PRESIDENT DEAD, CONNALLY SHOT

ROOSEVELT, SHOT BY ANTI-THIRD-TERM FANATIC,

GOES FROM MILWAUKEE TO CHICAGO HOSPITAL

John Lennon of Beatles is Killed;

Suspect Held in Shooting at Dakota

Martin Luther King Is Slain In Memphis

White Is Suspected: Johnson Urges Calm

Wallace Is Shot, Legs Paralyzed;

Suspect Seized at Laurel Rally

Reagan Wounded by Assailant’s Bullet;

Prognosis Is ‘Excellent’; 3 Others Shot

The Deed Done at Ford's 

Theatre Last Night. 

The Act of a Desperate Rebel.

AWFUL EVENT.

President Lincoln Shot by an Assassin.

The President Still Alive 

 at Last Accounts.

&

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

National Institute of Justice

Protective Intelligence

Threat Assessment Investigations

A Guide for State

and Local Law

Enforcement

Officials

RESEARCH

REPORT

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS

BJA NIJ OJJDP BJS OVC
U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

810 Seventh Street N.W.

Washington, DC 20531

Janet Reno

Attorney General

U.S. Department of Justice

Raymond C. Fisher

Associate Attorney General

Laurie Robinson

Assistant Attorney General

Noël Brennan

Deputy Assistant Attorney General

Jeremy Travis

Director, National Institute of Justice

Department of Justice Response Center

800–421–6770

Office of Justice Programs National Institute of Justice

World Wide Web Site World Wide Web Site

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij
Protective Intelligence and

Threat Assessment Investigations:

A Guide for State and

Local Law Enforcement Officials

★ ★ ★ ★

by Robert A. Fein and Bryan Vossekuil

July 1998
Robert A. Fein, Ph.D., is a Psychologist for the U.S. Secret Service, U.S.

Department of the Treasury. Bryan Vossekuil is Deputy Special Agent in Charge,

Intelligence Division, U.S. Secret Service. This project was supported by the

National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of

Justice, under award number 92–IJ–CX–0013, and by the U.S. Secret Service,

U.S. Department of the Treasury.

The findings, conclusions, and opinions expressed in this document are those of the

authors and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice or the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

NCJ 170612

Jeremy Travis

Director

Richard Rau

Program Monitor

The National Institute of Justice is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which

also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Office

of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime.
 iii

Protective Intelligence and Threat Assessment Investigations

Message From the Director,

U.S. Secret Service

The U.S. Secret Service is committed to providing a safe environment for each public official it is entrusted to protect. To accomplish this mission, it has developed comprehensive protective

programs. The U.S. Secret Service believes that threat assessment

and protective intelligence are important aspects of these protection efforts. The purpose of U.S. Secret Service threat assessment

and protective intelligence activities is to identify, assess, and

manage persons who might pose a threat to those we protect,

while the goal of these activities is to prevent assassination

attempts.

In carrying out its protective responsibilities, including threat

assessment, the U.S. Secret Service works closely with State and

local law enforcement agencies. The cooperation, information,

and assistance provided through this relationship play a major

role in assisting the U.S. Secret Service in fulfilling its responsibilities. At the same time, the U.S. Secret Service has searched for

opportunities to further partnerships with State and local police

agencies and increase knowledge across all levels of law

enforcement.

During the past several years, with the support of the National

Institute of Justice and the cooperation of the Federal Bureau of

Prisons, the U.S. Secret Service conducted an operational study

of the thinking and behavior of the 83 persons known to have

attacked or come close to attacking prominent public officials

and figures in the United States during the past 50 years. This

study, the Exceptional Case Study Project, was recently completed; its findings are leading the U.S. Secret Service to refine

and improve its approaches to preventing assassination

attempts.

One major product of the Exceptional Case Study Project is this

guide, which represents the U.S. Secret Service’s efforts to share

what it has learned about protective intelligence and threat assessment with State and local law enforcement officials who have
iv

Protective Intelligence and Threat Assessment Investigations

responsibilities in the areas of physical protection or protective

intelligence.

The U.S. Secret Service is pleased to join the National Institute of

Justice in providing this information to our colleagues in the law

enforcement and criminal justice communities. We believe that

the ideas and information in the guide may assist persons and

organizations responsible for preventing attacks on public officials and figures. We also hope that this information will be useful

to other individuals and agencies working to prevent other forms

of targeted violence, such as stalking, domestic violence, and

workplace violence.

Lewis C. Merletti

Director

U.S. Secret Service

U.S. Department of the Treasury
 v

Protective Intelligence and Threat Assessment Investigations

Throughout our country’s history, persons in the public spotlight

have faced danger from others. Elected leaders, political figures,

educators, musicians, authors—all have been threatened with

attacks on their safety and, in some cases, their lives. In the past,

often the only courses of action for threatened individuals were

to hire private security, to use publicly provided protection (such

as the U.S. Secret Service), and simply to be more aware of the

dangers facing them.

In recent years, however, efforts have focused on more proactive

prevention techniques—developing ways to identify and neutralize people who pose a threat to public officials and figures. The

U.S. Secret Service, in its role as protector of the President and

other U.S. and international officials, has pioneered these efforts.

The U.S. Secret Service developed the field of threat assessment—the process of investigating and analyzing persons and

groups who are interested in and capable of attacking public

persons—not only to help it fulfill its mission but also to assist

other Federal agencies and State and local law enforcement

organizations.

Between 1992 and 1997, the U.S. Secret Service, assisted by the

Federal Bureau of Prisons, participated in a collaborative project

with the National Institute of Justice, studying assassins and

would-be assassins of the past 50 years. The purpose of the

Exceptional Case Study Project was to examine in detail the lives

of assassins and would-be assassins to determine any common

traits. Researchers felt that similarities of characteristics,

thoughts, or behaviors among past assassins could be key in

helping law enforcement officials better identify which persons

could pose a present threat to public figures.

This guide is a product of these efforts; project researchers used

the data gleaned from the Exceptional Case Study Project to

devise a standard set of protocols and procedures for law enforcement and security agencies responsible for protecting public

Message From the Director,

National Institute of Justice
vi

Protective Intelligence and Threat Assessment Investigations

persons and others vulnerable to targeted violence. The guide

takes agencies through the entire threat assessment process,

from designing a protective intelligence program to investigating

suspicious persons to closing a case. The National Institute of

Justice and the U.S. Secret Service hope that State and local law

enforcement organizations and other criminal justice practitioners will find this guide useful as they work to prevent and deter

those who would engage in violence such as stalking, workplace

violence, or domestic violence.

