PHASE 1
Establish a Truthful Baseline
Replaces the entity's unreliable incident log and assertion-based staffing claims with measured, unit-level, shift-stratified data on violence, reporting integrity, and turnover economics. Nothing later in the plan can be sized or evaluated without this, and the annual worksite analysis the accreditor already requires becomes the vehicle rather than a parallel exercise.
Success: A single shared baseline exists that both nursing leadership and frontline representatives cite, and board workforce reporting shows four segmented turnover cuts rather than one house-wide number.
1.1FLOW CAhead of the facility's next annual worksite analysis cycle required under National Performance Goal #2a
The Chief Nursing Officer commissions a reporting-integrity audit pairing the facility's logged workplace violence incidents against an anonymous frontline survey covering the identical units and time period, with results stratified by unit, shift, and tenure band; the deliverable is a quantified under-reporting multiplier per unit presented to the quality committee.
FLOW Rationale: The entity does not currently know its own violence incidence and cannot determine the right response until it establishes what it is actually responding to.
Rationale: Among nurses who reported a workplace violence incident, the most common outcome was that no action was taken, and many decline to report at all believing nothing will change — so the entity's log measures reporting willingness rather than violence, and a program tuned to a suppressed baseline will misallocate every control it buys.
Resource: Nursing quality analytics staff, an external survey vendor for anonymity credibility, unit-level HR tenure data
Approval: Chief Nursing Officer with quality committee endorsement
Expert Judgment: Whether the gap between logged and surveyed incidents reflects genuine under-reporting or survey recall bias — a judgment requiring occupational-health epidemiology expertise, since misreading recall inflation as under-reporting would over-scale the program and misreading true suppression as noise would under-scale it.
Effort: Medium · Capability: Partial
Key Risk: Guaranteeing anonymity through an external vendor while stratifying results by unit, shift, and tenure can re-identify nurses on small night-shift units, which would confirm the exact fear that suppresses reporting in the first place. ⚠ Early warning: Survey response rates on the smallest units fall materially below house average, indicating nurses there do not believe the anonymity promise.
1.2FLOW BIn parallel with 1.1, completed before the next operating budget cycle
The Chief Financial Officer and Chief Nursing Officer jointly produce a facility-specific turnover cost model, applying the entity's own RN separation counts to the documented per-RN turnover cost and the per-percentage-point figure, and present it to the finance committee as the funding basis for Phases 2 through 4.
FLOW Rationale: The methodology is published and the entity already holds the separation and FTE data, so this is arithmetic on existing inputs rather than a novel analytical build.
Rationale: With the average cost of one staff RN turnover at $60,090 and each percentage point of RN turnover costing the average hospital roughly $295,000 per year, retention spending can be underwritten against avoided cost rather than pitched as discretionary wellness investment — and building the model on the entity's own separation counts prevents the finance committee from discounting it as a national average.
Resource: Finance analytics, HR separation records, nursing FTE budget data
Approval: Chief Financial Officer
Effort: Low · Capability: Have
Key Risk: A turnover cost model built on avoided cost invites the finance committee to demand demonstrated savings within a single budget cycle, while the retention effects of structural change take longer to register than one fiscal year. ⚠ Early warning: Finance committee questions shift from program design toward payback-period timing in the first review.
1.3FLOW BEffective with the next quarterly board workforce report
The Chief Nursing Officer segments the facility's RN turnover reporting into first-year hires, night and weekend shift staff, and psychiatric and emergency department assignments, replacing the single house-wide turnover figure in board reporting with these four cuts.
FLOW Rationale: The data already exists in HR and scheduling systems; this is a reporting reconfiguration using established processes.
Rationale: Early-career attrition remains critical and nurses working nights and weekends report significantly lower perceptions of safety culture and organizational support than daytime colleagues, while assaults concentrate in psychiatric units followed by the emergency department — so a single house-wide turnover number averages away the exact populations where the losses are occurring.
Resource: HR information systems, scheduling data, nursing informatics analyst
Approval: Chief Nursing Officer
Effort: Low · Capability: Have
Key Risk: Segmented reporting will make specific nurse managers of high-turnover night and psychiatric units look like poor performers on data that reflects structural conditions they do not control, driving them to manage the metric rather than the problem. ⚠ Early warning: Managers of the newly segmented units begin contesting the denominators or requesting exclusions before the first report publishes.
