Editor’s Note: Measurement and evaluation (M&E) of prevention programs is essential to improve the evidence-base over time, and ultimately, to ensure investments in prevention yield more effective programs. Unlike many more traditional counterterrorism functions, which are necessarily classified or covert, prevention is overt and can be studied. In this article, the authors summarize a series of pragmatic research briefs based on a year long evaluation of the Wood County, Ohio behavioral threat assessment and management program supporting youth.
In 2014, the US government selected three major cities in which to pilot a local approach to terrorism and targeted violence prevention, predicated on the idea that local community involvement can improve the design of such approaches. Since then, these efforts have become more common as local actors—states, cities, and counties—have passed legislation related to behavioral threat assessment and management, adopted strategies aimed at preventing terrorism and targeted violence, and implemented programming to address such violence.
In one such example, in 2021, Ohio’s General Assembly enacted House Bill 123, the “Safety and Violence Education Students (SAVE Students) Act.” The bill mandates a range of interventions, including a requirement that every school building in the state have a behavioral threat assessment and management (BTAM) team, and that each team member complete a state-approved threat assessment training program.
Before the SAVE Students Act, stakeholders in Wood County, Ohio, had been working for years to increase their capacity to prevent terrorism and targeted violence through behavioral threat assessment, case management, and community-based wraparound services, counseling, and other mental health supports. As a result of these efforts, Wood County was identified as a potential model for other counties across the state.
Thus, at the request of the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Science and Technology (S&T) Directorate, CNA conducted a year-long evaluation of Wood County’s efforts targeting juveniles. In this article, we present eight key findings with implications for other local actors building their own violence prevention networks.
The critical role of parents
Our evaluation of the violence prevention efforts in Wood County highlights the many ways in which parents can support or impede the assessment and treatment of at-risk youths. Parents have significant influence in the threat assessment and management process because they can control both the flow of information about their child and the child’s access to services. This influence spans the threat assessment cycle, from characterizing the first observation of the concerning behavior, to shaping the assessment itself, to determining how and whether the behavior will be managed. In most cases of BTAM, parents are simply trying to advocate for their child rather than trying to impede the process. Therefore, it is critical that BTAM teams, school administrators, and community mental health providers educate and engage parents pre-emptively in the BTAM process. Learn more about the role of parents here.
Pros and cons of different cadences
Although federal guidance notes that BTAM teams should be multidisciplinary, have established procedures and protocols, meet on a regular basis, and have a relatively low behavioral threshold for intervention, it does not provide information on optimal meeting cadences or specific criteria for intervention thresholds. Consequently, states, counties, and cities with BTAM requirements have varying expectations around both issues. An inclusive approach to BTAM involves more frequent meetings and a lower threshold for activation. Though this approach builds team members’ confidence in the process and increases the likelihood that the school will identify and help a youth in crisis, it might also lead the school to incorrectly label students who do not actually pose a risk of violent behavior and to stigmatize mental health struggles. In contrast, teams that take an exclusive approach mobilize only in response to severe threats. This approach attenuates the risk of stigmatizing children as threats but offers the team fewer opportunities to build confidence in the process and increases the chance that a case might be ignored or missed. As both approaches have advantages and disadvantages, policy-makers should be thoughtful and deliberate when deciding which approach is best suited for their jurisdiction. Learn more about the pros and cons of different cadences here.
Building a shared understanding
Ensuring that the complex multidisciplinary groups of professionals involved in terrorism and targeted violence prevention all speak the same language is a significant challenge. Our evaluation identified two major barriers to effective communication in this space: (1) differing terminology and (2) varying threat assessment models. Stakeholders from different disciplines often lack a shared definition for key terms—in one example from our evaluation, a “clinical forensic psychological examination” was repeatedly confused with a “behavioral threat assessment.” In addition, although schools in Wood County used at least three different threat assessment models, most school staff were trained in only one model, making some schools reluctant to work with entities or stakeholders using or trained on different models. Mitigating these challenges requires that multidisciplinary BTAM teams prioritize deliberate and patient coordination. Learn more about building a shared understanding here.
There are no “typical” cases
It may seem efficient to build and implement a single process for handling the cases that a school-based BTAM team may encounter. However, our evaluation of Wood County’s efforts reveals that effectively addressing the unique circumstances, needs, and dynamics of every case requires a flexible and adaptable approach to BTAM. Among the cases we reviewed, we found neither a pattern in how such cases were identified, nor a consistent set of expert stakeholders and resources involved in each case. Consequently, in locally led, decentralized terrorism and targeted violence prevention networks similar to Wood County’s system, a rigid or prescriptive approach to BTAM may not be sustainable. Furthermore, it is critical that the network recognize and leverage expertise even when it exists outside of the core BTAM team. Learn more about no “typical” cases here.
