defend a workplace-violence citation by pointing to a binder. The binder must demonstrably function. Whether it functions is a question of evidence: incident logs, training records, security infrastructure, post-incident review, and the velocity of corrective action after a near-miss. Detection-and-response infrastructure is now part of that evidence record.
Why the long-promised healthcare workplace-violence standard was sidelined, and what it means
The clearest signal of OSHA's intent in this space was the proposed Prevention of Workplace Violence in Health Care and Social Assistance standard, identified in the Federal Register as RIN 1218-AD08. The standard was petitioned by the National Nurses United and a broader labor coalition; OSHA granted the petitions in January 2017 and progressed through Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act review and a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the regulatory agenda. The proposed rule was scheduled for publication in December 2024, with a final rule projected for 2025. That schedule did not hold. The proposed rule was reclassified on the regulatory agenda and is no longer on a near-term publication track.
The strategic implication for employers is the opposite of what most risk leaders read into the news. The absence of a dedicated standard does not lower exposure. It increases it. A specific standard, once published, would have given employers a defined compliance ceiling: a written WVPP, hazard assessment, recordkeeping, training, and incident-investigation requirements set out element by element. An employer who met those elements would have a strong affirmative defense. Without the standard, the General Duty Clause continues to be the enforcement mechanism, and the General Duty Clause has no compliance ceiling. The four elements above set the burden, but the universe of "feasible means of abatement" continues to expand as the technology and operational practice evolve. Every year, the bar rises.
This is the dynamic that risk leaders need to plan around. State legislation is filling the federal vacuum on a state-by-state basis, with healthcare-specific WVPP requirements now law in California, Texas, Oregon, Maryland, New York, and others. But for federally regulated employers, multi-state operators, and any covered employer in a state without a specific WVPP statute, the federal General Duty Clause remains the operative standard. Its scope is not reduced by the missing healthcare rule. It is expanded by it.
Regulatory Brief
Why “industry recognition” is the element that quietly does the most work
The second element of a General Duty Clause citation only requires recognition by either the employer or the industry. Industry recognition is independently sufficient. OSHA establishes industry recognition by citing the 2016 healthcare guidelines, CPL 02-01-058, peer-reviewed literature, AHA and ENA publications, and BLS data on assault rates. Once industry recognition is established for a sector, every employer in that sector is presumed on notice. This is why OSHA does not need a healthcare-specific standard to cite a hospital; healthcare workplace violence has been recognized at the industry level since the 1990s.
The same dynamic is now extending to behavioral health, residential treatment, late-night retail, education, and corrections. As industry recognition expands, the per-employer burden to rebut foreseeability shrinks.
What an OSHA inspector looks for after a workplace-violence incident
Compliance officers do not arrive looking for a written program. They arrive looking for evidence that the program in operation either prevented or materially reduced the foreseeable hazard at the time of the incident. The inspection follows a documented protocol under CPL 02-01-058 and produces a findings record that maps directly to the four elements above.
The inspection typically opens with a review of OSHA Form 300 logs, the employer's incident reports, prior employee complaints (including OSHA 11(c) whistleblower complaints), and any insurance-carrier risk assessments. Compliance officers then conduct walk-throughs, interview workers, and request training records, hazard-assessment documents, the written WVPP if one exists, and the implementation evidence behind it. They look for inconsistencies between policy and practice, and time-stamped evidence of the actual response to prior incidents and near-misses.
The most damaging inspection findings are not the absence of a program. They are the gap between a program on paper and the program in operation. BHC Northwest had a written workplace-violence policy and a training presentation. The D.C. Circuit's affirmance turned on the finding that the training was inconsistently delivered and the controls were inconsistently applied. An employer with no program is in legal trouble. An employer with an unimplemented program is also in legal trouble, often more, because the gap is itself evidence of recognized risk that went unaddressed.