1.4FLOW BBefore any staffing commitment is communicated to nursing staff or bargaining units
The General Counsel and Chief Nursing Officer produce a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction staffing obligation map for every facility in the entity, distinguishing binding statutory ratios from committee and staffing-plan regimes, and identify which facilities can make legally enforceable staffing commitments versus voluntary ones.
FLOW Rationale: Statutory mapping against published state law is a standard legal review with clear inputs and a clear deliverable.
Rationale: Only California, Massachusetts, New York, and Oregon impose binding statutory ratios while most states operate committee or staffing-plan regimes with no federal hospital ratio mandate, and Oregon's regime carries fines up to $5,000 per violation per nurse per shift — so a staffing commitment means something categorically different depending on which facility is making it.
Resource: General Counsel's office, state hospital association regulatory counsel
Approval: General Counsel
Effort: Low · Capability: Have
Key Risk: Documenting which facilities face no enforceable staffing floor creates a discoverable internal record that bargaining units and plaintiffs' counsel can use to argue the entity knowingly staffed to the legal minimum where it could. ⚠ Early warning: Counsel recommends restricting distribution of the map beyond the executive team, signaling the document has become a liability rather than a planning tool.
Decision Gate — Baseline Credibility Gate
Does the entity now have unit-level, shift-stratified violence and turnover data that nursing leadership and frontline representatives both accept as accurate?
Go: The reporting-integrity audit produces a quantified under-reporting multiplier per unit; segmented turnover reporting for first-year, off-shift, and psychiatric/emergency populations is in board reporting; the facility-specific turnover cost model is accepted by the finance committee as a funding basis; the jurisdictional staffing map is complete for all facilities.
No-Go: Survey response rates are too low to support unit-level inference; frontline nurses or bargaining units publicly reject the audit methodology as management-controlled; finance rejects the cost model premise; the audit cannot achieve anonymity at unit granularity without re-identification risk.
If No-Go → Shift to a jointly governed baseline: convene a labor-management safety committee that co-selects the survey vendor and co-approves the instrument, accepting a slower timeline in exchange for a baseline neither side can later disown. Where unit-level anonymity is impossible, aggregate to service-line level and accept coarser targeting.
PHASE 2
Close the Reporting-to-Action Loop
Attacks the specific mechanism that makes nurses stop reporting violence — that reporting produces nothing — by guaranteeing a closed-loop response to every incident and giving the governing body visible ownership. This phase deliberately precedes physical and staffing investment, because controls purchased against a suppressed baseline are mis-sized.
Success: Reported incidents rise against the audited baseline while severity-weighted incidents do not, and off-shift nurses' safety-culture scores close measurably against the daytime gap.
2.1FLOW CStandard published within the same quarter as the Baseline Credibility Gate; first completion-rate report at the following quarterly board meeting
The Chief Nursing Officer institutes a mandatory closed-loop response standard under which every reported workplace violence incident receives a documented individual response to the reporting nurse stating what was examined and what changed or why nothing did, with completion rate reported to the governing body quarterly.
FLOW Rationale: Execution is difficult and dynamic — every response the entity issues changes what nurses expect from the next one, and an honest 'nothing changed' response can either build credibility or confirm cynicism depending on how it is delivered.
Rationale: The most common outcome for nurses who reported an incident was no action taken, and nurses who stop reporting cite the belief that nothing will change — so the intervention that restores data integrity is a guaranteed response to the reporter, not another reporting channel. Failing to follow up erodes trust with leadership, and the reporter needing to know their report went somewhere is the operative mechanism.
Resource: Nurse managers, incident reporting system configuration, patient safety officer
Approval: Chief Nursing Officer, with governing body oversight per accreditation requirements
Expert Judgment: How to word a closed-loop response when the honest answer is that no control was added — a communication judgment that determines whether transparency builds credibility or documents institutional indifference in a form nurses can circulate.
Effort: Medium · Capability: Acquire · After: 1.1
Key Risk: A response guarantee that mostly delivers 'we reviewed this and made no change' converts diffuse cynicism into documented evidence of inaction, accelerating the very reporting collapse the standard was built to reverse. ⚠ Early warning: The share of closed-loop responses concluding with no change exceeds the share resulting in any control, mitigation, or follow-up action.
