Behavioral Threat Assessment or Pre-Crime? The FBI BTAC, Secret Service NTAC, and the Prevention of Targeted Violence

Full report

On this page

Introduction and Epistemological Framework

The prevention of targeted violence—a term encompassing mass shootings, lone-actor terrorism, and severe workplace or school violence—has driven a profound paradigm shift within law enforcement and public safety. Historically, the prevailing law enforcement model was reactive and ex-post-facto, focusing on forensic investigation, apprehension, and prosecution after a crime had occurred. Driven by the escalating lethality of mass casualty events over the past three decades, federal, state, and local agencies have pivoted toward an ex-ante, proactive, and multidisciplinary paradigm known as behavioral threat assessment and management (BTAM)1. This proactive posture fundamentally alters the relationship between the state and the individual. By seeking to identify and manage individuals who exhibit concerning behaviors before a statutory crime is committed, BTAM operates in a complex intersection of criminology, behavioral science, and constitutional law. The operational frameworks of federal entities—such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Behavioral Threat Assessment Center (BTAC) and the U.S. Secret Service National Threat Assessment Center (NTAC)—are widely regarded as the gold standard in this space. However, their methodologies, when exported to localized school districts, fusion centers, and healthcare initiatives, raise profound questions regarding civil liberties, disability rights, and the statistical impossibility of predicting exceedingly rare events. To rigorously evaluate this landscape, it is necessary to establish precise operational definitions of the methodologies dominating the discourse. Table 1 defines these critical concepts, establishing the analytical boundaries of modern violence prevention.

Federal agencies such as BTAC and NTAC explicitly reject demographic profiling, unguided clinical prediction, and automated actuarial risk scoring. Instead, they officially endorse Structured Professional Judgment (SPJ) and multidisciplinary case conferences as the only scientifically and ethically defensible models for evaluating targeted violence risk4.

Institutional History and Current Organization

The institutional architecture of behavioral threat assessment in the United States is layered across specialized federal task forces, state-level intelligence fusion centers, and highly localized, multidisciplinary community teams.

The FBI Behavioral Threat Assessment Center (BTAC)

The FBI's involvement in behavioral analysis traces its origins to the establishment of the Behavioral Analysis Unit (BAU), initially popularized for its pioneering work in criminal investigative analysis, victimology, and serial offender profiling1. As the nature of public threats evolved, the BAU expanded. In 1996, the Child Abduction and Serial Killer Unit (CASKU) was formed1. By 2010, responding to a shift in national security priorities and the rise of lone-actor violence, the FBI established the Behavioral Threat Assessment Center (BTAC) to support the prevention of targeted violence1. In 2016, BTAC’s mission was formally expanded to cover both domestic terrorism and targeted violence, merging counterterrorism models with behavioral science1. Following the devastating mass casualty events in Las Vegas, Nevada, and Parkland, Florida, BTAC established the nationwide Threat Assessment and Threat Management (TATM) Initiative in 20181. Today, BTAC functions as the only national-level, multiagency, multidisciplinary task force focused purely on behavior-based operational support. Staffed by special agents, intelligence analysts, and mental health practitioners, BTAC provides advanced case consultations and training to local Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs), local law enforcement, and community stakeholders1.

The U.S. Secret Service National Threat Assessment Center (NTAC)

The Secret Service established NTAC following its landmark Exceptional Case Study Project on assassinations, recognizing that attacks on public figures were rarely impulsive, but rather the result of a discernible process of thinking and behavior4. Following the Columbine High School massacre, NTAC partnered with the Department of Education to produce the Safe School Initiative, which became the foundational text for modern school-based threat assessment15. NTAC's operational philosophy heavily emphasizes that behavioral threat assessment is a risk management approach requiring corroboration from diverse community sources, making it entirely distinct from traditional criminal investigations aimed at securing arrests and convictions4.

CISA, DHS, and the Controversy of Countering Violent Extremism

The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), operating under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), supports localized threat assessment through millions of dollars in grants and training, heavily promoting the establishment of multidisciplinary intervention teams. Historically, DHS initiatives framed around "Countering Violent Extremism" (CVE) faced severe and sustained criticism from civil liberties organizations. Legal advocates, including the Brennan Center for Justice and the ACLU, documented how CVE programs disproportionately targeted marginalized communities, specifically Muslim Americans, by conflating constitutionally protected religious expression, political dissent, and cultural alienation with pre-operational terrorism17. In response to this criticism, contemporary DHS and CISA frameworks have rebranded their efforts as "Targeted Violence and Terrorism Prevention" (TVTP), attempting to shift away from ideology-based indicators toward the behavior-based SPJ models championed by BTAC and NTAC20.

