Statement claims

To support these efforts, NTAC delivers research and guidance to our public safety partners on how to prevent targeted violence in communities across the United States, with further support offered through our training and consultation missions.

This support continues with the release of the following operational guide, Behavioral Threat Assessment Units: A Guide for State and Local Law Enforcement to Prevent Targeted Violence.

The framework presented herein reflects the principles and strategies of the Secret Service’s behavioral threat assessment model.

With the creation and distribution of this guide, NTAC offers principles and best practices to state and local law enforcement agencies as they work tirelessly to prevent future tragedies.

All publicly available resources by the National Threat Assessment Center are available at www.secretservice.gov/ntac.

Or put more simply: identify, assess, and manage.

Today, NTAC continues to lead the field of behavioral threat assessment and assist the agency’s public safety partners in their mission to prevent targeted violence.

The framework presented herein is the latest NTAC offering intended to support the violence prevention efforts of state and local law enforcement agencies.

The steps that follow describe how agencies can adopt the principles of the Secret Service model to proactively identify and intervene with those who intend to carry out acts of targeted violence in their communities.

These steps are not intended to be prescriptive, but rather offer a scalable blueprint that can be implemented by agencies varying in size, structure, and resources, all of which share the Secret Service’s mission of preventing targeted violence.

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.

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”).

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

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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 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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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).

[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].

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

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.

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.

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.

Documenting these procedures allows for a clear understanding of processes, roles, and responsibilities.

Creating written protocols also promotes consistency and continuity while setting the stage for future program evaluation and development.

Some questions to consider regarding PII include, but are not limited to: • What rules allow the BTAU to request from individuals information that would otherwise be protected? • Where and how will the BTAU maintain documents and files (e.g., completed forms, case plans, and supporting documentation)? • Who will have access to these files? • How will the BTAU facilitate the sharing of information internally and externally with relevant agencies and partners while also ensuring appropriate protections of PII?

Even if mental health providers and local education agencies cannot share information with the BTAU, those agencies can receive whatever information the BTAU is authorized to share. Sharing information with these entities will inform the strategies used by the mental health providers and local education agencies to promote the wellbeing of individuals under their care.

As the behavioral threat assessment proceeds, the BTAU will want to document all relevant information gathered during the assessment. Templated forms can be used to organize, prompt, and standardize information gathered during the behavioral threat assessment process.

BTAUs may establish a centralized reporting mechanism or utilize an existing reporting program to facilitate bystander reporting.

The toolkit outlines strategies for establishing and enhancing bystander reporting programs. While this toolkit was written primarily for K-12 school audiences, the principles presented are applicable to broader, community-based reporting mechanisms.

Agencies may also choose to establish certain automated internal referrals that will initiate an assessment.

BTAUs will have to receive and respond to reports of concerning behavior submitted directly from other law enforcement agencies, workplaces, houses of worship, and schools.

In emergency situations where an imminent threat to life exists, mitigation of the threat takes precedence over the initiation of a behavioral threat assessment.

For example, if coworkers report that an employee showed up armed to a meeting at which the employee expected to be terminated, then an immediate law enforcement response should be prioritized over a behavioral threat assessment. In such a scenario, the focus is on mitigating the physical threat and protecting the safety and wellbeing of everyone present.

Part of the BTAU’s initial processing of reports involves confirming jurisdiction and sharing information with the appropriate internal and external parties as needed. It is important that any information that may assist in protecting public safety is not unnecessarily siloed within the BTAU or the agency.

After triaging reports for imminent threats to life and confirming BTAU jurisdiction, the BTAU must evaluate whether the reports and information received are relevant to the unit’s mission and if the behavior described warrants an assessment.

At times, it may be determined that a report is unfounded and an assessment is not warranted.

Examples of unfounded reports that may require no further action from the BTAU include nuisance/prank reports and reports lacking any investigative avenues for gathering additional information, including unidentifiable anonymous threats.

If a report is deemed actionable, the BTAU will initiate an assessment following the procedures described in STEP 4.

During this process, information will be gathered from a variety of community systems and should address the Assessment Themes identified by decades of NTAC research on targeted violence.

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.

This approach is based on foundational principles identified by NTAC research and the Secret Service’s pioneering efforts in the field, which have established that behavioral threat assessment: • utilizes a low threshold of concern, • requires corroboration from diverse sources, • emphasizes rapport building, • is not profiling, and • is not prediction.