2.2FLOW CAdopted at the same governing body meeting that receives the first closed-loop completion report
The Chief Nursing Officer establishes that a rising reported-incident rate during the first four quarters is treated as a program success indicator rather than a performance failure, documented in the governing body's workplace violence oversight charter and in nurse manager performance criteria.
FLOW Rationale: Committing in advance to interpret a worsening headline metric as progress requires the governing body to hold a counterintuitive position under external scrutiny, and the interpretation cannot be resolved from the number alone.
Rationale: National assault rates rose 5% to 2.71 per 100 nurses, and the reporting organization itself raised the possibility that increased reporting drove the rise — so an entity that penalizes managers for rising incident counts will suppress exactly the data its accreditor requires it to analyze, and will do so at the units with the most violence.
Resource: Governing body workplace violence oversight charter, HR performance management framework
Approval: Governing body / board quality committee
Expert Judgment: Distinguishing a reporting-driven rate increase from a genuine incidence increase — requiring the under-reporting multiplier from the baseline audit plus severity-weighted analysis, since the two have opposite implications for whether controls are working.
Effort: Low · Capability: Acquire · After: 1.1, 2.1
Key Risk: A public commitment to welcome rising incident numbers becomes indefensible if a severe assault occurs during the period, exposing the board to the accusation that it had formally decided not to be alarmed by rising violence. ⚠ Early warning: Risk management or communications counsel requests removal of the success-indicator language from the charter after the first severe incident.
2.3FLOW BDefinitions locked before the first post-standard quarterly report
The Chief Nursing Officer and Chief Human Resources Officer add severity-weighted assault tracking and time-to-response alongside raw incident counts, defining severity tiers before the first quarterly report so the tiers cannot be adjusted after results are known.
FLOW Rationale: Severity tiering and time-to-response are established occupational safety measurement practices requiring configuration rather than invention.
Rationale: With assault rates rising while the source flags increased reporting as a possible cause, raw counts cannot distinguish improvement from deterioration; severity weighting can, because a reporting-driven increase raises low-tier counts while a genuine deterioration raises high-tier ones.
Resource: Patient safety officer, occupational health, incident reporting system vendor
Approval: Chief Nursing Officer and patient safety officer jointly
Effort: Medium · Capability: Partial · After: 2.1
Key Risk: Severity tiers set by management without frontline input will classify sustained verbal threat and intimidation as low-tier, which is precisely the category nurses cite most and the category the accreditor's own definition explicitly includes. ⚠ Early warning: Nurses in the reporting-integrity survey describe their most consequential experiences as events the new tiering would score lowest.
2.4FLOW CStructure defined in the quarter following the Baseline Credibility Gate; off-shift executive presence begins the following quarter
The Chief Nursing Officer stands up a dedicated off-shift safety response structure — named on-site security and clinical escalation coverage for night and weekend shifts, with the responsible nurse executive rotating genuine off-shift presence rather than daytime-only rounding.
FLOW Rationale: Building genuine off-shift executive and security coverage requires resolving coordination, scheduling, and labor-cost tradeoffs simultaneously, and each staffing change alters conditions for the next.
Rationale: Nurses working nights and weekends report significantly lower perceptions of safety culture, teamwork, and organizational support than daytime counterparts, and night-shift employees are 17% less likely to believe their organization cares about their safety — a belief gap that daytime leadership presence cannot address because it is not observable to the shift that holds it.
Resource: Security services, nursing leadership scheduling, off-shift differential budget
Approval: Chief Nursing Officer and Chief Operating Officer jointly
Expert Judgment: Whether off-shift security presence reduces violence or escalates it on psychiatric units — a clinical judgment where the same intervention that reassures medical-surgical staff can increase confrontation in behavioral health settings, requiring unit-by-unit determination rather than a house-wide model.
Effort: High · Capability: Partial · After: 1.3
Key Risk: Adding uniformed security presence to psychiatric units, which see the most violent incidents, can increase patient agitation and therefore assault frequency, worsening the exact metric the structure was built to improve. ⚠ Early warning: Restraint and seclusion events or code response calls on behavioral health units rise in the first quarter after coverage changes.
Decision Gate — Reporting Integrity Gate
Is the reported-incident rate rising while severity-weighted incidents hold flat or fall, and is closed-loop response completion above the threshold the governing body set?