Fusion Centers and Suspicious Activity Reporting

State and local fusion centers serve as intelligence clearinghouses designed to bridge the information-sharing gaps exposed by the 9/11 attacks. For example, the Illinois Statewide Terrorism & Intelligence Center (STIC), operated by the Illinois State Police, was established in 2003 as a 24/7 "all-hazards, all-crimes, and all-threats" intelligence hub21. STIC provides analytical support, threat assessments, and criminal work-ups for local agencies, utilizing databases like VITAL to compile information21. However, fusion centers operate under intense scrutiny regarding data privacy and constitutional rights. Civil rights organizations note that fusion centers, including the Chicago Police Department's Crime Prevention Information Center (CPIC) and the Illinois STIC, often log information under a vague standard of "suspicious activity" (SAR) rather than adhering to a strict criminal predicate of "reasonable suspicion"21. This lowered threshold has led to the surveillance and documentation of lawful First Amendment activities, such as STIC's preparation of threat assessments regarding citizens engaged in peaceful corporate protests against Caterpillar Inc.21.

Localized Programs: Schools, Workplaces, and Health Care

At the micro-level, threat assessment has become a decentralized, mandated function. Public school districts, such as J. Sterling Morton High School District 99 in Cicero, Illinois, are heavily regulated by state mandates requiring annual school safety drills and the maintenance of internal threat assessment protocols26. These school teams often act as the initial triage point for concerning behaviors, heavily utilizing models derived from NTAC29. In higher education and health care, similar multidisciplinary models are taking root. The American Hospital Association (AHA) explicitly recommends BTAM resource compendiums for health-care settings to mitigate workplace violence31. Furthermore, specialized community models, such as the Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health School Threat Assessment and Response Team (START), illustrate the integration of clinical psychiatric resources into the law enforcement threat assessment continuum, providing mental health expertise to colleges and universities lacking internal capacity32.

Methodological Evaluation: Formal Instruments and SPJ Implementation

Federal centers and local teams utilize different tools optimized for their specific jurisdictions. A comparative breakdown reveals a shared reliance on Structured Professional Judgment, despite variations in the specific instruments utilized.

The North Carolina BeTA Investigation Overview-25 (NCBIO-25)

The NCBIO-25 is an SPJ tool specifically designed for, and utilized by, law enforcement agencies conducting behavioral threat assessments. Supported by research utilizing the FBI BTAC data set, the instrument provides a structured template for capturing behavioral evidence across multiple potential targets and settings2. The NCBIO-25 consists of 25 items grouped conceptually into five domains: Targeted Threat, Environment, Mental Health, Behavioral, and Weapons. Evaluators score 21 items on a 3-point ordinal scale (0 \= not present, 1 \= present, 2 \= present/elevated), while high-acuity items such as "Harming Others" and "Suicide" utilize a 4-point ordinal scale9. Crucially, as a true SPJ tool, the NCBIO-25 does not yield a cumulative mathematical total score, nor does it categorize individuals into rigid actuarial risk levels; rather, it identifies "enhancers" to guide the development of specific mitigation plans9. Validation and Empirical Findings: Initial psychometric validation of the NCBIO-25 was conducted using a matched sample of 149 subjects: 74 individuals who executed an attack (Active Shooters, or AS) and 75 individuals assessed by a TA team who did not attack (Persons of Concern, or POC)33. The validation studies established substantial interrater reliability among trained law enforcement coders5. The findings are highly instructive regarding the nature of threat assessment. Researchers found no significant statistical difference between the AS and POC groups in the total number of categorical risk factors present33. This validates a core tenet of BTAM: individuals who are behaviorally concerning but ultimately non-violent often display identical baseline warning behaviors as those who commit atrocities9. However, construct validity was established at the "elevated" severity level. The Active Shooter group scored significantly higher on specific item-level variables: "Harming Others," "Weapons Access," "Weapons Proficiency," and "Weapons Interest"33. Conversely, the non-violent Persons of Concern group was significantly more likely to score highly on "Mental Health," "Conduct Problems," "Intimidation," and "Inappropriate Reactions"33. This suggests that POCs are more likely to display outwardly observable, emotionally dysregulated behaviors, while actual attackers prioritize the acquisition of capabilities.

Other Prominent Instruments: TRAP-18 and WAVR-21

• TRAP-18 (Terrorist Radicalization Assessment Protocol): Developed heavily around the work of J. Reid Meloy, the TRAP-18 is an SPJ instrument designed specifically to assess lone-actor terrorism. It evaluates 8 proximal warning behaviors (e.g., pathway behavior, fixation) and 10 distal characteristics35. Retrospective research applying the TRAP-18 to the manifestos of targeted violence attackers shows a high prevalence of variables like a "last resort" mindset36. However, systematic reviews of Violent Extremism risk tools note a severe lack of true prospective predictive validity in field settings, with validation largely relying on retrospective case studies constructed from publicly available data37.
• WAVR-21 (Workplace Assessment of Violence Risk): A 21-item SPJ tool heavily utilized in corporate human resources and higher education security settings to assess deviant behavior and structure interventions among employees and students5.

Evidence Review of Major Behavioral Indicators

The empirical foundation of BTAM relies on identifying dynamic risk factors and proximal warning behaviors. However, it is a scientific imperative to separate evidence of historical correlation (observed in post-incident reviews) from statistical prediction (forecasting future events among a broad population) and causal prevention (proving an intervention directly stopped an attack). Table 3 provides an exhaustive evaluation of the major behavioral concepts utilized in the field, rating the strength of the evidence across these three categories.