What OSHA reviews vs. what defends a citation
| OSHA review item | Strong defense looks like | Weak defense looks like |
|---|---|---|
| OSHA Form 300 / 300A logs | Complete logs, accurate classification of assault injuries, no missing entries | Underreporting, missing entries that worker interviews surface |
| Written WVPP and hazard assessment | Annually reviewed, sector-specific, role-specific, signed by accountable executive | Boilerplate template, undated, generic across very different work environments |
| Training records | Role-based, scenario-based, refresher cadence documented, completion verified | One-time slide deck, no completion tracking, no role differentiation |
| Engineering and administrative controls | Access control, panic infrastructure, AI threat detection, line-of-sight modifications, staffing models calibrated to volatility | Reception camera with no monitoring, panic buttons untested for over a year |
| Post-incident response evidence | Time-stamped logs, after-action reviews, corrective-action tracking, worker debriefs | Verbal accounts only, no documentation of what changed after near-misses |
| Worker complaints (formal and informal) | Documented intake, response, and resolution; no retaliation pattern | Informal complaints unaddressed, especially when followed by an incident |
The pattern is consistent across affirmed citations. The employers who lose at the OSHRC are not the ones with no controls; they are the ones whose controls existed on paper but whose implementation evidence was thin. The employers who win are the ones who can demonstrate, with documents and time stamps, that the program in operation was matched to the recognized hazards and that corrective action followed every near-miss.
The 2026 penalty structure and what it means for risk-rated decisions
Federal civil penalties under the OSH Act are inflation-adjusted annually under the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act. The 2026 maximum penalties published by OSHA in the January 2025 Federal Register notice are the operative numbers for citations issued through the current adjustment cycle.
FY 2026 Maximum OSHA Penalties
Per-violation maximums after the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act annual adjustment effective January 15, 2025. Applies to General Duty Clause citations identically to specific-standard citations.
Source: OSHA, “2025 Annual Adjustments to OSHA Civil Penalties,” January 7, 2025 memorandum; Federal Register, “Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Annual Adjustments for 2025,” January 10, 2025.
The headline number is the willful/repeat maximum, but the operationally important number is the failure-to-abate cap. Once a citation is issued and an abatement date is set, every day past the deadline accrues an additional $16,550. A multi-site operator that receives a related citation at a second facility within five years is subject to the $165,514 repeat-violation maximum. Combined citations across multiple counts can stack into six- and seven-figure totals before settlement; a single behavioral health facility with multiple alleged violations can face initial penalty assessments above $250,000.
These numbers do not capture the secondary cost. A General Duty Clause citation is a public document. It surfaces in workers' compensation underwriting, in the renewal of professional liability and general liability programs, and in the due-diligence packets for joint ventures, mergers, and bond financings. Workers' compensation severity and experience modification rates respond to the underlying loss history, but the citation itself becomes a pricing variable in adjacent insurance lines. A single OSHA citation can influence rates for three to five renewal cycles.
Program architecture: what an OSHA-defensible workplace-violence program actually contains
OSHA does not specify the contents of a workplace-violence prevention program for federally regulated employers, but the agency's 2016 healthcare guidelines, CPL 02-01-058, the Cal/OSHA WVPP requirements, and the affirmed-citation case law converge on a recognizable program architecture. The programs that survive General Duty Clause inspections share five elements, and the elements are increasingly being re-engineered around AI-powered detection and response.
01. Management commitment and worker participation
An accountable executive owns the program. Workers are involved in hazard identification, control selection, and program review. The signature of a Chief Safety Officer or Chief Risk Officer on the WVPP is part of the documentary defense.
02. Hazard assessment
A documented assessment that maps recognized hazards to the work environment, role by role. Sector-specific data, prior incident history, near-miss logs, and worker input feed the assessment. Reviewed annually.
03. Engineering, administrative, and PPE controls
Access control, line-of-sight modifications, panic infrastructure, AI threat detection, secured medication storage, two-staff rules in volatile units, and de-escalation training. The control hierarchy is documented; the implementation is verifiable.
04. Training and education
Role-based and scenario-based, with refresher cadences, completion tracking, and post-incident reinforcement. Training delivered as a one-time PowerPoint is the BHC Northwest fact pattern. Avoid it.
05. Recordkeeping and program evaluation
Incident logs, post-incident reviews, corrective-action tracking, OSHA 300 accuracy, and annual program evaluation against measurable outcomes. The evaluation, not the policy binder, is the artifact OSHA reads first.
Where AI detection fits
AI-powered detection sits inside element 03 and feeds into element 05. It converts the security camera feed into an enforceable engineering control by adding real-time identification of weapons, unauthorized access, falls, and aggression at the camera, with alerts routed to security and clinical responders within seconds.
