Threat assessment, not violence prediction: A more effective approach to safety
By Brian Uridge, CTM, CHPA, CPP, MPA
In the face of increasing and highly publicized acts of mass violence and a rise in distressing behaviors and potentially dangerous acts in the workplace and on campuses, a growing number of organizations are turning to the principles and practices of Threat Assessment and Management (TAM) to improve the safety of their organization and those under their care.
TAM is not a practice in violence prediction; issues of potential threats are far too dynamic to predict future behaviors. Rather, TAM is rooted in the present, focusing on currently observable behaviors and immediate intervention. It is an information-driven process focused on behaviors of concern raising issues of safety. Building on advances in scientific and professional knowledge about violence, other disruptive behaviors, and preventative approaches to these problems, these interventions intend to prevent harm and defuse situations, but also assist where necessary and possible.
A unique approach
The value of TAM is in facilitating effective and compassionate intervention, mitigating disruption, and managing fear through a protocol that is both proactive and informed. The goal is to catch people who pose a potential threat far upstream of violence, connecting them with the right resources at the right time to support them in the difficult event they are facing.
In this model, threat assessment teams are not merely trying to make arrests or eliminate dangerous actors, but rather to uphold the safety of all stakeholders while getting struggling people the help they need. While establishing or maintaining safety is the primary goal, TAM ultimately deals with people and their problems. TAM is rapidly becoming not only a strategy for safety, but also the “standard of care” in schools, campuses, and workplaces.
Team-based assessment and intervention
Multidisciplinary assessment
Those who are traditionally considered “security personnel” cannot prevent harm effectively on their own. Managing behaviors of Individuals of Concern (IOC) must be done through multidisciplinary collaboration. Rather than expecting security specialists to manage potential threats in a silo, organizations should assemble teams that also include Human Resources representatives (Many threats stem from grievances between employers and recently terminated employees.), social workers, police officers, facilities teams, and mental health professionals.
Together, combining their different areas of expertise and various resources and connections, a multidisciplinary threat assessment and management team can more accurately determine where a person is on the pathway toward violence and offer the appropriate interventions.
Informed intervention
Behaviors of concern typically arise in the context of some type of crisis for the IOC: a recent termination, a bill they cannot pay, or a grievance against an employee of the organization, to name a few examples. The ultimate question of the multidisciplinary team when assessing a potential threat is not “How likely is this IOC to commit an act of violence,” but instead: “How do we support this person through a particular event?”
Figuring out what to do in order to best resolve risk requires learning about the IOC: their stressors and struggles, but also their lives, goals, and sources of support. We seek to understand the IOC’s behavior, including what is driving it. We are trying to get “in their heads,” so to speak, asking ourselves, “In their mind, what would be the reasons for committing an act of violence?” We consider these potential motives for violence in the context of the JACA concept, and try to answer these questions as we believe the IOC would answer them:
Justified: Am I justified in committing violence?
Alternatives: What are the alternatives to an act of violence?
Consequences: Can I deal with the consequences if I commit this act?
Ability: Do I have the ability to carry out this violence?
All of the factors discussed above will shape the intervention response depending on where the IOC is on the pathway toward violence. There is a great deal of assessment & therapeutic intervention at early pathway stages of Grievance (e.g. conflict resolution or mediation) or Violent Ideation (e.g. cognitive therapy, increasing problem-solving or coping skills, or possible psychiatric intervention). If an IOC is determined to be in the Research/Planning and/or Preparation stages, intervention often requires enlisting others for support and intervention, such as family, work personnel, or law enforcement.
TAM is, at its core, a person-centered discipline. When we assemble the right people to understand the needs of individuals who are struggling and pose a potential threat of violence, we can connect IOCs with the help they need in the present to resolve issues peacefully. In doing so, we are doing more than “neutralizing threats,” but are contributing to the safety and well-being of entire organizations and communities.
Questions about this approach? I can help.