Jeremy Travis

Director

National Institute of Justice

U.S. Department of Justice
 vii

Protective Intelligence and Threat Assessment Investigations

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to acknowledge the support of the National

Institute of Justice, especially the guidance of Richard Rau, Ph.D.,

and the editorial support of the NIJ publications unit.

Staff from the Federal Bureau of Prisons assisted in obtaining

records and interviewing study subjects. The authors especially

thank Daniel Cowell, M.D.; Ruth Westrick-Connolly, M.D.; Sally

Johnson, M.D.; Casey Skvorc; and staff at the Federal Medical

Centers in Rochester, Minnesota, and Butner, North Carolina.

Many persons within the U.S. Secret Service supported the authors’ efforts and contributed to the success of the Exceptional

Case Study Project (ECSP). The authors especially thank Director

Lewis C. Merletti; former Directors John R. Simpson and Eljay

Bowron; Assistant Directors H. Terrence Samway, Michael

Smelser, David Lee, and Stephen Sergek; Special Agents in Charge

Jane Vezeris and Dale Wilson; Deputy Special Agent in Charge

James Lucey; Special Agents Marty Allen, Steve Amico, Al Baker,

John Berglund, Mike Garduno, Paul Gebicke, and George Sexton;

Intelligence Research Specialist Chris Wallace; Research Section

Chief Margaret Coggins, Ph.D.; Researchers Angela Macdonald

and Joseph Gerston; Senior Intelligence Research Specialist Lynn

Zimney; Archivist Michael Sampson; Supervisory Visual Specialist

Ed Ross; and Visual Information Specialists Jeff Clemente, Bob

Fulk, MacKenzie Kearney, and Patrick Nolan. A special note of

thanks is due Assistant Director Sergek, who reviewed ECSP

drafts and provided numerous comments.

Pamela Clark Robbins and Henry Steadman, Ph.D., of Policy

Research Associates, Inc., provided incisive suggestions and key

support at each stage of this project.

Shervert Frazier, M.D., provided invaluable information on violence that shaped the authors’ understanding of assassination

behaviors.

Gavin de Becker shared information and insights and made many

helpful comments about an early draft of the guide.
viii

Protective Intelligence and Threat Assessment Investigations

The authors also wish to thank several other people who reviewed early drafts of the guide, including Randy Borum, Psy.D.,

Frederick Calhoun, Ph.D., Michael Gelles, Psy.D., Chris Hatcher,

Ph.D., Robert Kasdon, Paul Kelly, David Noznesky, Lieutenant

Tom Taylor, and Patrick Wolfe. Their comments strengthened

the guide.

The authors are grateful to Rita Premo of Aspen Systems

Corporation for her editorial assistance.

Finally, the authors wish to acknowledge the contribution of

Gwen Holden, who provided both enormous support and great

expertise. Her vigorous and skillful editing helped shape the

guide into a useful document for Federal, State, and local law

enforcement and security professionals.
 ix

Protective Intelligence and Threat Assessment Investigations

Contents

Message From the Director, U.S. Secret Service ........................ iii

Message From the Director, National Institute of Justice ......... v

Acknowledgments .......................................................................... vii

Chapter 1. Introduction ................................................................... 1

The Problem ................................................................................... 3

Exceptional Case Study Project ................................................... 4

Threat Assessment Protocols ...................................................... 6

Chapter 2. Assassins and Assassination Behavior ..................... 9

The Assassin ................................................................................ 11

Myth 1........................................................................................ 12

Myth 2........................................................................................ 13

Myth 3........................................................................................ 14

Key Observations on Assassins ................................................. 15

Attacks are the product of organized thinking

 and behavior ........................................................................ 16

Attacks are the means to a goal ............................................. 16

Motive and target selection are directly connected............ 19

Who is dangerous?................................................................... 20

Chapter 3. Elements of a Threat Assessment Program ........... 21

Effective Design............................................................................ 23

Key Functions of a Protective Intelligence Program ............... 25

Identification ............................................................................ 25

Assessment ............................................................................... 27

Case management .................................................................... 28

Functions and Approaches of the Case Investigator .............. 29
x

Protective Intelligence and Threat Assessment Investigations

Investigative skill ..................................................................... 29

Corroboration........................................................................... 30

Common sense ......................................................................... 30

Building a Database and Sharing Information.......................... 31

Chapter 4. Conducting a Threat Assessment

 Investigation ............................................................................... 33

Opening a Case ............................................................................ 35

Inappropriate or unusual interest ......................................... 35

Threats ...................................................................................... 36

Investigating a Case ..................................................................... 37

Interviewing the subject ......................................................... 37

Content of a protective intelligence investigation............... 39

Chapter 5. Evaluating a Threat Assessment Case ..................... 47

Principles to Guide a Protective Intelligence Evaluation ....... 49

Questions to Ask in a Threat Assessment ................................ 50

Protection ..................................................................................... 52

Chapter 6. Managing a Protective Intelligence Case ............... 53

Monitoring, Controlling, and Redirecting the Subject ............ 55

Ending Monitoring ....................................................................... 57

Sources of postassessment information ............................... 57

Closing a Case .............................................................................. 58

Conclusion .................................................................................... 58
CHAPTER

Introduction

1
 3

Protective Intelligence and Threat Assessment Investigations

Threat assessment is a developing field pioneered by the

U.S. Department of the Treasury’s U.S. Secret Service,

which is charged with protecting the President of the

United States and other U.S. and foreign leaders. Threat

assessment measures involve investigation and analysis of situations and individuals that may pose threats to persons in public

life. In 1992, the Secret Service, in partnership with the National

Institute of Justice and with assistance from the Federal Bureau

of Prisons, began the Exceptional Case Study Project (ECSP), a

5-year study to examine the thinking and behavior of individuals

who have attacked or approached to attack prominent public

officials or figures in the United States since 1949.1 ECSP findings

reveal general threat assessment information relating to attacks

on public officials and figures, while suggesting that broader

application of threat assessment protocols by Federal, State, and

local law enforcement officials could help anticipate and prevent

other crimes, such as stalking and workplace violence.

Drawing from project findings, this guide describes an approach

to threat assessment and the protective intelligence investigative

process that can be of assistance to Federal, State, and local law

enforcement and security professionals with protective intelligence responsibilities. Though not intended to serve as an operations manual, the guide presents information and ideas about

developing and implementing protective intelligence programs

and activities. Information about the thinking and behavior of

persons who have attacked or come close to attacking public

officials and figures can help refine law enforcement operations

related to preventing and investigating violence and threats of

violence.