Following the BTAU’s initial processing (see STEP 3: Identify and Process Reports of Concerning Behavior), the unit will need to determine the scope of the behavioral threat assessment based on the information available.

At this stage, some cases will receive a preliminary inquiry to determine whether a full assessment is warranted, while other cases may move immediately into a full assessment.

For any actionable report of concerning behavior that meets the BTAU’s criteria for opening a case, the minimum level of response would be an inquiry.

An inquiry may involve steps such as • interviewing the reporting party, • interviewing the individual of concern, • conducting a corroborative interview with someone who knows the individual well, • conducting a criminal records check, and • conducting a preliminary review of publicly available online activity (e.g., social media).

At the conclusion of an inquiry, the BTAU may decide to either close the case or elevate it to a full assessment.

Full assessments are initiated when safety concerns are elevated by the result of an inquiry or when the content of the initial report on its own justifies a full assessment.

Report is received Does this report involve an imminent threat to life?

Document, close, and retain the report. Share information as

Respond as necessary. Is a behavioral threat assessment still

Is the report actionable? appropriate. | necessary? | appropriate. YES Initiate a preliminary inquiry.

Document, close, and retain the | NO | Is more report. Share information as | information needed? appropriate. YES Perform a full | YES assessment

The Systems Approach operationalizes how people tend to exhibit different behaviors in different environments. An individual’s communications and behaviors will often adapt to the context of their current situation.

For example, individuals may act differently when visiting family compared to how they act in a meeting with coworkers.

Utilizing the Systems Approach also allows BTAUs to corroborate information as it is gathered and make note of any inconsistencies or anomalies they identify.

Another benefit of the Systems Approach is that it allows BTAUs to connect pieces of information that are traditionally siloed.

Additionally, information gathered from community systems can help to show changes in behavior over time.

For example, if a supervisor from an individual’s current workplace provides a starkly different description of the individual compared to a supervisor from a prior workplace, the BTAU may seek to identify any traumatic events or other situational factors that occurred during the timeframe of the individual’s current employment that could explain the dramatic change in behavior.

For example, a student may have a long history of eliciting safety concerns among teachers and classmates at a university, but there may be little documentation in their university education record regarding the concerning behavior or any interventions applied.

As another example, a man with a long history of stalking and harassing women may have a law enforcement record reflecting only a single charge of trespassing without any additional details about the months of behavior that led to the charge.

For example, if a BTAU obtains information through a police record provided by another agency, the BTAU may want to establish further context around the information by contacting the police department and officers who have previously interacted with the individual or by requesting more detailed police reports about those interactions.

Unlike formal systems, informal systems rarely maintain records about an individual and instead provide information most often through interviews.

Interviews with informal systems provide BTAUs with the perspective of those who have maintained close or frequent relationships with the individual, sometimes over many years.

Online activity represents another informal system from which to obtain information to guide a behavioral threat assessment.

When the Secret Service conducts a behavioral threat assessment, one of the earliest steps will involve an initial interview with the individual of concern.

For BTAUs, the initial interview provides an opportunity to engage with the individual, directly observe their behavior, and gain insight into their mindset while also beginning to identify factors that indicate whether the individual does or does not pose a risk of violence.

The initial interview is also an early opportunity to begin establishing rapport with the individual.

Because behavioral threat assessments are not the same as criminal investigations, the initial interview will often take place outside of police custody and only with the consent of the participating individual.

Rapport building is a key element in establishing a positive relationship that can help the individual being interviewed to feel at ease while sharing information.

BTAUs can maintain a positive rapport with individuals of concern while also establishing firm and professional boundaries around public safety.

If conducted at the individual’s residence, officers will have an opportunity to observe the individual’s living conditions and home environment.

At the conclusion of the interview, the individual may be advised of next steps and any lawful requirements they must adhere to (e.g., if they are the subject of a restraining order).

These interactions provide opportunities for the BTAU to gather new information about the individual’s behaviors from people who know them and to corroborate information already identified in the assessment.

For example, when conducting a behavioral threat assessment involving the potential for workplace violence, the BTAU may conduct corroborative interviews with the individual’s coworkers and supervisor, in addition to the individual’s close family members.

For an assessment involving a student who threatened a school attack, the BTAU would likely interview the student’s parents, the student’s teachers, other school staff, and possibly classmates.

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.

For example, BTAUs could identify a history of stalking and harassment both through an examination of criminal records and interviews with people who know the individual of concern. Similarly, BTAUs could identify concerning communications both through interviews and through an examination of the individual’s open-source social media posts.

