Report page 53

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.

The unit should document the decision and its justification with facts and details identified during the assessment.

Based on the results of the assessment, the BTAU will then determine how to manage the risk of violence through interventions and supports, as described in STEP 5.

While not Secret Service practice, BTAUs may explore the use of structured professional judgment (SPJ) tools to support their process of assessing risk and developing a management plan.

SPJs are instruments that can be used by trained personnel to measure the level of risk posed by an individual and may offer management considerations to reduce risk.

BTAUs should ensure that any tools incorporated into their behavioral threat assessment process have established evidence of reliability and validity for assessing the risk of targeted violence, specifically, and that the BTAU’s protocols allow for the unit members to deviate from the structured tool, if needed, based on their operational law enforcement training and experience.