Conclusion claims

The prevention of targeted violence in our country remains critical as communities have far too often been impacted by mass shootings and other targeted attacks.

Keeping communities safe requires a team effort and the combined resources of federal, state, and local law enforcement.

The prevention of targeted violence in the United States is everyone’s responsibility, and NTAC stands ready to provide continued support to our community partners as they implement violence prevention programs.

The same behavioral threat assessment model that is used to keep Secret Service protectees safe can be utilized by other federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies to prevent other forms of targeted violence, including attacks targeting schools, workplaces, houses of worship, and public gatherings.

Preventing targeted violence in America is everyone’s responsibility.

Unfortunately, many communities lack the structured systems to receive, evaluate, and respond to these reports in a way that reduces the likelihood of a violent outcome.

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

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.

Behavioral threat assessment should be approached with a prevention mindset.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

BTAUs must establish protocols by which the units will operate.

The SOPs should describe the roles and responsibilities of the BTAU as a whole, its individual members, and any associated community partners involved in the behavioral threat assessment process.

The SOPs should account for each phase of the process (i.e., from receiving an initial report to closing a case) and identify actionable steps and tasks throughout.

The SOPs should identify who is responsible for completing required actions at each step and the timeframe for each of those actions to be completed.

SOPs should also establish the frequency of BTAU meetings and by whom the meetings are led.

The BTAU should convene regularly, regardless of whether any assessments are active.

Routine meetings (e.g., weekly or biweekly) ensure team cohesion and provide consistent opportunities for unit members to: • review previous cases, • participate in scenario-based exercises, • receive training on relevant topics, • make process improvement recommendations, • identify resource shortfalls, and • collectively examine trends in targeted violence.

It is also a best practice to review the established SOPs on a routine basis (e.g., quarterly or annually) to account for lessons learned, new techniques, and revised membership roles and responsibilities that may change as the BTAU matures.

Describe the roles and responsibilities of the BTAU and its members/stakeholders • Account for each phase of the behavioral threat assessment process • Identify actionable steps to move through the process • Identify who is responsible for completing required actions • Identify a timeframe for when actions should be completed • Establish frequency of team meetings and by whom the meetings are led

Centralized case administration ensures standardization in initiating cases, gathering information, and managing cases over time.

A centralized, dedicated staff provides BTAUs the ability to view a concerning incident in its entirety, ensure that concerning behaviors are assessed appropriately and consistently, and design effective management plans for individuals of concern.

Centralized case administration further aids in the review of trends and the progression of concerning behaviors over time while also allowing the BTAU to direct and advise investigators who may not work on behavioral threat assessments as part of their normal duties.

For example, the BTAU may require a patrol officer to conduct a welfare check or interview an individual of concern and then report back their findings. In these cases, the patrol officer should provide any documentation regarding the results of the encounter to the BTAU in accordance with the BTAU’s requirements.

BTAUs must operate with a comprehensive understanding of individual rights to privacy with a particular focus on the handling and protection of personally identifiable information (PII).

Agencies should consult with their counsel or privacy personnel knowledgeable about the applicable laws and regulations related to individual privacy within their jurisdiction.

In addition to the above considerations, BTAUs should develop an understanding of the rules and laws that govern the sharing of information held by their community partners.

Units should have a firm understanding of exactly what information these laws protect and what exceptions allow for sharing information when a risk to public safety exists.

Using templated forms will also improve consistency and reliability in the behavioral threat assessment process by ensuring the same type and quality of information is gathered in each assessment.

It is important to remember that templated forms should be used as a starting point for gathering and collecting information. These forms should not be considered all-inclusive and should allow the flexibility to make common-sense adjustments during the behavioral threat assessment process. For example, information learned during an interview may prompt additional follow-up questions not explicitly listed on an interview form.

Assessment forms can facilitate the information gathering process by systematically capturing the following:

basic identifiers of the individual of concern, the reporting party, potential targets, and potential parties to interview;

information about the circumstances that brought the individual of concern to the attention of the BTAU;

answers to the questions posed during interviews with the individual, as well as during corroborative interviews with others;

potential sources for gathering additional information;

individualized case management plans (see STEP 5: Develop Risk Management Strategies); and

updates to case records if an individual returns to the BTAU’s attention;

details about each of NTAC’s 20 Assessment Themes, including the individual’s recent life stressors, concerning communications, and history of contact with law enforcement (see STEP 4: Gather Information to Assess for Risk).