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.

The Assessment Themes identified here are not individually predictors of violence but are factors that should be evaluated in context when conducting a behavioral threat assessment.

Further, some of the identified themes involve activities that are protected by the Constitution and should be viewed with those protections in mind.

Stressors can be experienced across several life domains, including family/romantic relationships, social interactions, work or school environments, personal health, legal actions, and other identified areas.

Specific examples include being bullied or harassed by others, financial instability, job loss, divorce or child custody issues, and failed life aspirations.

Mental health history may or may not include prior formal diagnoses, hospitalizations, and treatment (e.g., prescription medication).

Criminal behavior outside of formal records may be identified during the assessment through interviews with family, friends, coworkers, classmates, and others familiar with the individual.

Examples of past behaviors that may not have received appropriate consequences could include threatening communications, domestic violence, physical/sexual assaults, inappropriate touching of others, stalking, and harassment.

Fascination with weapons and violence can be demonstrated in a variety of ways, including stockpiling or manufacturing weapons, being described as obsessed with weapons, consuming or producing violent or graphic media, and writing stories or lyrics indicating a desire to harm others.

The victim of this behavior may or may not have a pre-existing relationship with the individual of concern. Examples of victims with a pre-existing relationship to the individual include romantic partners, family members, coworkers, classmates, or neighbors, while those without a prior relationship may include elected officials, government employees, or celebrities.

Stressors • Home life • Mental health • Criminal history • Interpersonal difficulties • Lack of consequences

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.

For example, if an assessment reveals an individual is fixated on past attackers, has grown increasingly isolated, has posted concerning violent content on social media, and has been researching upcoming public gatherings, the BTAU will need to develop the appropriate strategies to manage the risk the individual may pose toward public spaces or other potential targets.

Concerning or threatening communications • Interest in violent topics • History of violence • Stalking, harassing, or bullying • Extreme beliefs • Fixations • Behavior changes • Desperation or despair • Intense anger or aggression • Inconsistency • Planning and final acts

They will also need to understand if the people who know or have had contact with the individual have been concerned, especially if their concern is related to safety.

Lastly, BTAUs will need to assess if the individual has the means and capability to cause harm by gathering information about the weapons the individual has access to or could potentially obtain.

Motive • Elicited concern in others • Access to weapons

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.

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.

Along with more traditional law enforcement action, these efforts will often involve identifying the needs of the individual and the community resources available to address those needs.

The process of managing risk includes case planning, implementation, monitoring, and, eventually, case closure.

Management efforts may include short-term strategies that begin immediately upon receipt of information that indicates a safety concern, as well as long-term strategies driven by the assessment and other situational factors.

The concept of management is rooted in the same principles as other intervention-based models of prevention in that the goal is for the BTAU to act in ways that reduce the potential for a negative outcome while increasing the likelihood of a positive outcome.

In behavioral threat assessment, management strategies for a case are constructed around the known factors that appear to make an individual more or less likely to engage in violent behavior.

When those factors are revealed by an assessment, the BTAU can implement strategies aimed at reducing the negative factors of concern, while increasing any identified factors that are positive.

The management phase of a behavioral threat assessment: • is a systematic risk management approach and • provides an avenue for early intervention.

The planning phase of management requires the BTAU to identify strategies to reduce the risk of violence and to address the identified needs of the individual.

Management may also involve elements of physical security or physical protection for a person or location at risk; however, those efforts fall outside the scope of this guidance.

Address factors of concern and promote positive factors | Redirect potential motives for violence | Create a situation less prone to violence | Utilize the Systems Approach for management Identify negative factors and create strategies to support positive outcomes. | Identify possible motivations and direct resources to address them. | Create an environment in which violence is less likely. | Collaborate with community stakeholders who can contribute.

EXAMPLES: | EXAMPLES: | EXAMPLES: | EXAMPLES: ▪Employment | ▪Address workplace | ▪Limit access to | ▪Leverage campus assistance | grievances | weapons | resources ▪Substance abuse | ▪Intervene to stop | ▪Obtain restraining | ▪Identify counseling treatment | bullying | orders | services ▪Mental health | ▪Deescalate | ▪Seek GPS | ▪Engage family treatment | interpersonal conflicts | monitoring | for support

For example, a BTAU may learn that an individual who threatened violence is experiencing alcohol dependency and recently lost a job but also has a supportive family and is receptive to receiving assistance. In this case, the BTAU could connect the individual with a local employment assistance program and an alcohol abuse program while also leveraging the support of the individual’s family members.

