5 claims on pp. 64–74 (statement 4, evidence 1).
In this fictional example, a retail customer's social media posts prompted employee interviews, an IT review and a consensual law enforcement interview, leading to a no-trespass order from physical stores.
The BTAM team determines that the individual presents a low risk for physical harm but a high risk for causing disruption at the store
If BTAM teams classify assessments into levels of risk (e.g., low, medium, and high), they should ensure that each classification level is clearly defined and articulable (e.g., clarifying the distinction between low and medium risk) to avoid confusion and inconsistencies across assessments.
BTAM teams should ensure that each classification level is clearly defined and articulable (e.g., clarifying the distinction between low and medium risk) to avoid confusion and inconsistencies across assessments
BTAM protocols should allow the team to deviate from the ascribed level of risk when unique circumstances are identified during the assessment.
The BTAM team's protocols should allow for the team to deviate from the ascribed level of risk
Protocols should also allow for implementing risk management resources in all cases, including those deemed low risk.
Protocols should also allow for implementing risk management resources in all cases, including those deemed low risk
Some BTAM teams might prefer to classify their assessments into levels of risk, such as low, medium, and high risk, for case prioritization and management.
Some BTAM teams might prefer to classify their assessments into levels of risk (e.g., low risk, medium risk, and high risk) for case prioritization and management.
Why inferred Typed statement, not conjecture: the 'may'/'might'/'can' is permissive guidance (what a team may do), not speculation about what is the case.
Find the Perfect Training Class For You