BTAUs must establish avenues to receive reports of concerning behavior in the community, including internal and external agency referrals and bystander reporting from the public.

Units must further have the capability to triage all reports for imminent threats to life or safety and respond accordingly.

BTAUs may then triage reports for relevancy to the units’ objectives and share information with parties external to the units as necessary.

BTAUs will similarly receive reports of concerning behavior from within their own agency, members of the community, and outside law enforcement agencies and partner organizations, which should be routed to a centralized point for processing.

Bystander reporting is a cornerstone of targeted violence prevention efforts.

To improve accessibility, reporting mechanisms should provide a variety of avenues for reporting, including smartphone apps, online web portals, dedicated email addresses, and tiplines.

Programs should offer an anonymous or confidential reporting option, as research has shown that these features increase bystander reporting rates.

Additionally, reporting mechanisms should be monitored 24/7, and all reports should elicit a response.

Reporting systems must also be regularly promoted as a resource available to the public, making clear to bystanders that there is an avenue for them to report when they have concerns for the safety of themselves or others.

If reporting programs are operated by another agency, the BTAU will want to ensure clear lines of communication to ensure timely forwarding of relevant reports.

Multiple avenues for reporting (e.g., smartphone apps, online web portals, dedicated email addresses, and tiplines) • Anonymous/confidential reporting • 24/7 monitoring • Timely response

A BTAU should be a known, internal resource for all agency personnel and should provide clear instruction to all agency employees on the types of information that should be referred to the unit for assessment.

For example, if a patrol officer is dispatched to conduct a welfare check and concerning behavior is identified as a result, the officer should know to report the concern to the BTAU for an assessment.

Successful prevention requires all agency personnel to have familiarity with the program.

In-service training opportunities designed to educate all members of the agency on the internal referral process can enhance clarity, improve consistency in implementation, and help build capacity across the agency.

Similarly, a BTAU should be a known resource for partner agencies and organizations in the local community.

When reports of concerning behavior are received, the BTAU must be prepared to triage the information quickly and accurately with an initial focus on identifying and responding to imminent threats to life.

A behavioral threat assessment should take place only after the imminent risk is alleviated.

Therefore, BTAUs should have established protocols for responding to reports indicating an imminent threat to life and should define at what point a behavioral threat assessment is incorporated into the process.

The BTAU should ensure that other components within its agency (e.g., criminal investigative units) are aware of reports relating to their respective missions.

Likewise, the BTAU should ensure that reports and information it receives that relate to other geographic jurisdictions are shared with those jurisdictions’ public safety personnel. For example, if a BTAU receives information about an individual of concern in a neighboring state, that information must be shared expeditiously with law enforcement agencies in that jurisdiction.

Foregoing an assessment should be reserved for scenarios when doing so is clearly articulable and defensible.

Even for reports determined to be unfounded, the information should still be documented as future developments or reports may cause the BTAU to revise its assessment.

Unfounded reports may also be relevant to other internal and external partners (e.g., fusion centers or federal law enforcement agencies), and the BTAU should have procedures in place for sharing this information as appropriate.

BTAUs should establish clearly defined protocols to guide their assessment process.

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.

The rationale for the decision to close a case or elevate it for further assessment should be documented.

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.

A full assessment should involve an extensive interview with the individual of concern, multiple corroborative interviews (e.g., family, friends, neighbors, employers, and classmates), records checks (e.g., criminal, employment, educational, and mental health), reviews of online activity (e.g., social media and personal websites), and physical searches.

Physical searches should be conducted in accordance with existing protocols and may involve plain-view searches, searches conducted with consent of the individual, or searches conducted with a warrant, depending on the circumstances.

Gathering information from a variety of community systems will provide BTAUs with an organized and comprehensive way to assess an individual’s thinking and behavior.

Therefore, gathering information from various community systems provides a more comprehensive and reliable assessment of an individual’s behavior than would be possible by only focusing on a single area of their life.

In these types of systems, there are often formal records that document an individual’s history of interaction with the systems (e.g., judicial records or education records). While such records can provide vital information for a behavioral threat assessment, it must also be noted that formal records sometimes lack context for explaining an individual’s behavior and rarely tell the whole story.