The shift in the past 36 months is the maturation of the third element. AI-powered detection, panic-button infrastructure, and integrated mass-notification platforms have moved from vendor catalog into production deployment at thousands of healthcare, K-12, and behavioral health sites. Perimeter intrusion detection closes the time gap between identification and response. Weapon detection compresses the detection-to-response window for the most foreseeable serious harm. Computer-vision performance under occlusion and low-light conditions determines whether the engineering control functions in the conditions where assaults actually occur. The fourth-element defense in 2026 looks different than it did in 2019, because the technology that constitutes "feasible means of abatement" looks different.
Cross-industry recognition: who is now in scope
Healthcare and social assistance dominate the citation case law, but the General Duty Clause is sector-neutral. Industry recognition has been established or is rapidly being established in several adjacent settings, and OSHA inspections following workplace-violence incidents in those sectors increasingly invoke the same framework.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics' Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses places healthcare and social assistance at 14.2 violence-related injury cases per 10,000 full-time-equivalent workers, against a private-industry rate of 3.1 per 10,000. Healthcare alone accounts for roughly 70 percent of all nonfatal workplace assault injuries that result in days away from work. This is the statistical backbone of industry recognition for healthcare. But the same SOII series shows substantial assault rates in residential care facilities, ambulance services, social assistance, education, and protective services, all of which are now subject to the same General Duty Clause framework.
The 2024 BLS Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries (CFOI) recorded 5,070 fatal work injuries, including 470 workplace homicides. Of those homicides, 379 involved firearms and 43 involved stabbing or cutting. Retail trade, transportation and warehousing, and protective services account for a disproportionate share of the homicide subset. Manufacturing and warehouse environments are increasingly cited under the General Duty Clause when patterns of assault, threats, or active-assailant incidents emerge. The legal architecture does not distinguish between an emergency department and a distribution center; it asks whether the four elements are met.
AI-powered detection as a feasible means of abatement
The fourth element of a General Duty Clause citation is the most defensible from the employer's side, because it requires OSHA to prove a feasible control existed that would have materially reduced the hazard. Historically, the available controls were administrative and procedural: training, staffing models, panic buttons, access cards. The technology layer was thin. That is no longer the case.
AI-powered detection on existing IP cameras is now operational at thousands of sites. The platform watches the video stream the customer already pays for, identifies weapons, falls, unauthorized access, and aggressive behavior at the camera, and dispatches alerts to mass-notification platforms, paging endpoints, and clinical communication systems within seconds. The architecture does not require new cameras, does not perform facial recognition, does not store video, and does not collect protected health information. From a regulatory posture, this matters: the same technology that materially reduces the hazard does not introduce the privacy and civil-liberties concerns that defeated earlier video-analytics deployments. The Healthcare Workplace Violence AI Detection Playbook details the operational reference architecture.
For OSHA defense purposes, the relevant evidence is not the technology purchase order. It is the implementation record. A defensible deployment includes the camera coverage map, the alert-routing topology, the response-protocol documentation, the post-incident review record, and the audit log of true-positive and false-positive events. Each of those artifacts is the kind of document an OSHRC ALJ reads when evaluating whether a feasible control was in operation at the time of the incident.
Operational note
The "implementation gap" is the modern fourth-element battleground
OSHA does not require employers to deploy every available control. It requires employers to deploy the controls that, in the agency's view and the OSHRC's review, would materially reduce the foreseeable hazard. As AI-powered detection becomes industry standard, the bar for what a defensible engineering-control package looks like rises. The defensible posture in 2026 is to evaluate AI detection on its merits for the specific sector and site, document the evaluation and the deployment decision, and ensure the implementation evidence matches the deployed footprint.
The road to 2027: what to monitor
Three regulatory and case-law developments are worth monitoring through 2026 and into 2027 for any risk officer responsible for a workplace-violence exposure profile.
First, the fate of RIN 1218-AD08. The healthcare workplace-violence proposed rule has been sidelined but not formally withdrawn. A change in administration priorities or a successful petition response could revive it. If the proposed rule re-emerges, employers in healthcare and social assistance gain a defined compliance ceiling and the General Duty Clause framework recedes for those sectors. If it does not re-emerge, the General Duty Clause continues to expand.
Second, the state-level standards landscape. California's WVPP requirement under SB 553, effective for non-healthcare employers in July 2024, is the most significant non-federal development. Texas, Oregon, Maryland, New York, and others have specific healthcare WVPP statutes. Multi-state operators face a patchwork that increasingly preempts the federal General Duty Clause in operational terms. The State-by-State AI Security Legislation Q2 2026 Tracker documents the current state of play.