The Problem

Assassination of political leaders and other public figures has

been a significant problem in the United States. Since 1835, 11

attacks on U.S. presidents (4 of them resulting in the death of the

President) have occurred. Since 1949, two attacks on Presidential

candidates have been attempted, in addition to two attacks on

Members of Congress, several assassinations of national political
4

Protective Intelligence and Threat Assessment Investigations

leaders, a number of attacks on State and local elected officials,

several murders of Federal and State judges, and several wellpublicized attacks on celebrities and business leaders. These

attacks do not include many other individuals who presented

themselves as warranting serious concern. Each year, Federal,

State, and local law enforcement officials and private security

officers intercede with thousands of individuals who demonstrate

inappropriate or unusual interest in a public official or figure.

Some of these individuals were intercepted within lethal range of

a target just before they attempted to mount an attack.

Although substantial academic literature on assassination exists,

little has been written about the thinking and behavior of assailants who attempt attacks on prominent persons. For example,

how do attackers select their targets? What are their motives?

How do they plan their attacks? How do these persons assess the

security barriers that face them? What communications, if any, do

they make before their attacks? To what extent do symptoms of

mental illness affect their actions?

Planned, targeted attacks are not confined to those involving

prominent public officials and celebrities. Tragically, such attacks

are a frequent feature of interpersonal violence in this country

today. Cases involving stalking, domestic violence, workplace

violence, and bias-motivated criminal activity involve planned—

often violent—attacks on intentionally selected targets.

Exceptional Case Study Project

The study examined the thinking and behavior of all 83 persons

known to have attacked or approached to attack a prominent public official or figure in the United States from 1949 to 1996. During

this time period, 74 attacks and near-lethal approaches occurred.2

Six attacks were carried out by 16 individuals who were members

of groups. Sixty-eight of the attacks and near-lethal approaches

were carried out by 67 individuals acting alone. (One individual

attacked two public figures.) Targets of these individuals included

Presidents, other officials protected by the Secret Service, Members of Congress, Federal judges, prominent national political
 5

Protective Intelligence and Threat Assessment Investigations

Exhibit 1. Targets of Modern American Assassins, Attackers,

and Near-Lethal Approachers, 1949–96

All available criminal justice, court, social services, mental health,

and public records were gathered and analyzed for each individual

studied. Additionally, 24 of the 83 individuals were interviewed.

*Note: Total number was 74.

leaders, State and city officials, business executives, and entertainment, sports, and media celebrities. (See exhibit 1.) All targets

were selected because they were prominent persons.

34%

19%

19%

7%

4%

5%

3%

9%

Target Number* Percent

President 25 34

Movie, sports, and media celebrities 14 19

Secret Service protectees other 

than the President 14 19

Other national political figures 7 9

Members of Congress 5 7

Federal judges 4 5

Business executives 3 4

State and city officials 2 3 
6

Protective Intelligence and Threat Assessment Investigations

ECSP information gathering and analysis focused on seven major

questions:

• How did these individuals develop the idea of assassination,

and how did they move from the idea of assassination to lethal

or near-lethal action?

• What were the individuals’ motives?

• How did the individuals select their targets?

• How did the individuals plan their attacks?

• What communications, if any, did individuals make before

their attacks or near-lethal approaches?

• What role, if any, did symptoms of mental illness play in

individuals’ assassination behaviors?

• Were there key life experiences or incidents that appeared

to affect individuals’ assassination interests or behaviors?

ECSP findings could be used to help law enforcement and security professionals throughout the United States reevaluate their

methods of investigating assassinations and kidnapings, formulating protective strategies, and gathering protective intelligence.

This guide describes the following:

• Important information about assassins and assassination

behaviors.

• Elements of an effective protective intelligence system.

• Specialized threat assessment investigations.

Threat Assessment Protocols

Law enforcement organizations, private security experts, and

the potential targets of violent attacks spend considerable

resources on personal protection measures such as enhancements in physical security; 24-hour-a-day physical protection

for themselves, their home, and their office; and/or periodic

protection. They also may include specialized personal safety

training for potential targets.
 7

Protective Intelligence and Threat Assessment Investigations

Threat assessment or protective intelligence is the process of

gathering and assessing information about persons who may

have the interest, motive, intention, and capability of mounting

attacks against public officials and figures. Gauging the potential

threat to and vulnerability of a targeted individual is key to preventing violence. Among criminal justice functions, threat assessment holds great promise for determining vulnerability and

guiding interventions in potentially lethal situations.

The primary goal of every protective intelligence investigation is

to prevent an attack on a potential target. By using a combination

of investigative skill, corroboration, and common sense, a protective intelligence investigator can gather the information and

evidence to make a thoughtful assessment of the threat an individual may pose to a target. Once an assessment is made, a plan

can be developed and implemented to monitor the individual and

to intervene, as appropriate, to prevent an attack. Attention to

the individual’s motives and attack-related behaviors and to the

systems (family, work, community, criminal justice, mental

health, and social services) that the individual is involved with

are key to assessing and managing a potential threat.

Building and maintaining the organizational capacity to conduct

protective intelligence investigations at the Federal, State, and

local levels takes careful conceptualization, planning, and oversight by experienced law enforcement and security agency

managers. Once developed, a protective intelligence program

will serve as a key component of a comprehensive protection

program to prevent targeted violence.
CHAPTER

Assassins and

Assassination

Behavior

2
 11

Protective Intelligence and Threat Assessment Investigations

Three days after a Presidential candidate visited a small

Southern city in September 1988, an anonymous letter

writer ordered the candidate to drop out of the Presidential race. The letter stated that the writer had attended the

candidate’s rally with a gun and had stood within shooting range of

the candidate. “I didn’t shoot this time,” said the letter. “I will the

next.” Enclosed with the letter were three photographs of the rally.

Investigative analysis suggested that the photographer was standing

within 100 feet of the candidate.

A receptionist in the Governor’s office reported that a well-dressed

man came to the office, gave his name, and demanded a meeting

with the Governor. Asked why he wanted to see the Governor, the

man stated, “If he won’t meet with me by next Thursday, I will place

him under arrest.” The man then left the office.

A man called the police to report that a female tenant in his apartment building appeared to be “fixated” on a popular film actor. He

said that when he was asked to fix a broken toilet in her apartment

about a month ago, he noticed that the walls were covered with

posters of the actor. The day before, another tenant had told him

that the woman said that “X [the actor] and I will both be dead in a

week.” When the man read in the newspaper that X was scheduled

to make an appearance at a benefit dinner in the city early the

following week, he decided to contact the police.

These are examples of situations that come to the attention of

Federal, State, and local law enforcement authorities and security

managers. Any of these cases may present a risk to a target. The

overwhelming majority of cases that come to law enforcement’s

attention do not result in attacks. But, a few cases do culminate

in assassination attempts. Sometimes, individuals and groups

attempt assassinations without becoming known to authorities

before they attack.