BTAUs should seek access to records from formal systems when authorized and in accordance with all relevant privacy protections. BTAUs may be able to access records from other law enforcement agencies, courts, and community organizations.

However, any information gathered should be further supplemented through appropriate interviews.

BTAUs should have protocols in place for evaluating open-source online information, including publicly available social media and other publicly available information (e.g., posted pictures, videos, communications, or shared files).

BTAUs should also establish protocols for information gathering using popular search engines, which can reveal things such as personal websites and instances when an individual appeared in media coverage.

In addition to observing the individual’s general thinking and state of mind, the BTAU should prioritize open-ended questions regarding each of the Assessment Themes identified later in this section.

Being receptive to the individual’s needs will help establish a foundation of trust, which can then be used to help motivate changes in behavior.

Explain your role, the purpose of the interview, and next steps using plain language.

Be clear, direct, and truthful, and clarify any misconceptions.

Maintain a calm, respectful demeanor for the entire interaction, not just while asking questions.

Prepare strategies for responding to extreme or emotional responses (e.g., aggression, sadness, or silence).

Invite the individual to provide their perspective. Be respectful and patient if they are not interested in speaking at first.

Offer realistic choices during the interview, when possible. The more the individual feels in control of how the interview time is spent, the more they may want to talk.

Use the time to explore the individual’s interests, relationships, past experiences, future plans, concerns, and coping skills.

Provide an opportunity for the individual to suggest ways they can be supported in order to prevent the situation from escalating further.

If officer safety allows, interviews with individuals of concern should be conducted face-to-face in order to observe nonverbal cues and physical reactions to questions.

BTAUs should consult with their legal counsel to determine if an interview will take place in police custody and if the individual needs to be informed of their constitutional (“Miranda”) rights against self-incrimination.

The initial interview with the individual of concern should be followed by corroborative interviews with other people across the individual’s formal and informal systems.

Establishing rapport continues to be important when engaging with the individual’s family, friends, and other support networks. The people in these systems should be made aware that the BTAU’s primary goal is to prevent negative outcomes, in part by getting help for their loved one, friend, or colleague.

While gathering information from the subject’s formal and informal systems, BTAUs should focus on exploring each of NTAC’s 20 Assessment Themes.

Information about Assessment Themes should be gathered using the Systems Approach described previously, namely through records checks, an interview with the individual of concern, corroborative interviews with others, and a review of open-source social media.

Exploring each theme is necessary for a thorough assessment and may uncover other avenues of inquiry.

Keep in mind that there is no need to wait until the BTAU has completed all interviews or addressed every theme before taking action.

As soon as an area for intervention is identified, suitable management strategies should be enacted.

Particular concern should arise if the individual demonstrates an idolization of or desire to emulate past attackers.

Particular attention should be paid to whether others are in fear for their safety as a result of the individual’s behavior.

Gathering both positive details (e.g., caring and supportive family) and negative details (e.g., familial discord and violence) about these factors will establish the context of past, present, and impending circumstances within which the individual of concern is operating and will inform the BTAU’s intervention strategies.

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

BTAUs will be better equipped to make an informed assessment of risk if they have identified what is, or could be, motivating someone to become violent.

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?

Even if the individual does not appear to pose a risk of violence at this time, the BTAU may decide to implement some management strategies to support the individual’s wellbeing and prevent the situation from escalating.

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.

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

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.

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.

When individuals of concern are assessed as posing a risk of violence, BTAUs must work to manage the risk and reduce the likelihood of a violent outcome.

BTAUs will need to develop and document strategies to address the factors that are contributing to the individual’s desire or potential to cause harm.

Whenever possible, the BTAU should include the individual of concern and their support network (e.g., family and friends) in the process of developing an effective case management plan.

Maintaining a positive and collaborative rapport with the individual and their support systems will aid in the success of the management approach.

The BTAU should set clear expectations and actionable goals to create a comprehensive plan that can be executed and evaluated for success following implementation.

There are four elements that should guide the management of concerning behavior during a behavioral threat assessment. BTAUs should take steps to: • address factors of concern and promote positive factors, • redirect potential motives for violence, • create a situation less prone to violence, and • utilize the Systems Approach for management.

BTAUs should work with their relevant law enforcement and security partners to ensure the physical security of people and places that may be potential targets.