Converting these group-level correlations into individual predictive probabilities is an epidemiological fallacy. While the presence of multiple warning behaviors (e.g., pathway behavior, novel aggression, and energy bursts) increases the odds of violence within a sample, it is impossible to apply this mathematically to a single individual9.

Methodological Vulnerabilities: False-Positives and the Base-Rate Problem

The central epistemological crisis of behavioral threat assessment is the statistical base-rate problem. Targeted mass attacks are exceedingly rare events relative to the population41. In the field of predictive modeling, governed by Bayes' Theorem, when the base rate (prevalence) of a target event approaches zero, even an assessment instrument boasting exceptionally high sensitivity and specificity will produce a massive proportion of false positives. Consequently, the Positive Predictive Value (PPV) of any threat assessment tool applied to mass shootings is inherently limited to answering "if" and "when" with an overwhelming likelihood of error42. As articulated by foundational risk assessment researchers John Monahan and Jennifer Skeem, risk assessments are designed to estimate the likelihood of an outcome occurring in a population, not to divine the exact future of a single individual43. While risk assessment tools demonstrate strong predictive validity (measured by the Area Under the Curve, or AUC) when forecasting general criminal recidivism among already-convicted offender populations (where the base rate of re-offending is relatively high)10, attempting to predict a black-swan mass casualty event among the general public using the same logic is mathematically unsound. The current empirical literature supporting BTAM methodologies suffers from severe limitations:

1. Retrospective Coding Bias: Foundational studies, including the Secret Service Exceptional Case Study Project and early FBI reports, rely almost exclusively on analyzing the histories of individuals who already committed an attack8. Reviewing a perpetrator's life backward invariably highlights "concerning behaviors" that appear causal in hindsight, but which are ubiquitous in the general population.

2. Selection Bias and the "Missing Denominator": Studies comparing averted attacks to completed attacks suffer from massive selection bias30. "Averted" plots are only recorded if they are discovered and logged by law enforcement. An unknown, likely vast number of plots are abandoned voluntarily by the individual without any external intervention, making the true denominator of "ideators" impossible to calculate.

3. External Validity: Tools validated in specific contexts (e.g., radicalization in European prison systems) lack external validity when applied to American high school students or corporate workplaces37.

Because individual prediction of mass violence is impossible without generating unacceptable false-positive rates that would trample civil liberties, BTAC and NTAC frame their mission strictly as prevention, risk management, and de-escalation, explicitly rejecting the concept of prediction2.

Case-Management Workflow

To mitigate the statistical risks of false positives, the operational pathway of a formal BTAM program eschews automated scoring in favor of a highly structured, multidisciplinary continuum.

1. Tip Reception and Triage: Information is received via anonymous reporting systems (e.g., Fortify FL, Safe2Tell), social media monitoring, or direct bystander reports30. Initial triage determines if the tip indicates an imminent, life-threatening emergency requiring immediate tactical law enforcement response, or a slower-moving, ambiguous threat suitable for assessment8.

2. Multidisciplinary Investigation and Silo-Busting: If triaged to a threat assessment team, a holistic investigation begins. Unlike a traditional criminal investigation seeking elements of a statutory offense, this phase collects comprehensive behavioral background information2. The team seeks to break down information silos, drawing data from school disciplinary records, mental health providers, human resources, and law enforcement databases8.

3. Application of Structured Professional Judgment: The multidisciplinary team—comprising law enforcement, mental health professionals, legal counsel, and administrators—utilizes an SPJ tool like the NCBIO-25 to structure their analytical discussion5. They objectively assess the presence of pathway behaviors, evaluate the context of the threat, and determine the logistical capability of the subject6.

4. Intervention and Risk Management Strategy: Based on the identified risk enhancers, an individualized threat management plan is deployed. The overarching goal is to safely maneuver the subject off the pathway to violence. Interventions must be proportional, dynamic, and context-specific7.

5. Monitoring, Case Closure, and Record Retention: The subject is monitored over time to ensure the intervention is effective and the grievance is de-escalating. The case remains active until the team determines the individual no longer poses a threat of targeted violence. Records are retained according to jurisdictional guidelines for future reference, though this raises civil liberties concerns regarding the lifelong stigmatization of individuals logged in intelligence databases21.

Analysis of Interventions: Supportive vs. Punitive Preemption

Threat management interventions operate on a broad spectrum, ranging from purely supportive social services to highly punitive, restrictive state actions. Supportive Interventions:

• Mental Health Referrals & Voluntary Services: Connecting the subject with psychiatric counseling, housing assistance, family therapy, or special education accommodations (e.g., IEP adjustments).
• Workplace/School Administrative Measures: De-escalation through environmental changes, such as modifying a student's schedule to separate them from a bullied peer, granting a leave of absence, or offering an employee severance rather than subjecting them to a hostile termination process.

