STEP 1: Establish a Behavioral Threat Assessment Unit and Policy

Preventing targeted violence requires a prevention mindset along with a clearly defined policy that establishes the BTAU within an agency while clarifying the unit’s legal authorities, operational objectives, and threshold for initiating cases.

Creating a written policy establishes these parameters and ensures the BTAU operates as intended.

When establishing a BTAU, law enforcement agencies must first recognize that targeted violence is preventable.

As research continues to show, individuals planning acts of targeted violence almost always exhibit observable concerning behaviors, offering opportunities for intervention and redirection before criminal behavior or violence occurs.

It is important for agencies to internalize this concept of prevention and recognize that law enforcement can be proactive in addressing targeted violence and are not limited to reactive responses to crimes or active assailants.

A structured behavioral threat assessment process can empower agencies, within all existing legal and constitutional parameters, to prevent future tragedies and loss of life.

The success of BTAU operations is dependent upon senior agency leadership support and direction.

Agency leadership must be supportive of the behavioral threat assessment mission

Additionally, agency leadership must also ensure that a BTAU is fully integrated into the agency’s organization on equal footing to other components in the agency.

Externally, agency leadership can help promote a prevention mindset to other community organizations through the creation and strengthening of partnerships and through information-sharing efforts.

The role of agency leadership in the establishment and development of a BTAU includes: • promoting an agency-wide prevention mindset; • overseeing the development of agency policies for conducting behavioral threat assessments; • procuring and allocating resources, including personnel, funding, and training; • promoting the BTAU as a life-saving agency resource to other community organizations; • inspiring purpose among the BTAU and other agency personnel more broadly; and • understanding that successful violence prevention efforts may be difficult to measure with data.

BTAU policies should clearly identify from where the law enforcement agency draws its authority to conduct behavioral threat assessments.

For example, the Secret Service’s investigative and protective authority is established by Title 18, United States Code, § 3056 (Powers, Authorities, and Duties of the United States Secret Service).

As public entities, state and local law enforcement agencies across the United States draw their police powers from local ordinances and state statutes, which generally grant them the authority to detect and prevent crime, to safeguard life and property, and to preserve the peace.

Law enforcement agencies routinely take steps to reduce opportunities for crime through preventive measures, and behavioral threat assessment can serve as one such method of prevention.

BTAUs can be established within state and local law enforcement agencies, as well as within state and regional fusion centers.

The type of agency to establish the unit will dictate the authorities under which the unit operates, the resources available (e.g., staffing, funding, and technology), and the unit’s geographic jurisdiction.

Agencies should consider how a BTAU can be most effectively positioned within their overall organization.

BTAUs have been developed by state law enforcement agencies and within fusion centers across the country.

State agencies may operate with broader authorities and with greater resources than smaller local agencies, and fusion centers provide law enforcement with opportunities to share information and intelligence, collaborate with partner agencies, maximize their resources, and streamline their processes.

The North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation (NCSBI), for example, chose to establish its Behavioral Threat Assessment Unit, known as the BeTA Unit, as a part of the North Carolina Information Sharing and Analysis Center (ISAAC) with the goal of taking a proactive approach to violence prevention.

One of the contributing factors to establishing the BeTA Unit in the ISAAC, a state fusion center, was the North Carolina General Assembly’s decision to provide the state fusion center with express legal authority to analyze information related to any threat of violence to an individual in a school or a place of worship (NC Gen Stat § 143B–929, 2022).

Other examples include the Hawai’i State Fusion Center (HSFC), which supports Threat Team Hawai’i (TTH), a multidisciplinary team that identifies, assesses, and manages situations where the risk of targeted violence is imminent and/or anticipated.

Similarly, in the nation’s capital, the DC Homeland Security and Emergency Management Agency (HSEMA) established a behavioral threat assessment and management program as a part of the DC Fusion Center.

Fusion centers allow multiple law enforcement agencies to share resources and information with the common goal of safeguarding the homeland and preventing crime and threats to public safety. Such a focus on prevention aligns with the primary objective of behavioral threat assessment, making fusion centers effective placements for BTAUs.

Local agencies seeking to establish a BTAU can contact their local fusion centers and other regional partners to determine if such programs already exist and how they can create an agency-level BTAU that could collaborate with existing programs.

BTAUs can also be established within local law enforcement agencies, including city police departments and sheriff’s offices.

For example, in July of 1990, the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) established the Threat Management Unit (TMU) due to a disturbing increase in obsessive, fixated, and sometimes violent behavior directed at high-profile public figures.

The TMU was initially created to facilitate direct reporting of and a timely response to the stalking behaviors of those who persistently attempted to contact area celebrities.