BTAUs should adopt a prevention mindset and work to address those factors that appear to make violence more likely while promoting any factors in an individual’s life that would reduce the likelihood of violence.

This approach should be tailored specifically to the individual and the factors identified utilizing the Systems Approach and the Assessment Themes described in STEP 4.

Therefore, the BTAU should work to identify the relevant factors contributing to the motivation for violent behavior and then take steps to redirect those motives to more appropriate prosocial behavior and, ultimately, positive outcomes.

Risk management strategies should work to create a situation less prone to violence. One way to create a less volatile situation is to limit access to weapons when permissible under legal and constitutional protections.

In addition to existing federal laws, state law may establish additional restrictions on firearm possession. For this reason, it is important for the BTAU to consider if an individual is in possession of a firearm and, if so, whether that possession is legal.

Enforce existing firearms laws: Another strategy for limiting access to weapons is to enforce existing laws designed to keep firearms from individuals who are not legally permitted to possess them.

All law enforcement and other public safety officials must be aware of these restrictions, as well as any additional state or local restrictions, and should take steps to ensure these laws are enforced.

In some instances, an individual of concern may not own or have access to firearms but may reside with someone who does. In these instances, the BTAU should speak with the owner and encourage them to reduce the individual’s ability to access the weapons.

If the owner is unwilling to remove the firearms from the home, the BTAU should discuss safe gun storage to ensure the firearms remain in a locked safe and to ensure the individual of concern does not have access to the combination or keys.

Although the goal of a behavioral threat assessment is not criminal prosecution, there are times when arrest and prosecution are necessary. When the BTAU is made aware of an incident involving a threat with a weapon, physical violence, stalking, harassment, or other criminal behaviors, criminal charges may play a critical role in ensuring public safety.

If criminal charges result in new firearms possession prohibitions (e.g., domestic violence conviction or felony conviction), the BTAU should work to ensure that any firearms are confiscated in accordance with existing federal law.

BTAUs should be prepared, however, to work within their agencies and with relevant security partners to ensure the physical security of people and places who may be potential targets.

Violence prevention requires a community-wide approach, and law enforcement agencies must be prepared to leverage their partnerships with other agencies to help reduce the likelihood of violence.

Management planning and implementation should seek to maximize internal resources from the agency the BTAU belongs to, as well as consider instances when outside law enforcement partnerships may be utilized.

A multiagency threat management approach that allows for information sharing among criminal justice professionals, including prosecutors, courts, correctional practitioners, and community supervision officers, is critical in managing the risk posed by an individual of concern.

While some information sharing may be “one-way” due to privacy regulations, criminal justice practitioners must be informed and have the appropriate context upon which to base their judgements, treatment decisions, and mitigation strategies.

Understanding their school enrollment status can be a helpful management tool, as there are a variety of resources and interventions that can be leveraged through school systems and postsecondary educational institutions.

If an individual of concern is employed, the BTAU may help the individual identify and leverage resources offered by their employer.

Coordinating resources offered through an individual’s employer should be done tactfully and in collaboration with the individual so as not to unnecessarily create additional challenges in the workplace.

Nevertheless, the BTAU may encourage the individual to access available employment resources (e.g., employment assistance programs).

As well, it can be helpful to know if an individual was previously employed as a member of the armed services because the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs offers a variety of recourses and supports to eligible veterans.

Still, it should be noted that a mental health evaluation is not a substitute for a behavioral threat assessment and that mental health treatment is not a substitute for behavioral threat management.

Newly established BTAUs should catalogue the mental health services and resources available in their communities and initiate proactive outreach to establish working partnerships with them.

When utilizing mental health services as an intervention, the BTAU should strategize directly with the individual, their family, and the local mental health professionals on how to best maintain treatment compliance.

BTAUs must also be prepared to share information with treatment providers.

For management planning, the BTAU should strategize about the role that the family may be able to play in initiating interventions, information sharing, and supporting the intervention plan.

BTAUs may want to educate families that the unit’s primary goal is to help support their loved one and, ideally, preempt any escalation toward violent or criminal behavior.

As was the case during the assessment phase, building and maintaining a positive rapport with the individual’s family is critical.

When identifying opportunities to connect individuals with services and resources to address their needs, it can be helpful to connect an individual with an organization capable of addressing multiple needs simultaneously by offering wraparound services.