Third, the Federal Register interpretation of the General Duty Clause limitation for inherently risky professional activities, published July 1, 2025. The interpretation does not affect workplace-violence enforcement directly, but it signals an agency posture on the scope of Section 5(a)(1) that any employer with a General Duty Clause exposure should read in full. The interpretation makes clear that the General Duty Clause is not a residual catchall for every risk; it is a defined enforcement instrument with defined elements. That is good news for employers: it constrains the agency's discretion. It is also bad news for any employer who has been treating the four elements as flexible; they are not.
Frequently asked questions about OSHA General Duty Clause workplace-violence enforcement
Is OSHA's General Duty Clause the same thing as a workplace-violence standard?
No. The General Duty Clause is a single sentence in Section 5(a)(1) of the OSH Act of 1970 that requires employers to provide employment free from recognized hazards. It is the legal mechanism OSHA uses to cite workplace violence in the absence of a dedicated standard. A specific workplace-violence standard would publish in the Code of Federal Regulations and prescribe defined compliance elements. The proposed federal healthcare standard (RIN 1218-AD08) has been sidelined and the General Duty Clause remains the operative federal enforcement tool.
Does OSHA have to prove an employer caused the violence?
No. The four-element test does not require proof of causation. It requires proof that a hazard existed, was recognized, was likely to cause serious harm, and that a feasible means of abatement existed. The employer's failure to deploy a feasible control is the cited conduct. An employer can be cited for a workplace-violence exposure even if no specific incident occurred, though most citations follow incidents because incidents trigger inspections.
If we have a written workplace-violence prevention program, are we protected from a General Duty Clause citation?
Not on its own. The BHC Northwest case established that a written program is not a defense if implementation is incomplete. The defensible posture is the program in operation, evidenced by training records, incident response logs, corrective-action tracking, and post-incident reviews. A written program with thin implementation evidence is often more vulnerable than no program at all, because the gap is itself evidence of recognized risk that went unaddressed.
Does AI-powered detection count as a "feasible means of abatement" under the four-element test?
Yes, where it is operationally appropriate to the sector and the recognized hazards. Feasibility under the OSH Act is interpreted broadly and includes any control that would materially reduce the hazard, whether engineering, administrative, or technology-based. AI detection that identifies weapons, falls, unauthorized access, or aggression and routes alerts to responders within seconds is a feasible engineering control for sectors with elevated assault and active-assailant exposure. Whether it is the appropriate control for a given site depends on the hazard assessment and the existing control package.
What is the 2026 maximum penalty for a General Duty Clause workplace-violence citation?
The same penalty schedule applies to General Duty Clause citations as to specific-standard citations. Under the FY 2026 inflation-adjusted maximums effective January 15, 2025, a serious violation carries up to $16,550 per violation, failure to abate accrues at up to $16,550 per day past the abatement deadline, and willful or repeat violations are capped at $165,514 per violation. Multi-count citations frequently aggregate to six-figure initial assessments before settlement.
Why did OSHA not finalize the healthcare workplace-violence prevention standard?
The proposed rule (RIN 1218-AD08) was scheduled for publication in December 2024 with a final rule projected for 2025, but it was reclassified on the regulatory agenda and is not currently on a near-term publication track. The reasons are administrative and political, including changes in agency priorities and the resource demands of other rulemakings. The practical effect is that healthcare and social-assistance employers continue to be regulated under the General Duty Clause with no compliance ceiling, which is a more open-ended exposure than a defined standard.
Are non-healthcare employers also at risk of General Duty Clause workplace-violence citations?
Yes. The General Duty Clause is sector-neutral. Industry recognition has been established for healthcare, social assistance, behavioral health, residential treatment, late-night retail, taxi and ride-share, and corrections. It is increasingly being established in education, manufacturing, warehousing, and protective services as BLS data and OSHA inspection records build a record of foreseeable assault exposure. Any employer with documented incident history or known industry-recognition signals should treat the four-element test as applicable.
More intelligence like this
New IntelliSee research drops monthly at most. Subscribe and get the next sector playbook, technology briefing, or threat intelligence report in your inbox the day it ships.
Request a Workplace-Violence Risk Assessment
Talk to an IntelliSee security specialist. No sales pitch — a structured conversation about your environment, your threat profile, and whether computer vision is the right fit.
Request a Risk Assessment