Threat Assessment of Mass Shootings

Introduction

As documented in the previous chapters, leakage and other warning signs are prevalent indicators of mass shootings. More specifically, the worst mass shooters exhibited more warning signs (e.g. unnatural interest in homicide) and were reported to law enforcement more frequently than other active shooters (Lankford, Adkins, Krista & Madfis, 2019). This chapter intends to build upon this by looking at “threat assessment,” the process used when a concern has been reported and needs to be managed (Reeves & Brock, 2017, p. 2). First of all, this method identifies individuals of concern based on a threat made or other concerns raised. The next step is to gather and thereafter evaluate information about the individual and the threat made to determine whether they pose a threat to themselves or others. Once this has been completed, interventions are delineated to manage the situation and reduce the risk of violence (Cornell, 2013, p. 380).

This chapter discusses threat assessment, its purpose and how this can be used to prevent mass shootings from occurring. Advice will be given on how to utilize threat assessment in order to manage the threat of mass shootings. Literature in this field, interviews with experts in this field and material from a threat assessment training course were used to inform the discussion in this chapter. Interviews were carried out with the following participants:

• •

  Heilit Biehl, a threat assessment coordinator in Adams 12 Five Star Schools, a K-12 school district;

• •

  John-Nicolletti, one of the founders of Nicolletti-Flater Associates, a threat assessment and emergency management consultancy firm;

• •

  Stephen Brock and Melissa Reeves, the lead authors of the PREPaRE emergency management guidance and past Presidents of the National Association of School Psychologists. Brock is also a professor and school psychology program coordinator at California State University (CSU), Sacramento; whilst Reeves is a Senior Consultant with SIGMA Threat Management Associates (SIGMATMA) and Associate Professor at Winthrop University.

Discussions in interviews focused on methods to report threats, the purpose of threat assessment, potential benefits and downfalls of using this approach, and the role of leakage in the process.

About Threat Assessment

Threat assessment is one of the ways to try to prevent an attack occurring. Interviewee, Heilit Biehl, Adams 12, cautioned organizations against the mindset of “it can’t happen here.” Instead, the mindset should be one of being prepared, meaning that policies and procedures pertaining to threat assessment should be implemented to allow for threats and concerns to be dealt with. As a method, threat assessment is the process of evaluating the credibility and seriousness of a threat and the context in which it was made. Also assessed are the resources, intentions and motivations of the individual who made the threat in order to ascertain the likelihood of it being carried out (O’Toole, 2000, pp. 5-6). This includes looking at factors such as detailed planning, procurement of weapons, practicing for the attack and possibly attempts to secure assistance for the attack (Spearman, 2019, p. 15). Assessing all these factors is likely to provide a more accurate indication of the threat posed; whereas “the evaluation of a single example of leakage will likely result in an inaccurate and incomplete threat assessment” (Meloy & O’Toole, 2011, p. 12). In contrast to a technique like profiling which focuses on demographic and personal features of an individual, threat assessment is a reactive method triggered by threatening or concerning behavior of some kind (Cornell, 2019, p. 2). To that end, threats should not be dismissed on the basis that the individual does not have a history of violence (Spearman, 2019, p. 15). In addition to including violence or harm against others, the risk of suicide or self-harm should also be a primary consideration when carrying out threat assessments (Cacialli, 2019, p. 39).