Go: Reported incident volume increases relative to the audited baseline; high-severity tier incidents do not increase; closed-loop response completion meets the board-set threshold; the follow-up frontline survey shows a measurable rise in the share of nurses who believe reporting produces action.
No-Go: Reported volume stays flat or falls, indicating suppression persists; high-severity incidents rise materially; closed-loop completion falls below threshold in two consecutive quarters; the share of nurses citing 'nothing will change' as a reason not to report is unchanged.
If No-Go → Move incident intake outside the management chain — route reports to occupational health or an ombuds function reporting directly to the governing body's quality committee, bypassing nurse managers entirely. Where closed-loop completion fails because managers lack capacity, reassign the response obligation to a dedicated workplace violence program lead rather than distributing it across unit management.
PHASE 3
Make Staffing and Advancement Verifiable
Converts the two conditions nurses cite most — workload and career direction — from management assertion into commitments nurses can independently check. This phase carries the largest cost and the largest retention effect, and it depends on Phase 1's jurisdictional map to determine what can be promised where.
Success: First-year and off-shift RN turnover both fall against the Phase 1 segmented baseline, and no competing account of staffing adequacy circulates between management and frontline nurses.
3.1FLOW CBegins the quarter after the Reporting Integrity Gate clears
The Chief Nursing Officer publishes actual versus planned staffing by unit and shift on a schedule nurses can see without requesting it, with variance explanations attached, in every facility regardless of whether the jurisdiction requires disclosure.
FLOW Rationale: Publishing staffing variance is straightforward mechanically but generates interconnected consequences across bargaining, regulatory exposure, and public reporting that must be traced before commitment.
Rationale: A hospital publicly asserting its staffing is 'safe and appropriate' in response to July 2026 reporting illustrates the posture that fails with this workforce, and since only four states impose binding statutory ratios while most rely on committees and staffing plans, in most facilities the entity's staffing claim is unverifiable to the nurses working the shift — which is why voluntary transparency, not a stronger assertion, is the credibility move.
Resource: Scheduling and workforce management systems, nursing informatics, communications
Approval: Chief Nursing Officer with General Counsel review
Expert Judgment: Which variance explanations are legitimate operational context versus excuse-making that reads as bad faith to the nurses who worked the understaffed shift — a judgment that determines whether transparency earns credibility or forfeits it.
Effort: Medium · Capability: Partial · After: 1.4, 2.1
Key Risk: Published variance data becomes the evidentiary foundation for bargaining-unit grievances, ratio-law enforcement actions in the four statutory states, and negligence claims — arming the entity's counterparties with a record it created voluntarily. ⚠ Early warning: General Counsel or labor relations requests aggregation or delay of the published data within the first two reporting cycles.
3.2FLOW CDesign in the two quarters following the Reporting Integrity Gate; first cohort enrolled the quarter after
The Chief Nursing Officer builds a clinical ladder with published level criteria, published compensation differentials, and defined changes to daily practice at each level, targeted first at the first-year and off-shift populations identified in segmented turnover reporting.
FLOW Rationale: Designing advancement levels with real compensation and real practice changes requires sequencing decisions across compensation structure, competency validation, and unit staffing that each constrain the next.
Rationale: Career advancement ranks among the top five voluntary resignation reasons in the 2026 NSI report, a clinical ladder was associated with an 11% turnover reduction in Brook et al. per a 2025 BMC umbrella review, and a 2025 Professional Excellence Program study recorded 4.20% turnover among ladder completers against 14.09% among non-completers — and because 80.8% of hospitals already run new-hire-specific strategies with residency programs rated only 3.9 out of 5, structural advancement is where differentiation remains available.
Resource: Nursing professional development, compensation and total rewards, unit-based practice councils, capital for differentials
Approval: Chief Nursing Officer and Chief Human Resources Officer, with Chief Financial Officer sign-off on differentials
Expert Judgment: Whether ladder criteria measure genuine clinical competency growth or reward documentation and committee participation — the distinction that determines whether the ladder retains strong bedside clinicians or selects for administrative appetite.
Effort: High · Capability: Partial · After: 1.2, 1.3
Key Risk: A ladder whose advancement requires committee work and project completion is structurally inaccessible to the night, weekend, and psychiatric-unit nurses at highest turnover risk, converting a retention program into a visible new inequity for exactly the wrong population. ⚠ Early warning: First-cohort enrollment skews toward day-shift medical-surgical staff with off-shift participation materially below their share of the RN workforce.