The Assassin

Three prevalent beliefs about assassination exist in popular culture, largely unsupported by data that have been gathered and
12

Protective Intelligence and Threat Assessment Investigations

analyzed about attackers of public officials and figures in the

United States. Critical thinking about assassination behaviors

proves these beliefs to be myths.

Myth 1: There is a profile of “the assassin.”

Fact: Attackers and near-lethal approachers do not fit

any one descriptive or demographic profile (or even

several descriptive or demographic profiles).

Much has been written about profiles of assassins, but in reality

there are no accurate descriptive or demographic profiles of

American assassins, attackers, and near-lethal approachers. American assassins and attackers have been both men and women of

various ages, educational backgrounds, employment histories,

and other demographic and background characteristics.

ECSP findings about the histories and personal characteristics of

attackers and near-lethal approachers include the following:

• Their ages ranged between 16 and 73.

• Almost half had attended college or graduate school.

• They often had histories of mobility and transience.

• About two-thirds were described as socially isolated.

• Few had histories of arrests for violent crimes or for crimes

that involved weapons.

• Few had been incarcerated in Federal or State prisons before

their attack or attempt to attack a public figure.

• Most had histories of weapons use, but few had formal

weapons training.

• Many had histories of harassing other persons.

• Most had histories of explosive, angry behavior, but only half

of the individuals had histories of physically violent behavior.

• Many had indicated their interest in attacking a public figure to

someone else.
 13

Protective Intelligence and Threat Assessment Investigations

• They often had interests in militant or radical ideas and

groups, though few had been members of such groups.

• Many had histories of serious depression or despair.

• Many were known to have attempted suicide or to have considered suicide at some point before their attack or near-lethal

approach.

• Almost all had histories of grievances and resentments, many

directed against a public official or figure.

Although there is no such thing as an assassin profile, potential

attackers often engage in many of the same behaviors and actions

before their attacks. Mounting an attack on a prominent person

requires a number of preparatory decisions and activities—

attack-related behaviors. For instance, a potential assassin must

choose a target, learn where the target is going to be, choose and

secure a weapon, survey security, develop an attack plan, and

consider whether and/or how to escape. Although not every

ECSP attacker and near-attacker engaged in all of these activities

and behaviors, most engaged in several of them.

Myth 2: Assassination is a product of mental illness or

derangement.

Fact: Mental illness only rarely plays a key role in

assassination behaviors.

Many believe that attacks on public figures are deranged behaviors, without rational or understandable motives; they therefore

believe that perpetrators of these crimes must be mentally ill.

In most cases, however, mental illness does not appear to be a

primary cause of assassination behavior. Attacks on prominent

persons are the actions of persons who see assassination as a

way to achieve their goals or solve problems, which requires a

fairly rational process.

Most near-lethal approachers and the great majority of assassins

were not mentally ill—none were models of emotional well-being,

but relatively few suffered from serious mental illnesses that

caused their attack behaviors.
14

Protective Intelligence and Threat Assessment Investigations

In almost every case—even those in which the attackers were

seriously mentally ill—an attack was a means to achieve an end,

such as calling attention to a perceived problem. Moreover, in

cases where mental illness clearly played a role in assassination

attempts, symptoms of mental illness generally did not prevent

the person from engaging in attack-related activities, such as

rationally developing an attack strategy. In most situations involving persons with severe and untreated mental illness, the symptoms disable the person’s usual problem-solving abilities.

However, among mentally ill ECSP attackers and near-lethal

approachers, most remained organized and capable of planning

and mounting an attack.

Mental health histories of ECSP attackers and near-lethal

approachers include the following:

• Many had contact with mental health professionals or care

systems at some point in their lives, but few indicated to

mental health staff that they were considering an attack on

a public official or figure.

• Almost half had histories of delusional ideas, but few of these

ideas led directly to a near-lethal approach or attack.

• Few had histories of command hallucinations (imagined voices

ordering the individual to take action).

• Relatively few had histories of substance abuse, including

alcohol abuse.

Myth 3: The persons most likely to carry out attacks are

those who make direct threats.

Fact: Persons who pose an actual threat often do not

make threats, especially direct threats.

People who study assassination often associate threateners with

attackers, as if the two are the same. Many assume that those

who make threats pose real threats. Although some threateners

may pose a real threat, usually they do not. However, most importantly, those who pose threats frequently do not make threats.
 15

Protective Intelligence and Threat Assessment Investigations

• None of the 43 assassins and attackers communicated a direct

threat to the target before their attack.

• Fewer than one-tenth of all 83 attackers and near-lethal

approachers communicated a direct threat to the target or to

a law enforcement agency.

• Two-thirds of the assassins and near-lethal approachers were

known to have spoken or written in a manner suggesting that

they were considering an attack. Would-be assassins told family members, friends, colleagues, and associates about their

thoughts and plans, or they wrote down their ideas in journals

or diaries.

These data do not suggest that investigators should ignore

threats that are communicated to or about public officials or figures. Many persons may have been prevented or deterred from

taking action because of a prompt response to their threatening

communications. However, careful attention should also be paid

to identifying, investigating, and assessing anyone whose behaviors suggest that he or she might pose threats of violence, even if

the individual does not communicate direct threats to a target or

to the authorities.

Key Observations on Assassins

Three key observations about assassins and their behaviors

emerged from the ECSP study:

• Assassinations and attacks on public officials and figures

are the products of understandable and often discernible

processes of thinking and behavior.

• Most people who attack others perceive the attack as the

means to a goal or a way to solve a problem.

• An individual’s motives and selection of a target are directly

connected.
16

Protective Intelligence and Threat Assessment Investigations

Attacks are the product of organized thinking and behavior

Almost without exception, assassinations, attacks, and nearattacks are neither impulsive nor spontaneous acts. The notion

of attacking the President does not leap fully formed into the

mind of a person standing at a political rally attended by the

President. Ideas of assassination develop over weeks, months,

even years, and are stimulated by television and newspaper images, movies, and books. Potential assassins seek out historical

information about assassination, the lives of attackers, and the

protectors of their targets. They may deliberate about which target—and sometimes targets—to choose. They also may transfer

their interest from one target to another.

After selecting a target, attackers and near-lethal approachers develop plans and sometimes rehearse before mounting an attack.

Often, their days are shaped by their planning activities: What

kind of weapon shall I use? Where will the target be? How will I

get close? What should I wear? What should I carry with me?

Should I leave a letter in case I am killed? For some would-be

attackers, such thinking dominates their lives, providing a sense

of meaning or a goal that will end their emotional pain.

Frequently, thinking about assassination is compartmentalized;

some potential assassins engage in ongoing internal discussions

about attacks while maintaining outward appearances of normality. In every ECSP case, assassination was the result of an understandable and often identifiable process involving the attacker’s

pattern of thoughts, decisions, behaviors, and actions that

preceded the attack.

