Public safety agencies are under growing pressure to identify and interrupt violence before it occurs. That responsibility extends beyond responding to emergencies in progress. Today’s leaders must also recognize warning behaviors, coordinate prevention efforts, and create systems capable of intervening before a person mobilizes toward violence.
Behavioral threat assessment and management, commonly referred to as BTAM, provides a framework for doing exactly that. Rather than attempting to predict violence, BTAM focuses on identifying concerning behaviors and implementing intervention strategies designed to reduce the likelihood of targeted violence.
As agencies continue building prevention-focused strategies, there are five critical considerations public safety leaders should keep in mind when developing BTAM programs, strengthening organizational readiness and improving intervention efforts.
Targeted Violence Is Rarely Impulsive
One of the most important concepts in behavioral threat assessment is the “pathway to violence.” Individuals planning targeted violence often move through identifiable stages over time, beginning with grievances and progressing through ideation, planning, preparation and eventual mobilization toward an attack.
This is what separates targeted violence from affective violence. Affective violence is impulsive and emotionally driven, such as a spontaneous assault or bar fight. Targeted violence is intentional. It involves planning, surveillance, preparation, and behavioral escalation. That process creates opportunities for intervention long before violence occurs.
Warning behaviors often appear during the pathway process. These can include leakage, fixation on grievances or ideologies, surveillance activity, direct or indirect threats, and efforts to test security measures. Individuals may also demonstrate increasing preoccupation with prior attackers, violent causes, or extremist beliefs.
For public safety leaders, this means agencies should train personnel at every level to recognize these behaviors early. Patrol officers, school resource officers, supervisors, dispatchers, and investigators may all encounter pieces of information that appear minor in isolation but become significant when viewed collectively. The earlier those warning behaviors are identified, the greater the opportunity for intervention.
Prevention Depends on People Reporting Concerning Behavior
Behavioral threat assessment is heavily dependent on information sharing and reporting. Research involving active shooters has shown that attackers frequently communicate their intentions before violence occurs. In one notable study, 56% of active shooters leaked their intent beforehand through verbal statements, online activity, written communication, or conversations with others. Among offenders under 18 years old, the number increased to 88%.
For school-based attacks, more than 90% of attackers communicated their intent prior to the incident. Yet many bystanders fail to act on the information they observe. More than half of bystanders who witnessed concerning behaviors in one study did nothing with the information. That reality presents a major challenge for public safety organizations.
Community members, students, employees, and agency personnel need to understand what warning behaviors look like and where concerns should be reported. Just as importantly, they need confidence that reports will be taken seriously and handled appropriately. Building a culture that encourages reporting is essential. Prevention efforts cannot begin if agencies never receive the information.
Public safety leaders should also recognize that leakage is not always explicit. Sometimes concerning behavior appears through social media posts, online conversations, drawings, behavioral changes, or indirect comments about violence. Agencies should ensure personnel understand how to recognize those indicators and escalate concerns appropriately.
Effective Threat Management Requires Multidisciplinary Collaboration
Behavioral threat assessment is not solely a law enforcement responsibility. Successful BTAM programs rely on multidisciplinary teams that include law enforcement, mental health professionals, schools, prosecutors, social services, and community partners. No single organization sees the entire picture, so collaboration is critical.
Schools may notice behavioral changes or social isolation. Patrol officers may respond to unrelated calls involving the same individual. Mental health providers may identify escalating stressors or concerning statements. Families may observe sudden behavioral shifts or fixation on violent ideologies. When those pieces remain siloed, agencies may miss the broader picture.
Multidisciplinary teams help organizations identify and manage persons of concern collaboratively. They also allow agencies to coordinate intervention strategies and maintain long-term monitoring when necessary.
Importantly, many threat management cases occur before a crime has been committed. Agencies may not yet have probable cause for arrest or grounds for involuntary commitment. That makes partnerships and information sharing even more important.
Public safety leaders should establish these relationships before a crisis occurs. Effective teams require clear communication protocols, defined stakeholder roles, and regular coordination. Waiting until a major incident unfolds to build those relationships creates unnecessary delays and confusion.
Early Intervention and Relationship-Building Can Redirect People Away From Violence
Intervention in behavioral threat scenarios does not always start with arrest or confinement. Often, the more effective path begins with engagement: making contact, building rapport, involving family or trusted adults, and connecting the individual with stabilizing support before the behavior escalates further along the pathway to violence.
A case involving a 14-year-old student illustrated how that process can work. After the student disclosed suicidal thoughts at school, staff discovered detailed drawings and notes outlining potential school shooting scenarios and target lists.
A co-response team composed of law enforcement and clinicians engaged the juvenile and his family over time. Officers built rapport with the student, monitored warning behaviors, and maintained contact while treatment resources were arranged. Eventually, the juvenile stabilized socially and behaviorally.
That outcome highlights an important point for public safety leaders: Prevention often requires long-term engagement rather than short-term enforcement action.
It’s important to note that confinement should not be viewed as an automatic solution in every behavioral threat scenario. In some situations, it may temporarily interrupt concerning behavior while leaving the underlying grievance or fixation risk unresolved. Intervention strategies may instead involve family engagement, mentoring, treatment resources, school support systems, direct communication, and ongoing monitoring.
Even simple interventions can matter. Investigators often use proactive subject interviews, sometimes referred to as “bump checks,” to let individuals know law enforcement is aware of concerning behavior. That contact alone can disrupt escalation and create opportunities for additional assessment.
Prevention Work Is Resource-Intensive, But Invaluable
Behavioral threat assessment requires significant organizational commitment. Threat management cases are often long-term and resource-heavy. They require training, coordination, documentation, monitoring, and reassessment. Even individuals who appear stabilized may re-emerge later, requiring renewed intervention efforts.
Unlike arrests or citations, successful prevention work is difficult to quantify. Agencies cannot easily measure attacks that never happened. But prevention remains one of the most valuable functions public safety organizations can perform.
For leaders, organizational readiness must include more than emergency response planning. Agencies need personnel trained to recognize warning behaviors, multidisciplinary teams prepared to share information, clear reporting pathways, and consistent processes for assessing and managing threats.
Prevention infrastructure takes time and sustained commitment. But behavioral threat assessment gives agencies a practical way to move earlier in the risk cycle, creating opportunities to intervene before concerning behavior becomes violence.