Punitive / Restrictive Preemption:

• Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs / Red Flag Laws): Civil court orders temporarily confiscating firearms from individuals deemed an imminent danger to themselves or others. While highly effective at removing capability, they raise significant due process concerns if deployed without rigorous evidentiary standards49.
• Prosecution for Precursor Crimes: Arresting a subject for lesser, unrelated offenses (e.g., minor drug possession, trespassing, weapons violations) as a pretext to disrupt a suspected mass casualty plot4.
• Surveillance, Suspension, and Expulsion: Subjecting the individual to ongoing law enforcement monitoring, banning them from physical campuses, or placing them in alternative disciplinary schools50.

The primary risk inherent in BTAM is mission creep: utilizing the low evidentiary threshold of "concerning behavior" to enact punitive preemption against individuals who have not actually committed a crime. Supportive interventions generally lower the risk of violent escalation by addressing the root grievance. Conversely, punitive measures—such as expulsion or criminalizing minor infractions—can inadvertently accelerate a subject along the pathway to violence by increasing their grievances, removing their pro-social supports, and solidifying a dangerous "last resort" mindset36.

Legal, Constitutional, and Ethical Analysis

The deployment of preemptive behavioral interventions intersects deeply and dangerously with fundamental civil liberties, requiring constant legal vigilance.

The First Amendment and Protected Speech

Behavioral threat assessments inherently scrutinize human communications—social media posts, manifestos, and verbal outbursts. The Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Counterman v. Colorado (2023) fundamentally altered the landscape of "true threats." The Court held that to criminally prosecute an individual for a threat, the state must prove the speaker had a subjective understanding of the statements' threatening character—establishing a mens rea of recklessness—explicitly rejecting the purely objective "reasonable person" standard \[cite: 92-100\]. Consequently, while schools or employers might administratively manage a subject based on the objective fear their words cause, law enforcement cannot arrest or prosecute for a threat unless the individual consciously disregarded a substantial risk that their communication would be viewed as threatening violence52. Furthermore, in Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. (2021), the Supreme Court severely restricted the authority of public schools to discipline students for off-campus, online speech that does not cause a substantial material disruption or constitute a true threat \[cite: 69-72\]. Threat assessment teams must carefully and legally distinguish between genuine indicators of pre-operational planning and constitutionally protected political rhetoric, dark humor, or adolescent venting6.

Privacy Laws: FERPA, HIPAA, and the Emergency Exception

The sharing of information across multidisciplinary teams often conflicts with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). Under FERPA (34 CFR §§ 99.31(a)(10)), schools generally require parental consent to disclose personally identifiable information (PII) from education records. However, FERPA contains a specific "health or safety emergency" exception. Following the 2018 Parkland shooting, the Department of Education issued extensive guidance clarifying that schools may disclose PII to threat assessment teams and outside law enforcement without prior consent if there is an "articulable and significant threat" to the health or safety of individuals53. However, this exception is strictly limited to the duration of the actual, impending emergency; it does not permit blanket, routine, or prospective data sharing of student records with local police53.

Disability Rights and the Risk to the Neurodivergent

Perhaps the most profound ethical flaw in broad, mandated threat assessment programs is their disproportionate and discriminatory impact on students with disabilities. Vague "concerning behavior" standards—such as poor social skills, intense esoteric fixations, lack of eye contact, or inappropriate emotional reactions—heavily overlap with the standard diagnostic criteria for Autism Spectrum Disorder and other developmental conditions6. Academic research indicates that students in special education are up to four times more likely to be subjected to a threat assessment than their neurotypical peers50. In multiple documented cases, school districts have violated the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by utilizing the threat assessment process to suspend or expel disabled students for behaviors that were direct manifestations of their disabilities, illegally bypassing mandatory "manifestation determination" reviews50. This reality highlights the risk that BTAM programs will sweep in the unusual, the distressed, and the mentally ill, conflating non-normative behavior with predatory danger.

Due Process and Intelligence Data Retention

Ethical concerns arise regarding law-enforcement data retention and the lack of due process. When fusion centers log "suspicious activity reports" based on vague, non-criminal behaviors, subjects may remain in domestic intelligence databases indefinitely. These individuals face hidden stigmas, employment barriers, and future systemic bias without ever receiving formal notification, a chance to face their accusers, or a mechanism for expungement21.

Case Studies: Successful Disruption vs. Harmful Intervention

To objectively evaluate the efficacy and risks of BTAM, it is necessary to examine documented operational outcomes, noting the inherent selection biases present in the data.

Five Documented Examples of Successful Disruption

1. Paw Paw High School, Michigan (Initial Disruption): In 2018, a high school student’s mother reported him to police after discovering his plot to attack his school using modified firearms and homemade explosives. The tip led to an immediate threat assessment, arrest, and the successful aversion of a mass casualty event41.

2. Stolen Family Weapon Tip (NTAC Data): The Secret Service documented an averted school attack where a student's stated intent to steal a family firearm was reported to a multidisciplinary team by a peer. Law enforcement secured the weapon, and the student was diverted into psychiatric care rather than entering the school armed15.

3. Fortify FL App Interdiction: Following the Parkland shooting, Florida implemented the Fortify FL anonymous reporting application. In numerous instances, anonymous peer reports regarding students attempting to recruit others for school attacks resulted in rapid triage, multidisciplinary assessment, and the confiscation of weapons30.