Redirecting motives requires strategic use of resources to mitigate factors of concern, such as resources to mediate interpersonal grievances, counseling to build better problem-solving strategies, mental health treatment, or other social services that can address the circumstances driving the individual’s behavior.

For example, if a BTAU determines an individual has been harassing neighbors following a land use dispute, the BTAU may be able to identify a community-based mediation resource to help reconcile the disagreement.

Depending on the nature of the firearm possession, there are three primary strategies for limiting access, which include seeking voluntary storage, pursuing court-ordered removal, and enforcing existing firearms prohibitions.

ERPOs follow procedural due process to protect the rights of gun owners while providing an important public safety tool for communities to limit access to firearms in cases where an individual poses an articulable risk of violence.

Law enforcement can also educate all parties involved regarding any legal restrictions on allowing firearms access to individuals who are prohibited from possession under federal law.

In these cases, the BTAU may work with the justice system to pursue conditions for pretrial release or probationary requirements.

As previously noted, this guidance is not intended to provide a framework for providing physical security.

For example, when an individual is assessed as posing a risk to a person at a specific location, the BTAU may take steps to restrict the individual’s ability to access that location.

This can be accomplished through court orders that bar access, no trespass orders, and ensuring that on-site security at the location is made aware that the individual is restricted from entering.

Additional measures could include increasing the number of security guards, screening those who enter the location, and having more visible police patrols.

STEP 4 of this framework discussed the importance of using the Systems Approach for information gathering and assessment. The Systems Approach also provides a framework for management by identifying community-level partners who can contribute resources toward the BTAU’s violence prevention efforts.

Law enforcement can support management by: • developing rapport with the individual of concern and their support systems (e.g., family members);

conducting wellness checks;

transporting individuals for voluntary or involuntary mental health evaluations;

facilitating the consensual or temporary safe storage of firearms and other weapons;

petitioning the court for removal of firearms (e.g., ERPO);

providing a location for safe firearms storage when firearms are voluntarily forfeited or confiscated through legal means;

assisting in coordination of physical security strategies (e.g., increased law enforcement presence at special events or potential target locations);

monitoring open-source social media activity;

initiating consensual encounters with the individual of concern to monitor the progress of a management plan;

deploying Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) officers;

making arrests when necessary;

establishing cross-jurisdiction collaboration and information sharing with other state, local, or federal law enforcement partners as appropriate.

The judicial system can serve as a helpful management tool through both its authorities and resources, which can be leveraged in partnership with law enforcement agencies seeking to prevent violent outcomes.

help identify appropriate recommendations for processing a case (e.g., requesting a mental health evaluation).

recommend special conditions during pretrial release and at sentencing (e.g., drug abuse treatment).

identify and report concerning changes in an individual’s behavior while under supervision.

ensure adherence to court-ordered supervision requirements.

ask the individual and their support systems if community services, such as alternative housing or counseling, would be beneficial.

Some individuals who come to the attention of the BTAU may be enrolled in an educational institution.

provide counseling services and other school-based social, emotional, and behavioral resources. | • provide counseling services and other campus-based supports for mental health and wellbeing. • provide academic support.

provide academic support.

promote prosocial behavior by establishing positive relationships with the individual of concern.

offer on-campus employment opportunities. • provide career development services and resources.

engage with local law enforcement and/or the school resource officer (SRO) to develop collaborative management strategies.

monitor activity on all information technology (IT) resources (e.g., computers and IT networks) provided by the school.

provide financial aid information and guidance. • engage with campus law enforcement to develop collaborative management strategies.

monitor activity on all IT resources (e.g., computers and IT networks) provided by the campus.

Employer-offered resources vary widely between smaller, local companies and larger corporations.

Employers can support management by: • providing employee assistance programs (EAPs) to support and counsel individuals experiencing work/life challenges; • providing short-term mental health counseling; • providing substance use treatment; • providing financial counseling; • providing alternative dispute resolution; • offering wellness and resiliency programs; • identifying workplace mentors to model and promote prosocial behavior and professional success; and • pursuing safe termination practices when termination is necessary (e.g., offering job placement services, severance packages, or extended healthcare coverage).

While HIPAA may restrict the provider from sharing information in return, the BTAU may be able to share information obtained during a behavioral threat assessment with the provider.