3.3FLOW BAligned to the facility's annual worksite analysis cycle under National Performance Goal #2a
The Chief Nursing Officer directs the highest-severity units identified in Phase 2 tracking — psychiatric and emergency departments first — to complete a unit-specific worksite analysis with frontline nurse co-authorship, producing a documented physical and procedural control list with named owners and dates, submitted as the facility's accreditation worksite analysis.
FLOW Rationale: The worksite analysis is a defined accreditation deliverable with an established framework, making this compliance execution against a known standard.
Rationale: Psychiatric units see the most violent incidents followed by the emergency department, and the accreditor's National Performance Goal #2a already requires an annual worksite analysis evaluating risks, policies, procedures, and training — so severity-ranked sequencing satisfies an existing obligation and directs controls where assaults actually concentrate rather than spreading them evenly.
Resource: Facilities and security, unit-based nursing councils, environment of care committee, capital for physical controls
Approval: Environment of care committee with governing body receipt
Effort: Medium · Capability: Have · After: 2.3
Key Risk: Frontline co-authorship generates a documented control list the entity then declines to fund, creating written evidence that nurses identified specific hazards and leadership chose not to remediate them. ⚠ Early warning: Control items carry owners but no funding source or date in the first submitted analysis.
3.4FLOW BCurriculum replaced ahead of the next recurring training cycle required under National Performance Goal #2a
The Chief Nursing Officer replaces individual resilience-oriented violence training with systemic prevention content covering de-escalation, team response protocols, and the entity's own escalation pathways, delivered at hire and on the recurring schedule the accreditation goal requires.
FLOW Rationale: Training content redesign against a published accreditation requirement and a published evidence base is a defined curriculum project.
Rationale: National Performance Goal #2a requires workplace violence prevention training at hire and on a regular recurring basis including when the program changes, and published meta-synthesis evidence on newly graduated nurses found that individual coping strategies gave temporary relief without addressing root causes and that violence against new nurses is systemically embedded and sustained by hierarchical structures and a culture of silence — so training built around individual resilience fails the population it most targets.
Resource: Nursing professional development, clinical education, external de-escalation curriculum vendor
Approval: Chief Nursing Officer and nursing education leadership
Effort: Medium · Capability: Partial · After: 2.1
Key Risk: Training nurses in escalation pathways the entity has not actually resourced teaches them precisely where the institution fails to respond, converting a compliance deliverable into a documented gap between promised and available support. ⚠ Early warning: Post-training escalation calls rise while documented escalation responses within the target time do not.
Decision Gate — Verifiability Gate
Can a nurse on any shift independently check the entity's staffing performance and see a defined advancement path with published criteria and compensation?
Go: Actual-versus-planned staffing published by unit and shift with variance explanations across all facilities; clinical ladder live with published criteria, differentials, and first cohort enrolled at off-shift participation proportional to workforce share; severity-ranked worksite analyses complete for psychiatric and emergency departments with funded control lists; systemic prevention training replaced individual resilience content.
No-Go: Staffing publication is withdrawn or aggregated to the point of unverifiability; ladder enrollment excludes off-shift and psychiatric staff; worksite analysis control items lack funding sources; first-year or off-shift turnover worsens against the Phase 1 segmented baseline.
If No-Go → Narrow to depth over breadth — concentrate staffing transparency and the full ladder on the psychiatric, emergency, telemetry, and step-down units carrying the highest turnover and assault severity, and defer house-wide rollout until those units demonstrate retention improvement. If ladder differentials cannot be funded, substitute scheduling autonomy and shift-choice seniority, which cost operational flexibility rather than payroll.
PHASE 4
Institutionalize and Position Externally
Locks the program into governance, compensation, and external accountability so it survives leadership turnover, and positions the entity ahead of the federal and state regulatory trajectory rather than in reaction to it.
4.1FLOW DMetric definitions approved before the opening of the next executive performance period
The Chief Executive Officer ties a defined portion of executive and nurse-executive incentive compensation to segmented retention and severity-weighted violence measures, with the governing body's compensation committee approving the metric definitions before the performance period opens.