4. Florida State University Campus Police Action: An active shooter plot was interrupted almost immediately on campus due to a prior tip from a roommate regarding the gunman's behavioral leakage, allowing campus police to preemptively respond and prevent widespread mass casualties59.

5. NTAC Peer Reporting Success: Across an extensive study of 67 averted school attacks conducted by the Secret Service, in 100% of cases, community members (usually peers or teachers) recognized behavioral leakage and reported it. Multidisciplinary intervention successfully disrupted the pathway to violence through a combination of school administration and local police action30.

Five Disputed or Harmful Interventions

1. The Marjory Stoneman Douglas (Parkland) System Failure: Despite demonstrating years of violent tendencies, self-harm, and explicitly expressing intent to shoot a school, Nikolas Cruz fell through a fractured, siloed threat assessment system. He was expelled, terminating his school-based mental health supports. The FBI failed to act on two direct tips, and local police failed to intervene. The "intervention" (expulsion without wrap-around community management) was highly punitive and ultimately accelerated his grievance, culminating in 17 deaths51.

2. Aidan Ingalls' Post-Release Tragedy: The aforementioned Paw Paw High School plotter, Aidan Ingalls, was successfully disrupted as a juvenile. However, three years later, upon release from the juvenile justice system without adequate long-term threat management or transitional support, he committed a murder-suicide. The punitive intervention merely delayed, rather than resolved, his capability for violence41.

3. Colorado Disability Suspension: As documented by civil rights advocates, a Colorado student with a documented disability was subjected to a formal threat assessment for minor, non-violent infractions directly related to their disability. The team recommended suspension, explicitly violating federal protections under the IDEA50.

4. Maryland Special Education Ban: Disability Rights Maryland intervened after a high school utilized a state-mandated threat assessment team to permanently ban a neurodivergent student from campus. The behaviors deemed "threatening" were clinical manifestations of the student's disability, containing no actual intent or capability for violence50.

5. Illinois STIC Surveillance Overreach: The Illinois Statewide Terrorism & Intelligence Center generated threat assessments regarding citizens engaged in lawful, First-Amendment-protected protests against Caterpillar Inc. The fusion center's use of broad "suspicious activity" metrics resulted in the unwarranted surveillance and intelligence logging of non-violent political activists without any criminal predicate21.

Explanation of Selection Bias: Analyzing these cases requires acknowledging severe selection bias. Successful disruptions are celebrated, widely publicized, and heavily documented in federal reports (e.g., NTAC's Averted Attacks) to justify funding30. Conversely, harmful interventions—particularly those against marginalized or disabled individuals—are chronically underreported, emerging only when civil rights organizations file lawsuits or the media conducts investigative exposes21. Furthermore, "successful" disruptions often claim definitive causality when it remains entirely possible the subject would never have acted on their ideation, highlighting the unprovable nature of averted events.

Direct Comparison: SPJ vs. AI-Based Person Scoring

The current frontier of threat assessment faces immense commercial and political pressure to adopt artificial intelligence (AI) and automated risk scoring. A direct comparison highlights why federal agencies such as BTAC and NTAC currently resist AI person-scoring for targeted violence:

While AI can aid in macro-level intelligence analysis (e.g., linking disparate crime scene data or processing massive financial ledgers), deploying machine learning algorithms to predict individual human violence based on statistical correlations replicates the worst flaws of actuarial risk assessment. SPJ remains the standard precisely because it retains the human capacity for contextual discretion, empathy, and constitutional adherence2.

Safeguard Checklist for a Rights-Respecting Program

To ensure that behavioral threat assessment functions as a legitimate tool of prevention rather than a dystopian, Orwellian apparatus of pre-crime, local and state programs must adopt rigorous, legally binding safeguards:

1. Strict Behavioral Thresholds: Assessments must be triggered solely by specific, objective, and observable behaviors (e.g., acquiring weapons, explicit operational planning), not by protected speech, unusual beliefs, or non-normative social interactions.

2. Rejection of Demographic Profiling: Agencies must explicitly ban the use of demographic, racial, religious, or generalized psychiatric profiling in the initiation of an assessment.

3. Mandatory Neurodiversity Training: All multidisciplinary team members must receive clinical training to distinguish between targeted violence indicators and the standard manifestations of Autism, ADHD, or developmental disabilities.

4. IDEA/ADA Compliance Integration: A licensed special education expert must be present for any assessment involving a student with an Individualized Education Program (IEP) or 504 plan to ensure federal compliance.

5. Prioritize Supportive Management: Teams must legally default to the least restrictive, most supportive intervention (e.g., counseling, mediation, housing support) rather than exclusionary discipline, expulsion, or arrest.

6. Separation from Standard Discipline: Threat assessments must be strictly decoupled from standard administrative disciplinary procedures; the assessment process should never be utilized as a vehicle to streamline expulsion.

7. Data Minimization and Expungement: Records of unsubstantiated threats or successfully closed cases must be sealed or expunged after a defined period to prevent lifelong stigmatization and algorithmic bias in future background checks.

