Assessment of risk

Doing so ensures all relevant information is gathered and considered when assessing if an individual of concern poses a risk of violence while also identifying possible prevention strategies.

Once a case has been initiated, the BTAU will begin gathering information to assess if the individual poses a risk of engaging in targeted violence.

The information gathering process is intended to provide the BTAU with a comprehensive fact-based picture of the individual’s behavioral history and current life circumstances and to enable the unit to make an objectively reasonable and articulable assessment of the potential for violence.

Gather all relevant information from all relevant sources • Comprehensively assess the risk posed by an individual • Identify strategies to mitigate risk

Like other decision points in a behavioral threat assessment, this determination should be objectively reasonable and articulable, taking into account the totality of all relevant information along with the training and experience of the BTAU members.

Gathering this information will allow the BTAU to assess if the individual poses a risk of violence and plan the interventions needed to mitigate that risk.

Examining each of these Assessment Themes will provide the BTAU with comprehensive information to assess if the individual poses a risk of violence by identifying the contextual themes that may impact the individual’s thinking and behavior, the behavioral themes they have exhibited, and the summative themes that must be considered as part of an overall assessment.

Central to assessing whether an individual poses a risk of targeted violence is understanding the nature of concerning behaviors commonly observed in previous attackers.

While the presence of these behaviors alone cannot predict if an individual will become violent, it will inform the final assessment and management strategies employed by BTAUs.

As information is gathered from interviews, records, and other sources, the BTAU must assess whether an individual does or does not pose a risk of violence, while also thinking about what intervention is required to move the individual toward a more positive outcome.

The BTAU should make this assessment by considering all the information gathered about the Assessment Themes using the Systems Approach, while also considering any other situational factors.

When assessing for risk, the BTAU should not focus solely on whether a person made a threat, but whether a person poses a threat. In other words, while explicit threats are relevant to assessing risk, they are not the sole indicator for whether a person may become violent and, as such, should not be treated as a threshold for concern by public safety officials.

Therefore, the central question in behavioral threat assessment is—Does the individual of concern pose a risk of violence at this time?

Throughout an assessment, it is essential that units continuously assess any potential changes in the threat posed by the individual of concern.

While not Secret Service practice, BTAUs may explore classifying their assessments into levels of risk (e.g., low risk, medium risk, and high risk) if needed for case prioritization and management.

In doing so, BTAUs should ensure that each classification level is clearly defined and articulable (e.g., clarifying the distinction between low and medium risk) in order to avoid confusion and inconsistencies across assessments.

The BTAU’s protocols should allow for the unit to deviate from the prescribed levels of risk, if needed, based on any unique circumstances identified during the assessment.

Protocols should also allow for implementing risk management resources to all cases, including those deemed low risk.

Assessments should be based on an objectively reasonable and articulable assessment of the potential for violence, taking into account all available information identified by the BTAU.

Periodic reassessments of risk are helpful in maintaining a dynamic management plan that addresses the factors contributing to concerning behavior.

The determination for closing a case, like other decision points in the process, should be based on an objectively reasonable and articulable assessment of the potential for violence and should be documented with facts that support the decision.