Attacks are the means to a goal

Most people who attack others consider violence the means to a

goal or a way to solve a problem. The problem may be that the

potential perpetrator feels unbearably unhappy, enraged, overwhelmed, or bereft. If the person views violence as an acceptable

or permissible solution, the risk of violent action increases.
 17

Protective Intelligence and Threat Assessment Investigations

Violence—especially assassination—is an event in which a person, triggered by an event or change, and operating in a situation

that facilitates, permits, or does not prevent violence, takes

action against a designated target. These four elements—the

potential attacker, event, situation, and target—form the basis

for a threat assessment investigation.

The potential attacker. Determining the risk of targeted violence,

such as assassinations, begins with gathering information about

the potential attacker. In threat investigations and assessments, a

key concern is how the person has dealt with unbearable stress in

the past.

People have many options for dealing with stress: resting, working, exercising, sleeping, changing activities, seeking family support, making contact with friends, etc. However, what happens

when the usual means of dealing with stress are not available,

do not work, or are not pursued and a person considers life unbearably stressful? At such a time, four reactions are possible.

A person might become:

• Physically ill.

• Psychotic or otherwise out of touch with reality.

• Suicidal or self-destructive.

• Violent to others or homicidal.

The event. Investigators should also examine past traumatic

events in the life of the individual, particularly those that caused

life to seem unbearably stressful. These might include major

changes such as:

• Losses of significant relationships (the end of an intimate

relationship, death of a parent, or loss of a child).

• Changes in financial status (the loss of a job or threatened

financial disaster).

• Changes in living arrangements (being released from an

institution, for example).

• Feeling humiliated or being rejected, especially in public.
18

Protective Intelligence and Threat Assessment Investigations

Major adverse changes in life circumstances, such as losses, failures (real or perceived), and rejections appear to stimulate

attack-related behavior—more than half of the ECSP subjects

were known to have experienced a major life stressor event in the

year before their attack or near-lethal approach.

People deal with life changes and events differently. What might

cause one person major worry and distress is met with acceptance by another. To determine whether an individual may be a

cause for concern, three questions must be answered: What

events or changes led the individual to perceive life as unbearably stressful? How did he or she respond to these events? What

is the likelihood that such events or changes will recur in the

individual’s life?

The situation. The third factor to consider is the individual’s

specific situation at the time of peak stress. Do people around

the person support, permit, or ignore the threat of violence? Do

family, friends, colleagues, or supervisors say—directly or indirectly—that violence is not a solution to problems and is not

permitted? Or is the possibility of violence condoned, accepted,

or ignored? People around a person who is acutely at risk of

behaving in a violent manner can act to prevent violence.

The target. When conducting a threat assessment, protectors and

investigators must also pay attention to the individual’s choice of

a potential target, assuming the individual has selected a target.

The following questions should be addressed:

• How well is the target known to the individual? Is the individual acquainted with the target’s work and lifestyle patterns?

Is that information readily available, as in the case of many

public officials or highly visible public figures?

• How vulnerable is the target to an attack? What changes in the

target’s lifestyle or living arrangements could make attack by

the individual more difficult or less likely?

• How sophisticated is the target about the need for caution?

How concerned about safety is the target? How concerned

are those around the target (such as family or staff)? How
 19

Protective Intelligence and Threat Assessment Investigations

responsive is the target likely to be to the advice of law enforcement and security professionals?

Motive and target selection are directly connected

Contrary to the general perception, few assassins in the United

States—even those targeting major political leaders—have had

purely political motives. Other than the Puerto Rican nationalists

who attacked President Harry S. Truman in 1950 and Members

of Congress in 1954, most recent assassins, attackers, and nearlethal approachers held motives unrelated to politics or political

causes. ECSP’s examination of the thinking and behavior of the

83 American attackers and near-lethal approachers identified

8 major motives, most of which are personal:

• To achieve notoriety or fame.

• To bring attention to a personal or public problem.

• To avenge a perceived wrong; to retaliate for a perceived

injury.

• To end personal pain; to be removed from society; to be killed.

• To save the country or the world; to fix a world problem.

• To develop a special relationship with the target.

• To make money.

• To bring about political change.

Many attackers and near-lethal approachers craved attention and

notoriety, while others acted to bring attention to a particular

problem. A number of assailants of public officials and figures

were consumed with seeking revenge for perceived injuries or

harm. A few attacked or nearly attacked public officials or figures

in hopes of being killed by law enforcement or being removed

from society by being incarcerated. Several believed that assassinating their target was a way to save the world. Others responded to beliefs or imagined voices that they felt ordered them

to attack a national leader. A number of subjects approached a

celebrity with a weapon to try to force the target into a special

relationship. Finally, a few attacked public officials or figures for
20

Protective Intelligence and Threat Assessment Investigations

money, either because they were paid to kill the target or as part

of an attempt to secure ransom money.

Targets are selected on the basis of motive, not primarily because

of feelings about or hostility toward a particular target or office.

Whether an individual likes a particular elected official may be irrelevant if the individual’s motive is to achieve notoriety. “I would

have voted for him,” said one would-be attacker, “if I hadn’t been

in jail charged with trying to kill him.”

Consistent with their motives, many ECSP attackers and wouldbe attackers considered more than one target before moving to

attack. For example, several individuals whose primary motive

was notoriety considered attacking public officials like Governors

and Members of Congress before ultimately deciding to attack the

President or Vice President; they calculated that an attack on the

President or Vice President would receive more attention. Assailants often made final decisions about whom to attack because an

opportunity for attack presented itself or because they perceived

another target was unapproachable.

Who is dangerous?

Not all “dangerous” persons should be considered dangerous to a

particular public official or figure. Clearly, a man who is serving

multiple life sentences for killing bank customers during a robbery is a dangerous person, but he may not pose a threat to a

Governor or to an entertainer. Therefore, threat investigators

need to consider if he has a motive to attempt such an attack. If

he does, the next question is: What is his current and foreseeable

ability to attack a Governor or entertainer?

Who, then, is dangerous to public officials and figures? Generally,

a person who thinks that attacking a public official or figure is a

desirable, acceptable, or potentially effective way to achieve a

goal can be considered a potential assassin. If such a person has

or develops the capacity to mount an attack on a public official

or figure, the threat increases. Changes in thinking about the

acceptability or effectiveness of attacking, or changes in ability

to attack, may decrease the threat posed.
CHAPTER

Elements of a Threat

Assessment Program

3
 23

Protective Intelligence and Threat Assessment Investigations

Effective Design

Designing and implementing a protective intelligence

program in a law enforcement or security organization

involves two steps. The first step is to define the problem,

conceptualize the program and its functions, and establish objectives. The next step is to assess what capabilities are

needed to implement the program and to plan so that essential

functions can continue over time.