The LAPD determined there was a need to develop a specialized unit capable of providing nontraditional law enforcement services to intervene and manage individuals of concern before the potential for violence escalated further.

Today, the TMU is responsible for investigating and providing early intervention for aggravated stalking cases, criminal threat cases directed at elected city officials, and workplace violence cases involving city employees and departments, with the overall aim of managing cases before violence occurs.

The TMU also staffs the Los Angeles City Threat Assessment Team and liaises to maintain relationships with entertainment studios, the Secret Service, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the California Highway Patrol’s Dignitary Protection Unit, and other similar units.

As another example, the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office (PCSO) in Florida established its Threat Management Division in 2021.

The Threat Management Division’s mission is to identify indicators of potential targeted violence as early as possible and to act before they become actual threats or result in violence.

In addition to its specific threat management functions, the 71-member division also houses the agency’s mental health unit, mass casualty planning unit, and intelligence lead policing section.

These units work in concert to prevent targeted violence by identifying, assessing, and managing individuals who have exhibited concerning behavior; providing field-based mental health services; assessing site safety at schools and other critical infrastructure; and conducting active assailant response training.

Public schools in Florida are mandated by law to have threat management programs, but PCSO also operates a dedicated school-based threat management program for private schools throughout Pinellas County.

PCSO has partnered with several multidisciplinary community entities, including community mental health providers, school district representatives, the local prosecutor’s office, and the state probation office, all of whom meet weekly to support open threat management cases.

Behavioral threat assessment programs can also be established as interagency collaborations without a sole managing entity.

These types of programs generally serve in a consultative or advisory capacity, offering support and resources to member and non-member agencies without assuming formal ownership of an assessment.

For example, the Rochester Threat Advisory Committee (ROCTAC) is a behavioral threat assessment advisory team created to facilitate information sharing and coordinate threat management around Rochester, NY.

Participating agencies include federal, state, and local law enforcement and other government agencies, along with universities, K–12 schools, mental health professionals, houses of worship, corporations, and community outreach partners.

The advisory team meets regularly, and any participating member agency can present a case to the team. While all responsibilities associated with the case remain with the presenting agency, other agencies in the advisory group can make recommendations about possible intervention options and share resources when appropriate.

These types of interagency partnerships help ensure collaboration and information sharing during situations where warning signs or risk factors for violence are present.

Such interagency groups can follow many of the behavioral threat assessment principles presented in this guide.

BTAUs should be staffed by law enforcement personnel who have training and experience working with partners across the community.

This may include personnel with experience in crisis intervention or officers with experience navigating the mental health system and social services.

Those assigned to BTAUs should also receive training specifically on behavioral threat assessment research and best practices.

All BTAU members should understand that tragedies can be prevented by recognizing and appropriately intervening when warning signs of targeted violence are present.

BTAUs may vary in size, as this preventive approach allows for scalability.

An agency that lacks the resources to establish a BTAU could begin with a single, designated violence prevention officer who maintains the responsibility of gathering information and managing situations involving a potential for violence and who leverages assistance as needed.

New BTAUs can also be established with a small, initial core team, which may develop in size and sophistication as additional resources become available.

For example, at the time of this writing, the LAPD TMU was staffed with five case-carrying detectives and one officer-in-charge, an expansion from the TMU’s original structure of three detectives and one supervisor.

If resources allow, larger agency units can utilize multidisciplinary support to enhance the efforts of their law enforcement staff by including intelligence analysts, a staff psychologist, legal counsel, or liaison positions from other agencies (e.g., detailees from local courts, mental health systems, or school districts).

For example, at the time of this writing, the NCSBI BeTA Unit is staffed by eight law enforcement personnel (one assistant special agent in charge and seven special agents) one intelligence analyst, two psychologists, and one social worker.

At the time of this writing, there are grant programs at the state and federal levels created to support the establishment of BTAUs and related functions, including funds for behavioral threat assessment training and for the development of bystander reporting programs.

For example, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Targeted Violence and Terrorism Prevention (TVTP) Grant Program is dedicated to enhancing the capabilities of local communities to prevent targeted violence and terrorism.

TVTP grants support the DHS approach to violence prevention, which focuses on providing local communities with evidence-based tools to prevent violence while protecting civil rights, civil liberties, and privacy rights.

The TVTP Grant Program is open to state, local, tribal, and territorial government agencies; institutions of higher education; and nonprofit organizations.

The TVTP Grant Program has named “Enhancing Local Threat Assessment and Management Capabilities” as one of its top priorities.

Establishing a BTAU policy within the broader agency’s policy allows the organization to establish the guiding principles and parameters of the program.

The agency can articulate the legal authorities under which the unit will operate, specify unit objectives, and clarify the threshold for case initiation.