8. First Amendment Protections: Programs must strictly adhere to Counterman and Mahanoy standards; political rhetoric, venting, and off-campus speech lacking a subjective intent to threaten must be fiercely protected.

9. Transparent Appeal Process: Subjects and their legal guardians must have a clear, accessible avenue to review the assessment, challenge factual inaccuracies, and appeal restrictive interventions.

10. External Civil Rights Auditing: Independent civil rights bodies should annually audit the program's data to check for racial, ethnic, or disability-based disproportionality and operational overreach.

Final Judgment: Legitimate Prevention or "Pre-Crime"?

Behavioral threat assessment exists on a perilous razor's edge between necessary public safety intervention and unconstitutional state overreach. When executed strictly according to the official doctrines of the FBI BTAC and Secret Service NTAC—utilizing formal Structured Professional Judgment tools like the NCBIO-25 to evaluate objective, proximate behaviors such as weapons acquisition, tactical planning, and explicit leakage—BTAM represents a legitimate, evidence-based paradigm of prevention. By shifting the focus away from demographic profiling and reactive punishment toward multidisciplinary, supportive risk management, it possesses the demonstrable capacity to safely disrupt plots and maneuver individuals off the pathway to violence. However, the methodology becomes functionally equivalent to unconstitutional "pre-crime" when these highly sophisticated federal frameworks are diluted, mandated, and misapplied at the local level. When untrained school administrators, corporate human resource departments, or overzealous state fusion centers co-opt the language of BTAM to police vague concepts of "concerning behavior," the system metastasizes. In these instances, the state preemptively punishes individuals for their thoughts, their developmental disabilities, their psychiatric illnesses, or their political speech. Punitive preemption—such as suspending an autistic student for an inappropriate comment, or logging a political activist in a domestic terrorism database without a criminal predicate—violates the core tenets of due process, privacy, and civil liberty. Ultimately, behavioral threat assessment cannot mathematically predict who will commit a mass attack due to the immutable statistical laws of base rates. Its legitimacy rests entirely on its capacity to safely, legally, and supportively manage human distress and logistical capability, ensuring that the intervention itself does not inflict the very harm it seeks to prevent.

Works cited

1. Behavioral Analysis \- FBI, https://www.fbi.gov/how-we-investigate/behavioral-analysis

2. The North Carolina BeTA Investigation Overview (NCBIO-25): A Structured Professional Judgment Tool (SPJ) for Behavioral Threat A \- Ovid, https://www.ovid.com/journals/jotham/pdf/10.1037/tam0000164\~the-north-carolina-beta-investigation-overview-ncbio-25-a

3. Solutions Post-Parkland \- ASIS International, https://www.asisonline.org/security-management-magazine/articles/2019/04/solutions-post-parkland/

4. Behavioral Threat Assessment Units: A Guide for State and Local Law Enforcement To Prevent Targeted Violence \- Secret Service, https://www.secretservice.gov/sites/default/files/reports/2024-10/Behavioral-Threat-Assessment-Units-A-Guide-for-State-and-Local-Law-Enforcement-to-Prevent-Targeted-Violence.pdf

5. The North Carolina BeTA Investigation Overview (NCBIO-25): A Structured Professional Judgment Tool (SPJ) for Behavioral Threat Assessment in Law Enforcement Settings | Request PDF \- ResearchGate, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354445485\_The\_North\_Carolina\_BeTA\_Investigation\_Overview\_NCBIO-25\_A\_structured\_professional\_judgment\_tool\_SPJ\_for\_behavioral\_threat\_assessment\_in\_law\_enforcement\_settings

6. Section 2: How to Implement Threat Assessment in Your School, https://www.nc2s.org/resource/school-threat-assessment-toolkit/section-2/

7. Threat Assessment and Threat Management (TATM) — Multidisciplinary Teams (2 of 3\) \- Office of the Director of National Intelligence, https://www.dni.gov/files/NCTC/documents/jcat/firstresponderstoolbox/138bs\_-\_First\_Responder\_Toolbox\_-\_Threat\_Assessment\_and\_Threat\_Management\_-TATM-\_A\_Model\_Critical\_to\_Terrorism\_Prevention\_2\_of\_3.pdf

8. Applying Counterterrorism Tools to Prevent Acts of Targeted Violence, https://www.policechiefmagazine.org/applying-counterterrorism-tools-to-prevent-acts-of-targeted-violence/

9. NORTH CAROLINA BETA INVESTIGATION OVERVIEW-25 \- ResearchGate, https://www.researchgate.net/figure/NORTH-CAROLINA-BETA-INVESTIGATION-OVERVIEW-25\_tbl2\_378810885

10. Are risk assessment tools more accurate than unstructured judgments in predicting violent, any, and sexual offending? A meta‐analysis of direct comparison studies \- PMC, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11771637

11. Assessing the Reliability and Validity of the North Carolina ... \- Ovid, https://www.ovid.com/journals/jotham/pdf/10.1037/tam0000231\~assessing-the-reliability-and-validity-of-the-north-carolina