In completing the first step, certain questions must be answered:

• How does the organization define its protective responsibilities? What protective responsibilities does the organization

now have? What responsibilities is it likely to have?

• What approaches to protection are currently being used? What

kinds of protective services and programs are most likely to

fulfill the organization’s responsibilities?

• What is the legal basis for protection?

• How often is the organization faced with the task of responding

to a threat or a concern about possible violence directed

against a public official or figure?

• What currently happens when a threat is received by a

protected person’s office?

• What should occur when an individual who might be interested in harming a public official or figure comes to attention?

For instance, who should be notified?

• Is the organization faced with other targeted violence

investigative concerns such as stalking or workplace violence?

Protective services encompass a range of functions, including

protective intelligence and physical protection, designed to

shield potential targets of violent attacks or assassinations.

Visible protectors, such as uniformed officers and security

agents, are deployed to defend against any attempted attack on a

protected person. Other physical protection measures, such as
24

Protective Intelligence and Threat Assessment Investigations

metal detectors, may keep persons with weapons away from a

protected person and deter would-be attackers from trying to

approach with a weapon.

Protective intelligence—a less visible aspect of protection—

consists of programs and systems aimed at identifying and preventing persons with the means and interest to attack a protected

person from getting close enough to mount an attack and, when

possible, reducing the likelihood that they would decide to

mount an attack. Protective intelligence programs are based on

the idea that the risk of violence is minimized if persons with the

interest, capacity, and willingness to mount an attack can be identified and rendered harmless before they approach a protected

person. This involves three key functions:

• Identification of persons who might pose a threat.

• Assessment of persons who are identified as a potential threat.

• Case management of persons and groups deemed a threat to a

protected person.

The second step in developing a threat assessment program

involves determining what is needed to complete protective

intelligence tasks, examining what is needed to conduct threat

assessments, and deciding how to maintain the threat assessment program. Again, several questions must be answered:

• Who will carry out protective intelligence responsibilities?

What kind of staffing is needed?

• How will the knowledge and expertise developed by protective

intelligence investigators be maintained and shared over time?

• How will new investigators learn, and how will experienced

investigators teach?

• What balance of specialized threat assessment expertise and

general investigative experience is desirable?

• Can the protective intelligence program build ways to learn

from its experiences?

• How will case information be stored and retrieved for

individual and aggregated case analysis?
 25

Protective Intelligence and Threat Assessment Investigations

The needs of agencies responsible for protective intelligence

mainly depend on their activities. For instance, an organization

like the U.S. Secret Service, with responsibility for protecting the

President and other national leaders, needs to have the ability to

respond immediately to information that a person or group may

pose a threat to a protected person. Likewise, a police department in a major city may have a substantial need to fulfill ongoing

protective responsibilities as well as intermittent needs to support other targeted violence investigations. A security organization responsible for protecting celebrities may require extensive

protective intelligence abilities. Smaller security organizations or

those with limited or episodic protective responsibilities may

have less extensive needs.

Key Functions of a Protective 

Intelligence Program

A protective intelligence program involves three key functions:

identifying those who might pose a threat, investigating and

assessing those individuals, and engaging in case management

of those who have been deemed a threat to a protected person.

Identification

Identification is the process by which persons who might present a risk to a public official or figure come to the attention of

agencies responsible for protective intelligence.

Some persons self-identify—they call, write, e-mail, or approach

a public official or figure or indicate an unusual or inappropriate

interest in a person. These individuals often give their names or

provide other information that leads to easy identification.

The threatener—someone who communicates a direct, indirect,

or conditional threat—is the classic example of a self-identifier.

Such a person may threaten for various reasons: to warn of a possible attack, to ask to be stopped, to demand help or attention, to

express frustration or anger, or to communicate distress. Threats

should always be investigated; even if a threat is not an early
26

Protective Intelligence and Threat Assessment Investigations

warning of attack, making a threat is usually a violation of law,

which is a valid reason for opening an investigation.

Other persons self-identify by expressing an inappropriate interest in a public official or figure. They may feel that they have (or

should have) a special relationship with the potential target, a

unique assignment or role to play, or extraordinary information

or expertise that must be shared directly with the public official

or figure.

In addition to self-identifying, people also come to the attention

of law enforcement by being noticed by others who:

• Recognize that the behavior of the individual is of concern.

• Believe that the individual should be brought to the attention

of authorities.

• Understand that authorities want to know about persons who

might pose a risk to public officials or figures.

• Know how to contact the proper law enforcement or security

organization (or know someone who knows how to contact

authorities).

Individuals can be brought to the attention of the authorities by

various second parties, including other law enforcement agencies, State agencies, security professionals, family members,

neighbors, coworkers, mental health practitioners, and correctional staff. But before this can happen, protective intelligence

program staff must decide on identification criteria—which kind

of persons the unit wants to be informed about: Those who make

threats against a protected person? Those who indicate to others

that they are considering an attack on a protected person? Those

who demonstrate inappropriate interest in a protected person?

Once identification criteria are determined, decisions must be

made about education: Who should be informed about how to

report cases of potential concern? What should family members,

associates, and staff of a public official or figure know? What

should be said to the public about reporting cases of potential

concern?
 27

Protective Intelligence and Threat Assessment Investigations

Liaison between protective intelligence agencies and the public is

a key function of the identification process. Law enforcement and

security agencies will receive information only if the public is

aware that they have protective intelligence capacities and know

how to contact protective intelligence personnel.

In addition, liaison is important within a given organization and

with other organizations. Access to information is increased

when the protective intelligence unit previously has engaged in

liaison efforts designed to educate organizations and individuals

who may have information on potential threats about the mission

and functions of the protective intelligence unit. People and organizations with information may be more willing to share information if they are aware of the responsibilities of the protective

intelligence unit and if they previously have met or become

acquainted with protective intelligence staff. For instance, information from other city agencies about possible threats to the

mayor’s safety is more likely to come to the police department if

staff know that the police department has a protective intelligence capacity. In a corporate environment, reports about persons of possible concern will come more readily to those

responsible for an executive protection unit if employees know

that the unit exists and how to contact unit staff.