Drafting a written policy should begin with a policy statement, through which the agency will establish a shared vision of the program’s mission and ensure the BTAU members work within the program’s intended scope.

Defining the parameters of the program can also assist an organization with educating the larger community and other interested partners on the purpose of behavioral threat assessment and the role community members play in prevention.

[Name of agency/organization] is committed to [list objectives]. In support of that commitment, this policy specifically addresses the implementation of [name of BTAU], which will be dedicated to taking a proactive approach to the prevention of targeted violence in [community/jurisdiction]. Staffed by [operational makeup of BTAU], [name of BTAU]’s mission is to identify, assess, and manage individuals of concern within [community/jurisdiction] before the risk of potential violence escalates to physical harm. [Name of agency/organization] will achieve this mission by [describe BTAU approach/process].

BTAU policies should ensure that the objectives of the unit align with the objectives of behavioral threat assessment.

The primary objective of a behavioral threat assessment is prevention, not criminal prosecution.

Although criminal prosecution may be required or warranted in certain instances (see STEP 5: Develop Risk Management Strategies), BTAUs should prioritize the assessment and management of risk as the unit’s primary objective.

Many cases may not involve a criminal violation but will still require action to assist an individual in crisis or mitigate the potential risk for violence.

As an example, Secret Service policy states that the primary objective of Secret Service Protective Intelligence investigations is to gather and evaluate information about potential risks to the people, places, and events the agency protects. Secret Service policy clearly establishes that investigating violations of federal criminal statute as part of a Protective Intelligence investigation is a secondary objective.

Although BTAU objectives may differ based on the agency in which the unit resides, the primary objective of any BTAU should be violence prevention.

BTAU policies should clearly establish the thresholds for initiating a behavioral threat assessment, and those thresholds should not be limited to criminal behaviors or direct threats.

For example, while making a direct threat against the president would initiate a behavioral threat assessment, it is not the Secret Service’s sole threshold. The Secret Service initiates a Protective Intelligence investigation when an individual displays a threatening or concerning direction of interest toward any person or place protected by the agency.

Similarly, a BTAU should initiate a behavioral threat assessment in response to concerning behaviors.

Concerning behaviors include actions or communications by an individual that are troubling or inappropriate and indicate a potential risk of violence.

Concerning behaviors exist along a continuum of criminal and non-criminal activities and may include escalating interpersonal disputes, grievances, concerning social media content, stalking and harassing, obsessions with violence, idolizing past attackers, fixating on people or locations, suicidal ideations, self-harm, unusual levels of aggression, threats, or other behaviors that elicit concerns for safety.

As such, the threshold for initiating a behavioral threat assessment should include behaviors along this entire continuum, not only behaviors that have a criminal nexus.

When criminal acts have occurred, the resulting criminal investigation will occur parallel to the behavioral threat assessment.

Early intervention is at the core of a BTAU’s involvement in managing concerning behaviors, with an emphasis on guiding the outcome of the situation to an end that does not result in violence or other criminal behavior.

In doing so, BTAUs must operate with an understanding of individual rights protected by the U.S. Constitution, including freedom of speech.

Within the boundaries of these protections, BTAUs should operate with a low threshold of concern, promoting early intervention and de-escalation wherever possible.

Parents notify law enforcement that their 21-year-old son is driving to the state capital. They state he has recently grown paranoid about the government spying on him and say that he wants to speak to the governor.

An individual shows up at her former workplace following a recent termination, stating that her former boss is going to “get what he deserves.”

Police receive reports from a family member of a convicted felon who is in possession of firearms. After police arrest the individual for the federal weapons violation, a search of the felon’s person produces a handwritten list of names, including several family members and former coworkers.

An individual who has a history of violent outbursts arrives at the home of his ex-wife, who has a restraining order filed against him. After unsuccessfully demanding to see his children, over whom the wife has full legal custody, he leaves the property while shouting, “I’ll be back, and I will get my children.”

Coworkers notify law enforcement after they notice an individual is sharing songs and images on social media about violence and retribution. In the weeks prior, his work performance decreased drastically, and he began to withdraw socially from coworkers, with whom he had previously been friendly. On the day he posted the violent songs on social media, he did not show up to work.

Concerned friends notify law enforcement that their friend has recently expressed growing dissatisfaction with the current political climate, and she feels motivated to “do something big” to bring attention to the problems. The friends reported the individual has recently started selling off her possessions and has stated that she “would rather die than see the country continue in its current state.”

A school contacts local law enforcement about a student expressing fascination with a past school attacker. The student completed a school writing assignment about how he idolizes the school attacker and hopes to emulate him. The school has tried repeatedly to engage with the student’s parents, but they have been unresponsive.