Barriers to continuity of care
Although a multidisciplinary approach enables BTAM teams to leverage the perspectives, capabilities, and insights of various disciplines to effectively assess and manage threats of violence, the sheer number of partners involved can make ensuring continuity of care difficult. Our evaluation identified five primary points of friction when continuity of care is most likely to break down. They include when a child is (1) transferring schools, (2) graduating from school, (3) transitioning from high school to college, (4) not complying with treatment, and (5) aging out of pediatric services. Because many of these gaps emerge during the transition to adulthood, building on school-based efforts with community-based BTAM is essential to close these gaps and provide effective threat assessment and ongoing management for both youths and adults. In addition, schools should share threat assessment records with students’ new schools and colleges as doing so allows receiving institutions to make informed decisions that support students while ensuring the safety of the community. Learn more about barriers to continuity of care here.
A deep bench of resources
The results of our engagement with Wood County indicate that successful BTAM and terrorism and targeted violence prevention requires a team with a deep bench. A core team may handle most cases, but it should ideally be part of a broader network with a breadth of expertise and resources. These capabilities often already exist locally or regionally, so the task is less about starting from the beginning than about identifying the right partners and building relationships with them. Local policy-makers should be focused on building a broad community of stakeholders and ensuring this network includes rarely accessed but essential stakeholders and resources from the outset. Learn more about building a deep bench of resources here.
Cooperation, not coercion
As most cases are initiated before a crime has been committed, BTAM teams are limited in how they can compel youths and their guardians to share information, attend treatment, or participate in services. Legal restrictions limit the options that stakeholders have to prompt individuals who have not yet committed a criminal act to participate in the BTAM process. The alternative to coercion is cooperation, specifically the cooperation of parents (for youths) or of the individuals themselves (if they are adults). Because sources of leverage are limited, it is essential to foster belief in the value of the BTAM process, highlight the benefits of services, and secure the support of the at-risk individual to ensure their ongoing participation. To achieve a BTAM process centered on cooperation, policy-makers should consider designing BTAM processes led by non-law enforcement personnel, developing a youth-focused system first, and training practitioners in strategies for promoting and supporting motivation to change. Learn more about the benefits of cooperation here.
The interagency approach
Our evaluation found that Wood County has developed a highly complex interagency network consisting of a community of practitioners with unique areas of expertise contributing to a multidisciplinary and collaborative solution. Rather than relying on a sole managing entity to maintain control and administer services, Wood County stakeholders leverage existing local resources and relationships to build and strengthen their violence prevention network and capabilities. Although it may be tempting to create a central “hub,” for services, doing so may reduce efficiency by duplicating existing efforts or requiring the new hub to expend resources building relationships with local partners. However, the interagency approach does require intentional focus on ensuring proper coordination among partners to ensure consistency and provide accountability. Learn more about the interagency approach here.
Key considerations for effective prevention
A common theme in these eight findings is that successful terrorism and targeted violence prevention efforts should strive to remain adaptive and open to the incorporation of an interagency network of partners. Similarly, to best fit the needs of a school’s population, school-based BTAM teams should remain flexible in who participates in the team and the cadence of interaction. Fundamental in this network adaptability and methodological flexibility, however, is the overarching need for the glue that holds it all together. This glue can come in the form of an organizing agency, an effective knowledge broker and champion (a role previously filled by regional DHS Center for Prevention Programs and Partnerships representatives), standardized training and tools, and effective communication across entities and systems.
About CNA
CNA is a not-for-profit analytical organization dedicated to the safety and security of the nation. With nearly 700 scientists, analysts, and professional staff across the world, CNA’s mission is to provide data-driven, innovative solutions to our nation’s toughest problems. It operates the Center for Naval Analyses—the Department of the Navy’s federally funded research and development center (FFRDC)—as well as the Institute for Public Research. The Center for Naval Analyses provides objective analytics to inform the decision-making by military leaders and ultimately improve the lethality and effectiveness of the joint force. The Institute for Public Research leverages data analytics and innovative methods to support federal, state, and local government officials as they work to advance national and homeland security.
The evaluation of Wood County, Ohio’s, terrorism and targeted violence prevention effort was supported by the US DHS S&T under Contract Award No. 70RSAT21G00000002/70RSAT23FR0000115. Adaptation of those findings for publication in Homeland Security Today was supported by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) under Award No. 15PNIJ-24-GK-00750-DOMR. The views and conclusions contained in this article are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of DHS or NIJ.
VIOLENCE PREVENTION NOTICE: Warning signs often appear before violent acts. If someone you know makes general or specific threats, shows unusual interest in weapons, or fixates on previous violent incidents, you’re not overreacting by taking action. Ask direct questions and help them connect with professional support (or alert authorities if danger is immediate). Your intervention can prevent tragedy.