Assessment

After an individual who poses a possible threat to protected persons comes to the attention of agencies responsible for protective intelligence, an initial evaluation is conducted and a decision

is made about whether to conduct an investigation. If an investigation is opened, investigators gather information about the individual and then evaluate the information collected to determine

whether the individual poses a threat to a protected person. The

quality of an assessment is related to both the relevance and

the range of information gathered. Key facts of a case should

be authenticated and corroborated, with appropriate investigative skepticism about the credibility, accuracy, and veracity of

witnesses and informants.
28

Protective Intelligence and Threat Assessment Investigations

Sources of information. Protective intelligence investigators

should make use of all the information available about an individual that will help them answer the fundamental question of

threat assessment investigations: Does this subject pose a threat

to protected persons? Investigators should emphasize factual

data that can be corroborated, rather than the opinions of those

who know (or purport to know) the individual.

Sources of information include interviews with the individual and

those who have had contact with or appear to have information

about the individual (employers, coworkers, neighbors, relatives,

associates, caregivers, arresting police officers), records from

agencies and institutions that have had contact with the individual, writings by or about the individual, and receipts from the

individual’s purchases and travels.

A variety of strategies and tools are used in protective intelligence investigations, including interviews; searches of people,

residences, automobiles, etc.; background checks; reviews of

weapons purchases, credit card purchases, phone records, and

travel verifications; and consultations with threat assessment

professionals.

The processes of information gathering and evaluation occur

simultaneously; they are distinct, but influence each other. Newly

developed information affects the ongoing evaluation of the risks

an individual poses to protectees. At the same time, the evaluation

process may suggest new investigative leads or directions of

inquiry.

Case management

When sufficient information is gathered to permit a full evaluation, a decision is made about whether the individual being investigated poses a threat to a protected person. If investigators

believe that the individual does not pose a risk, the investigation

ends and the case is closed. However, information about closed

cases should generally be retained for a period of at least several

years. An individual may come to an agency’s attention as a
 29

Protective Intelligence and Threat Assessment Investigations

potential threat again, in which case information from the

previous investigation may be invaluable.

If the individual is deemed a threat, a plan to manage the individual

and possible risks is developed and implemented. Such a plan may

be as simple as periodically confirming the whereabouts, for example, of an individual confined to a correctional or mental health

facility for an extended period of time. A case management plan

also may involve a pattern of specified contacts with the individual

and others around the individual—such as family members, police

officers, coworkers, and caregivers—designed to prevent the individual from approaching a protected person and to decrease the

risk of violence posed by the individual. In developing and implementing a case management plan, consultation with threat assessment and other professionals is useful. In all cases, the plan should

include informing targets or their designated protectors.

Once developed, a case management plan is implemented until

the protective intelligence agency decides that an individual no

longer poses a threat of violence. At that point the investigation

is concluded and the case is closed.

Functions and Approaches of the

Case Investigator

Protective intelligence investigations should be based on three

principles—investigative skill, corroboration, and common

sense—that guide investigators as they develop and execute

protective intelligence operations.

Investigative skill

Protective intelligence investigations should be approached

with the inquisitiveness and skepticism that are hallmarks of

other investigations. The central goal of a protective intelligence

investigation is to determine whether an individual has the motive and means to develop or act on an opportunity to attack a

protected person. A primary task of the investigator is to gather

information, some of which may later be used as evidence, that
30

Protective Intelligence and Threat Assessment Investigations

can be used to determine whether the individual poses a threat

to a protected person.

Corroboration

The second component of protective intelligence work is corroboration. Significant facts of a case, including the statements

of an individual who may pose a threat, should be corroborated

whenever possible. This means, for example, that a report

that the individual traveled to a city on a given date should be

viewed skeptically until corroborated; investigators should

attempt to secure copies of travel and lodging receipts, statements of credible witnesses who saw the individual, and so on.

If the individual is to be interviewed, questions regarding recent

activities that would form the basis for corroboration may also

help the investigator form a judgment about the accuracy and

truthfulness of the information gathered during the interview.

Common sense

Protective intelligence investigations, by their nature, involve

considerable discretion and judgment on the part of the investigator. Thus, common sense is necessary. For instance, common

sense would indicate that a person who attends three events

where a protected person is speaking during a period of several

weeks (the last time with a pistol) and who has no plausible

explanation for attending these events is a subject for concern—

even if no direct threats have been made against the protected

person.

Likewise, a man serving multiple life sentences in a maximumsecurity State prison for murdering three people who writes the

Governor saying, “I am committed to killing you by any means

necessary,” may have motives for writing other than a desire to

kill the Governor. Common sense suggests that the letter writer

may be a dangerous person. However, common sense also leads

an investigator to explore other possible motives that might have

led the prisoner to threaten the Governor, such as the wish to

secure transfer to another prison or to increase his status in the

prison population. After such an inquiry, an investigator is better
 31

Protective Intelligence and Threat Assessment Investigations

prepared to conclude whether the letter writer poses a threat to

the Governor.

Building a Database and Sharing Information

Information about the persons who are subjects of threat assessment investigations should be organized and maintained in a

manner that permits search capabilities, efficient retrieval, and

analysis. Some individuals come to the attention of the authorities more than once, sometimes months and even years after the

initial investigation was completed and the case closed. In these

cases, prompt retrieval of case materials fosters an informed

decision of what additional investigation, if any, is needed.

Developing a database also permits later analysis of behavior patterns that come to the attention of threat assessment investigators.

A database containing both anecdotal and statistical information

about individuals who have been investigated could promote

future development of training materials and teaching programs

for agencies with protective intelligence and physical protection

responsibilities.

Creating a database of threat assessment cases is also useful for

interagency cooperation. Attackers and would-be attackers often

consider multiple targets, who may live in different jurisdictions

with various law enforcement agencies and security organizations

responsible for physical protection and protective intelligence.

To facilitate the detection of patterns of behavior in known

would-be attackers, law enforcement agencies should implement

information-sharing programs with other such organizations.

Under most circumstances, law enforcement organizations are

permitted to share such information. In many cases, law enforcement organizations can receive information, even though they

may not provide information to other agencies. Other organizations and individuals often understand these restrictions and

may be willing to give information that may help prevent attacks.
CHAPTER

Conducting a

Threat

Assessment

Investigation

4
 35

Protective Intelligence and Threat Assessment Investigations

Opening a Case

An individual may come to the attention of protective

intelligence professionals after exhibiting inappropriate or

unusual interest in a protected person or by threatening a

protected person. The information may be general (“I’m

going to the State capital to even the score”) or specific (“John

Smith wrote the mayor’s name on a .45 caliber bullet last night”).

The person may be acting alone or as part of a group. Sometimes

an individual is a person acting alone who becomes a fringe member of an extremist group, using the rhetoric and rationale of “the

cause” for personal reasons.

Protective intelligence investigators determine whether the individual is already known to the unit and decide—using criteria

identified during the program development phase—whether to

initiate an investigation. If so, an investigator is assigned to begin

an inquiry.