FLOW Rationale: Tying executive pay to workforce safety outcomes reshapes incentives across the entire management chain and every clinical service line, making it a governance change with entity-wide reach.
Rationale: Because the governing body already carries oversight of workplace violence data and trends under National Performance Goal #2a, and because each percentage point of RN turnover costs the average hospital roughly $295,000 annually, the accountability structure and the financial case both already exist — what has been missing is a consequence for executives when the numbers move the wrong way.
Resource: Compensation committee, external compensation consultant, HR total rewards
Approval: Governing body compensation committee
Owner: Chief Executive Officer, with governing body compensation committee approval
Effort: Medium · Capability: Acquire · After: 1.3, 2.3
Key Risk: Incentive-linking metrics that the entity itself generates gives executives a direct financial interest in suppressing reported incidents and reclassifying severity, reversing the reporting-integrity gains of Phase 2. ⚠ Early warning: Reported incident volume declines in the first quarter after incentive linkage takes effect, having risen in prior quarters.
4.2FLOW CProgram architecture aligned before the close of the 119th Congress
The Chief Nursing Officer and General Counsel build the entity's workplace violence prevention program to the structure of the pending federal OSHA standard contemplated in H.R. 2531 and S. 1232 of the 119th Congress — a comprehensive written workplace violence prevention plan — regardless of whether the legislation advances.
FLOW Rationale: The regulatory endpoint is genuinely unclear — the bill has been reintroduced repeatedly without enactment — so the entity must decide how much to build against a standard that may never bind.
Rationale: H.R. 2531 and S. 1232 in the 119th Congress would direct the Secretary of Labor to issue an occupational safety and health standard requiring covered health care employers to develop and implement comprehensive workplace violence prevention plans, and the measure has been reintroduced across multiple Congresses after passing the House in an earlier session — so building to that structure costs little beyond what accreditation already demands and eliminates a compliance scramble if it advances.
Resource: General Counsel, occupational health, state and national hospital association regulatory affairs
Approval: General Counsel and Chief Nursing Officer jointly
Expert Judgment: How much of the bill's plan architecture to build in advance given repeated reintroduction without enactment — a regulatory-affairs judgment weighing sunk compliance cost against the cost of a compressed implementation window if a standard issues.
Effort: Medium · Capability: Partial · After: 3.3
Key Risk: Building to a bill's architecture rather than to the entity's own measured hazards produces a compliance-shaped program that satisfies a hypothetical federal reviewer while leaving the specific unit-level risks identified in Phase 3 unaddressed. ⚠ Early warning: Worksite analysis control items begin deferring to plan documentation deliverables in program status reporting.
4.3FLOW CCommissioned after the Verifiability Gate clears, with results published to nursing staff within the same fiscal year
The Chief Nursing Officer commissions an independent external assessment of the nursing practice environment, benchmarked against a national nursing workforce dataset, and publishes the facility's standing to nursing staff whether or not it is favorable.
FLOW Rationale: The evidence on whether external recognition drives retention or merely correlates with hospitals that would have retained anyway is contested, leaving the entity uncertain what the investment actually buys.
Rationale: Magnet-recognized hospitals outperform on NSI metrics and a longitudinal analysis of 1,884 nursing units across 306 U.S. hospitals found 16% lower RN turnover in Magnet hospitals per Staggs & Dutton, but published critique warns that recognition can become symbolic where frontline nurses experience weak staffing, limited voice, or managerial distance beneath the language of excellence — so external benchmarking is worth pursuing for the practice-environment discipline it imposes, not for the designation as a retention instrument in itself.
Resource: External assessment vendor, nursing quality analytics, national benchmarking subscription
Approval: Chief Nursing Officer with Chief Executive Officer notification
Expert Judgment: Whether to pursue formal designation or take only the assessment — a judgment on whether the entity's practice environment can withstand the frontline scrutiny that designation invites, since a designation contradicted by nurses' daily experience damages credibility more than never seeking it.
Effort: High · Capability: Acquire · After: 3.1, 3.2
Key Risk: Pursuing external recognition while nurses on psychiatric and night units still report feeling unsafe produces the symbolic-excellence failure the published critique describes, giving bargaining units a well-documented credibility attack. ⚠ Early warning: Frontline survey scores on safety and voice diverge from the external assessment's favorable domains rather than moving with them.