Site icon EP Wired – Executive Protection Magazine

Threat Assessment Teams and Their Value to Protective Intelligence for Executive Protection  

Threat Assessment Teams

Threat Assessment Teams

Protective operations haven’t changed much over the last two decades.  At its most basic level, you are paid to place yourself between your protectee and harm’s way.  Simply put, your job boils down to “prepare for the bad guy, see the bad guy, stop the bad guy.”  Some do it better than others, and while it seems simple, the numerous online video fails that reflect everything from “fists” to “eggs” being thrown at protectees would indicate it’s not.  Avoiding physical attacks is one of the many reasons we use every available intelligence resource in our proactive approach to protection.   

One significant change in the last 20 years has been the abundance and inclusion of protective intelligence (PI) resources for corporate EP teams.  PI in contemporary protective operations cannot be overstated. It is widely recognized that all protective operational coverage is fundamentally based on the “threat.” This fact underscores why every U.S. federal protective agency maintains a dedicated protective intelligence division to complete threat analysis, management, and assessment.  

Lacking the extensive resources available to government agencies, corporate EP teams must rely on internally developed intelligence resources and externally contracted intelligence vendors. This blend of protective threat intelligence is tailored to each company and team, reflecting their unique preferences, budgets, and needs.  Beyond available conventional intelligence tools, EP teams should also consider the use and integration of corporate Threat Assessment Teams (TATs).  As part of the continuity of business and crisis management planning for most corporations, TATs were developed specifically to address the potentially violent and adverse behaviors of employees.  This conduct negatively impacts business activities and is often directed at key stakeholders within the corporate leadership structure.      

Threat Assessment Teams 

In the last decade, TATs have become commonplace in most Fortune 500 companies.  Like many of the best practices used by corporate EP teams, TATs also incorporate best practices and recommendations from existing federal and public programs.  The U.S. Secret Service (USSS) is regarded as the leading authority in Threat Assessment management and best practices in the United States.  Through decades of experience, the agency has developed the Behavioral Threat Assessment Unit (BTAU) model, which is widely recognized for successfully supporting state and local law enforcement agencies in preventing targeted violence in public spaces and schools.  

This model is a valuable proactive and structured framework to identify, evaluate, and mitigate potential threats for sectors including law enforcement, corporations, religious organizations, and educational institutions.  Corporations have adapted this model within their own Threat Assessment Teams to identify and manage employee threat behaviors.  Key elements of the process and principles of the model that are applied to Threat Assessment Teams include: 

Multi-Disciplinary Approach 

The planning and team composition for Threat Assessment Teams should describe the roles and responsibilities of  Threat Assessment Teams as a whole, each team member, and any associated community partners involved in the behavioral Threat Assessment process. This process involves collaboration among various disciplines and agencies, including: 

Risk Assessment 

During the behavioral Threat Assessment process, the TAT should document all relevant information gathered.  Most corporations have internalized investigative processes, but regardless of how information is collected, the purpose is to make this information easily available for team members during the assessment.  There is also an emphasis on employing a systematic risk assessment process to evaluate the severity of identified threats including: 

Behavioral Intervention 

Once the threat is assessed, the model emphasizes intervention strategies designed to mitigate the risk of potential violence. This can include: 

Ongoing Monitoring and Evaluation 

Threat Assessment is not usually a “one-and-done” process; it requires continuous monitoring and reassessment, including: 

Training and Awareness 

The U.S. Secret Service also places a strong emphasis on training analysts and agents in Threat Assessment techniques, including: 

Documentation and Reporting 

Centralized case administration ensures standardization in initiating cases, gathering information, and managing cases over time.  The model also emphasizes the importance of thorough documentation of all steps in the Threat Assessment process including: 

When evaluating threats, Threat Assessment teams must consider the “totality of the circumstances” regarding the communicated or implied threat, the individual making the threat, and the circumstances surrounding the threat. Teams use the TAT model for evaluation but require timely notification and response to address threats as efficiently and accurately as possible.  In a very short period, TATs must determine how potentially serious a threat scenario may be. Teams must also carefully balance the implementation of proactive safety measures and responses while avoiding overreaction through biases to the problem.  In most cases, a TAT does not have all the information it would like before making a decision but adjusts responses as more information is developed.     

One method to overcome this information vacuum is to interview the subject of interest.  While there are many methods for completing subject interviews, an established industry best practice is the use of the WAVR-21 interview method (Stephen G. White, Ph.D. and J. Reid Meloy, Ph.D.).  This interviewing method is a 21-item coded interviewing instrument for the assessment of workplace violence.  While WAVR-21 is a good baseline for conducting interviews, the TAT should consider other factors that may contribute to the likelihood of targeted violence.   

Contributing Factors to Targeted Violence 

While there are numerous models for the attack cycle, there is no exact science as to the probability of an attack.  There are too many variables that exist to predict all human behavior accurately.  TATs examine and carefully consider influencing factors that have statistically contributed to known incidents of targeted violence, including: 

Context Themes in Threat Assessment 

Behavioral Themes in Threat Assessment 

Summative Themes in Threat Assessment 

Conclusion 

Being an Executive Protection Professional requires attention to both physical and communicated threats.  While physical threats can often be avoided using time and distance, other risks require collective intelligence analysis to manage developing threats.  Using the Threat Assessment Team model with the managed analysis of behavior between context, behavioral, and summative themes provides a comprehensive framework for addressing and understanding potential hazards.      

By recognizing stressors, behavioral patterns, and underlying motives, Threat Assessment Teams can better assess threats and implement appropriate interventions for preventing targeted violence while ensuring the safety of protectees, communities, and workplaces.  EP teams should integrate this valuable resource into their protective operational intelligence to mitigate identified threat behaviors directed toward executives and other employees.   

About the Author: Kevin Dye is a retired U.S. Secret Service supervisor with over 30 years of executive protection and supervisory protective operations, including assignments on the prestigious U.S. Presidential Protective Division during two Presidential administrations.  He is currently Senior Manager of Executive Protection with the Procter and Gamble Company, providing protective operational coverage in over 180 countries worldwide. 

Exit mobile version