About Targeted Violence and Behavioral Threat Assessment

The places where we live, work, worship, and learn have far too often been impacted by acts of targeted violence, forcing Americans to question their own safety in the places they should feel the most secure.

Only by understanding the problem of targeted violence can communities begin to chart a path toward prevention.

The Secret Service defines targeted violence as a premeditated act of violence directed at a specific individual, group, or location, regardless of motivation and generally unrelated to other criminal activity.

In addition to assassination, this term encompasses other types of violence that have beset communities across the United States, including mass shootings, workplace violence, school attacks, and acts of terrorism.

Over 25 years of NTAC research on targeted violence has continued to reinforce that: • There is no specific demographic profile of an attacker.

Those who pose a risk of violence do not always make direct threats prior to an attack but often communicate their intentions to those around them.

Attackers often elicit concern from those around them because of their behaviors or communications.

Bystander reporting and intervention can avert planned acts of targeted violence.

The Secret Service recognizes that preventing targeted violence is possible if communities are equipped with the training and resources necessary to identify individuals of concern, assess their risk of violence, and intervene appropriately, namely through behavioral threat assessment (also referred to as behavioral threat assessment and management or “BTAM”).

Behavioral threat assessment is an approach to proactively prevent incidents of targeted violence.

NTAC research and Secret Service operational experience have established that behavioral threat assessment:

A behavior-based approach to proactively prevent incidents of targeted violence.

Is a systematic risk management approach. Unlike traditional criminal investigations that focus on arrest and criminal prosecution, behavioral threat assessment involves determining if an individual poses a risk of violence while developing proactive management strategies to reduce the likelihood of a violent outcome.

Requires corroboration from diverse sources. In addition to gathering information directly from the individual of concern, a behavioral threat assessment should evaluate information obtained from those who know the individual, as well as lawfully accessible information contained in records and other forms of documentation.

Emphasizes rapport building. A behavioral threat assessment should employ rapport-building techniques to facilitate positive engagement and successful intervention.

Utilizes a low threshold of concern. Acting at the first sign of concerning behavior, instead of waiting for a direct or explicit threat, improves the chances of preventing violence.

Provides an avenue for early intervention. A behavioral threat assessment facilitates the delivery of appropriate interventions and resources as part of a violence prevention strategy that focuses on addressing the factors driving an individual toward violence.

Is not profiling. Rather than focusing on demographic characteristics (e.g., gender, age, race, or ethnicity), behavioral threat assessment prioritizes understanding an individual’s thinking and behavior.

Is not prediction. Rather than attempting to predict who will act violently, a behavioral threat assessment should focus on identifying and addressing the concerning factors that appear to be driving a person toward violence.

Behavioral threat assessment should be approached with a prevention mindset.

The primary objective of a behavioral threat assessment is to gather information about an individual of concern in order to assess and manage the risk of violence they may pose—in other words, prevention.

Oftentimes, individuals eliciting concern have not violated a criminal statute, which serves as an important reminder that an individual need not commit a criminal offense before being the subject of a behavioral threat assessment.

Imagine a scenario in which a local law enforcement agency is notified by a concerned family member that their loved one has become increasingly angry at his former boss, who fired him after a series of disciplinary actions for safety violations. The individual of concern made comments about having nothing left to lose and claimed that his former boss was to blame for his recent divorce.

In some cases, however, it may come to light that the individual of concern has committed a crime, and once uncovered, it would be appropriate to investigate those criminal violations.

In these instances, any required criminal investigation should run parallel to, and in coordination with, a behavioral threat assessment.

Concerning scenarios like this, in which no criminal violation has yet occurred, highlight how criminal prosecution should not be the primary objective of a behavioral threat assessment.

is a proactive approach to violence prevention. | is not a criminal investigation. provides an avenue for early intervention. | is not a physical security measure. focuses on assessing and managing is not profiling. concerning behavior.

The Secret Service originally developed behavioral threat assessment to prevent assassinations and safeguard the nation’s leaders.

The process was built upon NTAC’s research which found that most individuals who engage in acts of targeted violence elicit concern in those around them prior to the attack.

The Secret Service model, therefore, is designed to identify individuals displaying threatening or concerning behavior, gather information to assess if an individual poses a risk of violence, and then manage the risk by implementing appropriate interventions.

The Secret Service model has since been adapted to prevent all forms of targeted violence impacting communities in America, including acts of workplace violence, K–12 school shootings, terrorism, and mass attacks in public spaces.

The steps presented here are meant to guide state and local law enforcement as they establish behavioral threat assessment units (BTAUs) specifically designed to assess and intervene with individuals identified as posing a risk of violence.

Doing so requires the development of operational policies and standard operating procedures that clearly outline how the unit will function.

Once complete, the unit will be positioned to receive and manage information, including bystander reports about individuals displaying concerning behaviors in the community.

The BTAU will then conduct an assessment to determine if the reported individuals pose a risk of violence, and if so, develop management strategies to reduce the likelihood of violent outcomes.

As part of this overall structure, the BTAU should continue to promote a culture of prevention, both within the agency itself and among its community partners.

In doing so, the BTAU will work alongside its partners to prevent the injury and loss of life that research continues to demonstrate is preventable.

STEP 1: | Establish a Behavioral Threat Assessment Unit and Policy STEP 2: | Create Operational Protocols and Procedures STEP 3: | Identify and Process Reports of Concerning Behavior STEP 4: | Gather Information to Assess for Risk STEP 5: | Develop Risk Management Strategies STEP 6: | Promote Continuous Improvement and a Culture of Prevention

Change can be challenging, but law enforcement in the United States has demonstrated the ability to evolve its operations to better address emerging threats to public safety.

Examples range from the incorporation of crisis intervention and mental health responses into daily police operations, to the adoption of new investigative techniques to counter the criminal use of advanced technologies.

Similarly, law enforcement has long promoted the general welfare of the communities they serve and protect through preventive measures, including welfare checks, traffic and crowd control, drunk driving prevention, and drug abuse education.

The adoption of behavioral threat assessment reflects a movement toward a more structured approach to targeted violence prevention and is a natural progression of the public safety role law enforcement has historically played in the United States.