12. Risk Assessment \- CPCS Website, https://www.publiccounsel.net/mh/risk-assessment/

13. Best Practices for Local Law Enforcement in Counterterrorism: Enhancing Interagency Communication & Developing Modern Information Sharing Systems, https://digitalcommons.newhaven.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1269\&context=masterstheses

14. The Mind Hunters: Behavioral Analysis in Modern Policing | McAfee Institute, https://www.mcafeeinstitute.com/blog/the-mind-hunters-behavioral-analysis-in-modern-policing

15. School Officials' Perceptions of Threat Assessment Programs \- ScholarWorks, https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=16064\&context=dissertations

16. Behavioral Threat Assessment & Management \- Vermont School Safety Center, https://schoolsafety.vermont.gov/sites/ssc/files/FINAL%20BTAM%20Guide%20SIGMA%20ONTIC%20for%20Vermont.January%202023.docx.pdf

17. Practical Terrorism Prevention \- GovInfo.gov, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVPUB-HS-PURL-gpo182821/pdf/GOVPUB-HS-PURL-gpo182821.pdf

18. SAFE SPACES INITIATIVE \- Homeland Security, https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Tools%20for%20Developing%20Healthy%20Communities-MPAC%20Toolkit%20Report.pdf

19. Ramanathan, Sue \- Homeland Security, https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/August%202017.pdf

20. acts of domestic terrorism \- Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/imo/media/doc/221116\_HSGACMajorityReport\_DomesticTerrorism\&SocialMedia.pdf

21. Fusion Centers in Illinois, https://www.aclu-il.org/publications/fusion-centers-illinois/

22. HOMELAND SECURITY \- National Governors Association, https://www.nga.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/GovsGuidetoHomelandSecurity2010-FINAL.pdf

23. Illinois Terrorism Center Named Center of the Year \- Forensic, https://www.forensicmag.com/585362-Illinois-Terrorism-Center-Named-Center-of-the-Year/

24. isp strategic plan fy2023 \- fy2025 \- Illinois State Police, https://isp.illinois.gov/StaticFiles/docs/Directors/ISP%20Strategic%20Plan%20FY2023-FY2025%20-%20V%201.4%20FY23%20Q4.pdf

25. CPIC staff from collecting, maintaining, or disclosing information about individuals and groups \- ACLU of Illinois, https://www.aclu-il.org/app/uploads/2017/07/ACLU-letter-to-CPD-of-1-11-re-CPIC.pdf

26. 23-24-Annual-School-Safety-Drill-Compliance-Report.pdf \- Illinois State Board of Education, https://www.isbe.net/Documents/23-24-Annual-School-Safety-Drill-Compliance-Report.pdf

27. ISBE Memo Chicago.docx \- Illinois Compiled Statutes, https://www.ilga.gov/documents/reports/ReportsSubmitted/4757RSGAEmail10066RSGAAttach02.%20%2022-23%20Annual%20School%20Safety%20Drill%20Compliance%20Report.pdf

28. Recommendations of the Illinois Terrorism Task Force School Safety Working Group, https://www.dhs.state.il.us/OneNetLibrary/27896/documents/By\_Division/MentalHealth/Child%20and%20Adolescents/SchoolBasedMH/Teachers/ITTF-School-Safety-Working-Group-Recommendations-Updated-final-Nov-2018.pdf

29. Final Report of the Federal Commission on School Safety (PDF) \- Department of Education, https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/documents/school-safety/school-safety-reportpdf.pdf

30. 60 \+ School Shooting Statistics, Data & Trends for 2026 \- Safe and Sound Security, https://getsafeandsound.com/blog/school-shooting-statistics-by-state/

31. Behavioral Threat Assessment and Management: Prevent and Protect \- American Hospital Association, https://www.aha.org/system/files/media/file/2026/02/behavioral-threat-assessment-and-management-prevent-and-protect-btam-resource-compendium.pdf

32. Mental Health on College Campuses: \- Investments, Accommodations Needed to Address Student Needs National Council on Disability, https://diversity.ucsf.edu/sites/default/files/2021-10/NCD\_Mental\_Health\_Report\_508\_0.pdf

33. NCBIO-25 RISK FACTORS DIFFERENCES IN NCBIO-25 RISK FACTORS Category Items Targeted Threat Harming Others, Threats, Leakage, Vio \- FBI, https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/ncbio-qrg.pdf

34. Assessing the Reliability and Validity of the North Carolina BeTA Investigation Overview-25 (NCBIO-25) in a Sample of Active Shooters and Persons of Concern \- ResearchGate, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/378810885\_Assessing\_the\_reliability\_and\_validity\_of\_the\_North\_Carolina\_BeTA\_Investigation\_Overview-25\_NCBIO-25\_in\_a\_sample\_of\_active\_shooters\_and\_persons\_of\_concern

35. Mitigating the threat of targeted violence: the Terrorist Radicalization Assessment Protocol, https://justice-trends.press/mitigating-the-threat-of-targeted-violence-the-terrorist-radicalization-assessment-protocol/