Mental health providers can support management by: • providing behavioral therapy; • assessing the individual’s risk of harming self or others from a clinical perspective; • developing a mental health treatment plan; • assisting in the development of the BTAU’s case management plan; • prescribing medication; and • offering referrals for additional resources.

Family members of an individual of concern can be allies during the management planning and implementation process, as they are well-positioned to identify when a loved one is experiencing a crisis or when the individual’s concerning behavior is escalating.

Family members can support management by: • petitioning for mental health commitments; • petitioning for ERPOs; • providing supervision and observing behavior in the home; • voluntarily securing weapons, thereby restricting weapons access; • assisting with transportation to treatment sessions; • providing insight into treatment compliance and progress; and • notifying the BTAU of behavioral changes or escalation of behaviors.

Community organizations that provide social services can be instrumental in providing assistance during the management phase of the behavioral threat assessment process.

These social services can provide interventions and supports to address the personal stressors and other challenges being experienced by the individual of concern.

financial stressors through employment assistance programming, unemployment benefits, social security income (SSI), and social security disability income (SSDI) for qualifying individuals;

housing instability through subsidized housing opportunities, emergency housing placement, and shelters;

food insecurity through subsidized programs, such as the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) Program, as well as food banks and other community food programs;

medical needs through assistance with applying for Medicare, Medicaid, or benefits through the Department of Veterans Affairs or HealthCare.gov for qualifying individuals, as well as access to community-based health services and clinics; and

behavioral health needs through intervention programming that addresses substance use disorders and/or mental health.

Some communities feature local organizations that offer behavioral health treatment services (e.g., substance abuse and mental health care), a physical location for individuals to access basic life necessities (e.g., clean clothing, bathrooms, and clean water), medical and dental clinics, and advocacy and assistance with accessing social support services (e.g., assistance with applying for social security income and healthcare benefits).

▪Develop rapport ▪Involuntary holds ▪Removal of firearms ▪Wellness checks ▪Physical security ▪Open source monitoring ▪Consensual encounters ▪Making an arrest ▪Cross–jurisdictional collaboration ▪Crisis intervention

▪Request mental health assessments ▪Recommend special pretrial release conditions ▪Identify concerning behaviors | ▪Ensure adherence to court orders

▪Counseling services ▪Academic support ▪Monitor IT activity ▪Develop social support ▪Employment opportunities ▪Financial aid information

▪Provide EAP services ▪Short-term mental health counseling ▪Substance abuse treatment ▪Alternative dispute resolution ▪Workplace mentorships ▪Safe termination practices

▪Behavioral therapy ▪Assess risk of harm to self and others ▪Develop mental health treatment plans ▪Prescribe medication | ▪Referrals to other services ▪Petition for mental health commitments

▪Petition for ERPOs ▪Supervise behavior in the home ▪Voluntarily secure weapons ▪Provide transportation for services and resources ▪Provide insight on compliance and progress ▪Notify BTAU of changes

▪Employment and financial assistance ▪Housing placement and subsidies ▪Food programs ▪Facilitate medical resources | ▪Behavioral health intervention and treatment

As time passes and progress is made, management strategies may be adjusted or removed.

The ultimate goal of management is for the individual of concern to progress to a point where they no longer pose a risk of violence, at which time management can be discontinued.

Once known factors of concern have been addressed and the individual is determined by the BTAU to no longer pose a risk, the case can be considered for closure.

Once a case is closed, the BTAU may need to re-initiate contact with an individual if their concerning behavior returns or if the individual is destabilized by a significant life event.

Even upon case closure, the BTAU may decide on a case-by-case basis to check in with the individual and reassess progress after a prescribed period of time.

Preventing targeted violence does not end with the establishment of a BTAU.

The best practice for achieving any goal involves continuous self-evaluation and improvement.

After-action reviews allow for another type of program evaluation. Here BTAUs can meet to revisit past cases, identifying which portions of assessment and management worked well and what areas show a need for improvement.

Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF), • State Probation Office, • School resource officers, • School districts, • Community mental health providers, and • Involuntary mental health intake facilities.

The Secret Service has long held that prevention is the best form of protection.

NTAC recognizes that many of the steps in this guide depend on the resources available. As such, the steps within this guide are not intended to be prescriptive but rather scalable to agencies of varying sizes and resources, all with the shared mission of preventing targeted violence in their communities.

Everyone has a role to play in keeping communities safe, and the Secret Service stands ready to support our public safety partners in this vital mission.

The Secret Service behavioral threat assessment model was developed 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 (identify, assess, manage).