Selecting a multifaceted provider improves efficiency by limiting the number of referrals needed and reducing the number of follow-up appointments with multiple providers.

Once a management plan has been implemented, the BTAU should monitor the progress of the individual, the effectiveness of the interventions provided, and any changes to the individual’s life circumstances.

To accomplish this, the BTAU should maintain consensual contact with the individual and continue to build rapport with their family and support members, as well as with community partners providing intervention services.

The BTAU should establish regular communication and check-ins with the identified support systems in the management plan and assess whether the interventions and strategies included in the plan are producing the intended result.

In some instances, management strategies may need to be revised and adjusted. For example, if an individual initially agrees to group counseling as part of their management plan, but they do not feel comfortable sharing in front of a large group, the management plan may need to be adjusted to feature individual counseling sessions to promote engagement and effectiveness.

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.

The agency should develop strategic efforts to promote a community culture that invites partner agencies into the behavioral threat assessment process, prioritizes relationship building and information sharing, and empowers community members to recognize and report concerning behaviors.

Conducting outreach to educate partner agencies and community members will help to establish trust and invite participation.

The BTAU should also focus on continual programmatic evaluation and improvement.

BTAUs should identify ways of utilizing data to inform program evaluation and strategy development.

For example, the BTAU could assess if bystander reporting increases in response to a focused public messaging campaign.

Similarly, the BTAU could evaluate if multiagency training activities increase the responsiveness of partner agencies during the assessment and management of individuals of concern.

BTAUs will want to be aware of any programmatic strengths or weaknesses and should adapt their procedures appropriately.

If resources allow, BTAUs could consider enlisting external expertise to assist with the technical aspects of program evaluation.

While it would be very difficult to measure if a BTAU was responsible for preventing an act of targeted violence, it is possible to measure the BTAU’s internal practices and systems that are meant to reduce the likelihood of an attack.

Moreover, the field of behavioral threat assessment continues to evolve, and the body of research defining best practices continues to grow. As such, BTAUs will require both an awareness of new research and the internal capacity to adapt procedures to align with the latest advancements in the field.

The relationships between the BTAU and its partner community systems are critical to the prevention of targeted violence.

In addition to sharing prevention resources across agencies and organizations, outreach will also promote the BTAU as a resource to those external systems when they are confronted with situations that elicit concern for safety.

Therefore, it benefits the BTAU when agencies and organizations across the community know where they can go for help.

Community systems that require proactive outreach from the BTAU include: • government agencies, • other law enforcement agencies, • businesses, • K-12 schools, • colleges and universities, • houses of worship, • mental health providers, • social service agencies, and • nonprofit service organizations.

Agency outreach can begin simply by hosting meetings between the BTAU and partner organizations. During the meetings, the BTAU can explain who they are, the purpose of behavioral threat assessment, how agencies can contact the BTAU to report individuals of concern, and what happens after reports are received.

The BTAU should emphasize that while they are a law enforcement entity, their primary objective in conducting behavioral threat assessments is prevention, and their approach is focused on facilitating proactive intervention with the individual of concern while achieving a positive outcome for the individual and the community.

As community relationships develop over time, the BTAU may choose to host training events, tabletop exercises, and other interactive engagements alongside partner organizations to promote a community culture of prevention. These types of proactive engagements help to ensure that multiagency collaboration does not occur for the first time in the midst of a crisis.

Bystander reporting is paramount to the success of the BTAU and should be the focus of community outreach efforts.

Public messaging campaigns should reach various community members with clear messaging about what concerns to report and how.

Billboards and posters in high-traffic and public areas can help to promote the simple message of reporting safety concerns to a centralized place.

A dedicated website can provide more detailed information about the BTAU’s role and can reiterate to the public the unit’s primary objective of violence prevention through early intervention, not criminal prosecution.

For over 25 years, NTAC’s research examining incidents of targeted violence has demonstrated that future tragedies are preventable if communities are equipped with the training and resources necessary to identify individuals of concern, assess their risk of violence, and intervene appropriately.

By following the steps in this operational guide, state and local law enforcement agencies will be able to adopt the pioneering principles of the Secret Service’s behavioral threat assessment model and move toward a structured approach to targeted violence prevention.

Management should always be driven by the results of the assessment, namely, the thinking and behavior of the individual of concern, along with other situational factors.