36. The Concept of Last Resort in Threat Assessment \- Ovid, https://www.ovid.com/journals/jotham/fulltext/10.1037/tam0000217\~the-concept-of-last-resort-in-threat-assessment

37. Reliability and Validity of Risk Assessment Tools for Violent Extremism: A Systematic Review \- PMC, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12682207/

38. Comparison of the HCR-20V3, the WAVR-21V3, and the CAG, https://www.ovid.com/journals/jotham/fulltext/10.1037/tam0000154\~comparison-of-the-hcr-20v3-the-wavr-21v3-and-the-cag

39. Appendix 1 Additional Warning Signs/Behaviors from Research \- Thrillshare, https://files-backend.assets.thrillshare.com/documents/asset/uploaded\_file/3136/Msba/0da892c1-6fa1-482d-85ea-f01e272bb5d6/appendix1.pdf?disposition=inline

40. WARNING BEHAVIORS BARRIERS TO REPORTING RISK FACTORS AT ELEVATED LEVEL AS AND POC REPORTS TO LE PREDICTIVE FACTORS BRIEF OPERATI \- FBI, https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/breaking-the-silence-bystander-reporting-to-law-enforcement-disrupts-individuals-moving-toward-targeted-violence.pdf

41. Managing High-Risk Adolescents in Comunity Contexts: \- National Policing Institute, https://www.policinginstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/NPI-High-Risk-Adolescents-Report\_Apr-2022.pdf

42. E • SANDY HOOK • VIRGINIA BEACH • PARKLAND • T • GILROY, https://www.acep.org/siteassets/sites/acep/media/coalition-on-psychiatric-emergencies/mdi-massviolence-in-america\_august-2019.pdf

43. Federal Criminal Risk Assessment \- The ALI Adviser, https://www.thealiadviser.org/sentencing/federal-criminal-risk-assessment/

44. Violence Risk Assessment: Current Status And Contemporary Issues, https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5441\&context=mulr

45. risk, race, and recidivism: predictive bias and disparate impact \- Antonio Casella, https://www.antoniocasella.eu/nume/Skeem\_2016.pdf

46. Risk, Race, & Recidivism: Predictive Bias and Disparate Impact \- UC Berkeley Law, https://www.law.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/SSRN-id2687339.pdf

47. Averting Targeted School Violence \- Secret Service, https://www.secretservice.gov/sites/default/files/reports/2021-03/USSS%20Averting%20Targeted%20School%20Violence.2021.03.pdf

48. House Democratic Policy Committee Hearing, https://pahouse.com/files/Documents/Testimony/2022-02-16\_095115\_\_021622%20AgendaTestimony%20Merged.pdf

49. Note – Red Flag Laws: The Constitutionality of Mental Health ... \- CDN, https://cpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/sites.suffolk.edu/dist/e/1232/files/2016/12/Moran\_.pdf

50. Do protocols for school safety infringe on disability rights? \- The Hechinger Report, https://hechingerreport.org/do-protocols-for-school-safety-infringe-on-disability-rights/

51. Hide, deny, spin, threaten: How the school district tried to mask failures that led to Parkland shooting \- Police1, https://www.police1.com/school-violence/articles/hide-deny-spin-threaten-how-the-school-district-tried-to-mask-failures-that-led-to-parkland-shooting-yU1c97guDbmFBkFI/

52. Counterman v. Colorado (2023) | The First Amendment Encyclopedia \- Free Speech Center, https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/counterman-v-colorado/

53. When is it permissible to utilize FERPA's health or safety emergency exception for disclosures? | Protecting Student Privacy, https://studentprivacy.ed.gov/faq/when-it-permissible-utilize-ferpas-health-or-safety-emergency-exception-disclosures

54. Information Sharing in the School Setting During a Public Health Emergency \- PMC \- NIH, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7240309/

55. Public Health and Schools Toolkit Public Health Access to Student Health Data: Authorities and Limitations in Sharing Informatio, https://healthystudentspromisingfutures.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Public-Health-Access-to-Student-Health-Data-\_-State-Public-Health-\_-ASTHO.pdf

56. Feds Address "Substantial Misunderstanding" in Application of FERPA in School-Based Threats \- Barley Snyder, https://www.barley.com/feds-address-substantial-misunderstanding-in-application-of-ferpa-in-schoolbased-threats/

57. New Guidance Answers Questions Regarding FERPA And School Law Enforcement Units \- Lozano Smith, https://www.lozanosmith.com/news/cnb/CNB232019.pdf

58. All The Arc of the US Position Statements by Category \- The Arc of New Jersey, https://www.arcnj.org/file\_download/inline/46837703-d285-40fe-99b8-8dcc7104b180

59. Inside: \- Police Chief Magazine, https://www.policechiefmagazine.org/wp-content/uploads/Police-Chief-March-2015\_WEB.pdf

60. Parkland high school shooting \- Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkland\_high\_school\_shooting

61. Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Shooting Victims \- Protecting our future through information sharing, https://ready.illinois.gov/content/dam/soi/en/web/ready/plan/documents/newsletter/schoolsafetynewsletterfeb2018.pdf