Inappropriate or unusual interest

Much of the information that initially comes to the attention of

protective intelligence professionals appears on the surface to be

relatively innocuous. When initial information (provided by either

a suspected individual or another person) suggests that the suspected individual has an inappropriate or unusual interest in a

protected person, it is reasonable to presume that the individual

eventually will be deemed to not pose a threat. The investigator’s

task is to search for information that rebuts this presumption and

suggests that the individual does pose a real threat. Often, a relatively brief investigation will confirm that the individual has neither the interest, motive, nor means to mount an attack against

a protected person, thus supporting the presumption that the

individual is not a threat.

However, initial information sometimes suggests that the individual already has taken action on his or her inappropriate or

unusual interest, such as going to the target’s home or office or

approaching the target in a public place. The combination of
36

Protective Intelligence and Threat Assessment Investigations

inappropriate or unusual interest coupled with actions based on

that interest makes the case more serious.

In even more serious cases, the individual’s actions involve weapons-seeking or weapons use. It is then reasonable to presume that

the individual poses a real threat. Investigators of these persons should gather information refuting the assumption that the

individual poses a threat, if such information is available or exists.

Threats

An individual may come to the attention of authorities after making a threat against a protected person or after being accused of

making such a threat. Threats should always be taken seriously

and investigated. Although many people who make threats

against protected persons do not pose a real threat, some make

threats in order to convey a warning that they are prepared to

act. These individuals may interpret a lack of investigative interest in their threats as permission or encouragement to mount an

attack.

Also, some people make threats against protected persons to signal that they are in danger of losing control and hurting someone.

Making a threat is a way for them to get attention (albeit less

direct than desirable) from authorities who they believe can prevent them from acting violently. Ignoring these threats might

make the individual more desperate, possibly increasing the risk

of violence to others, such as family members of the individual.

Occasionally, anonymous threats by phone, letter, or electronic

mail come to the attention of law enforcement authorities. Individuals have various motives for communicating anonymous

threats. ECSP information suggests that a few attackers and nearlethal approachers of prominent persons who made anonymous

threats were trying to warn authorities that they were considering attacks. These individuals were ambivalent about attacking

and were communicating with the hope that they might be

stopped. Yet they did not want to identify themselves and make

it more likely that the attack would be prevented.
 37

Protective Intelligence and Threat Assessment Investigations

Anonymous threats, though rarely acted upon, should be taken

seriously and investigated to the fullest extent possible. Specific

threats indicating that the threatener has plans to attack or that

the threatener may have been in proximity to a protected person

should be regarded with special concern.

Investigating a Case

Once a case has been opened, the protective intelligence investigator develops an investigation plan with the primary goal of

collecting information and evidence that will help determine

whether an individual has the interest, motive, and capacity to

mount an attack on a target.

A protective intelligence investigation differs from other kinds of

assessments of danger because the goal is to prevent a particular

kind of violence: attacks directed against public officials or figures. For example, a parole board may try to assess the likelihood

that an inmate, if released, will commit another crime. A mental

health professional may attempt to predict whether a mentally ill

person is likely to act violently if he or she is not hospitalized.

These are different kinds of evaluations than the assessment

required in a protective intelligence investigation.

Interviewing the subject

Traditionally, protective intelligence investigators have relied on

their interview of the individual who is the focus of a protective

intelligence investigation as a key (if not the key) source of information. But this rule is not ironclad—for example, if the subject is

known to be a member of a radical or militant group, any interview should be considered only within the context of the overall

strategy for investigating the group.

The timing of the interview is often a major question. It usually

makes sense to first gather preliminary information about a

subject’s background and interests before conducting an interview, as background information can guide an investigator

during the interview. Such background information may lead
38

Protective Intelligence and Threat Assessment Investigations

the interviewer to areas relevant to whether the person poses a

threat to particular targets.

Interviews can provide investigators with valuable information

about subjects’ thinking, motives for engaging in the behavior

that initially brought them to the attention of the authorities,

behavior that might be of concern, and leads for further investigation. Interviews may corroborate subjects’ statements and be

the basis for judging their veracity. Interviews also give subjects

the opportunity to tell their personal stories, to be heard, and to

reassess and redirect their behavior away from activities that

concern investigators.

If at all possible, an interview should be conducted in a subject’s

“natural environment”—for example, at home—permitting the

investigator to observe and gather nonverbal information and

evidence that is relevant to the investigation, such as writings,

pictures, and weapons that are within sight. Also, the investigator

will learn about the subject’s overall lifestyle and personality

traits.

Investigators must sometimes interview persons who appear to

be mentally ill. Such interviews often require special patience.

Investigators should remember several basic principles regarding

interviews with mentally ill subjects:

• Any subject, including a mentally ill subject, will behave in

accord with how he or she perceives reality. Thus, to understand how a mentally ill subject has behaved or may behave in

the future, investigators must learn how the person perceives

reality. For example, a subject who believes that aliens are controlling his mind and telling him to attack the Governor may

feel that he is being forced to stalk the Governor, even though

he sees himself as generally law-abiding and knows that attacking the Governor is illegal. An investigator who dismisses this

thinking as crazy, concluding that the subject is unlikely to act,

and who stops the interview may not explore whether the subject has made efforts to get a weapon or travel to sites where

the Governor is likely to be.
 39

Protective Intelligence and Threat Assessment Investigations

• People, including those who are mentally ill, are more likely to

reveal their thoughts and actions when treated with respect.

Mentally ill subjects who perceive their interviewers as interested in hearing what they have to say are more likely to tell

their stories than those who feel humiliated or scorned.

• Someone who is acutely or chronically mentally ill may still be

able to think clearly in some areas and to determine whether

an investigator is speaking truthfully. Interviewers who use a

style that is clear, direct, and nonjudgmental are more likely

to solicit useful information than those using an approach in

which they pretend to agree with a subject’s delusions. An

interviewer needs to be an active listener and to communicate

a genuine interest in hearing and understanding the subject’s

story, no matter how outlandish it may seem. However, listening and understanding do not mean agreeing; an investigator

should take care not to inadvertently reinforce the views of a

delusional subject. Respectful skepticism will elicit more useful information: “I haven’t had that experience, but I’m very

interested in what you believe.”

Although interviews can provide valuable information, relying too

heavily on interviews does present problems. The information

provided by the subject may be incomplete, misleading, or inaccurate. The interviewer may fail to solicit the information that is

most relevant to the protective intelligence strategy called for in

the investigation. The interviewee may present different information at different points in time, depending on his or her current

circumstances, degree of desperation, mental health treatment,

or other factors. In some cases, a subject’s mental condition may

be worsened by the interview.

Content of a protective intelligence investigation

Protective intelligence investigations differ from many other

kinds of investigations in that the ultimate goal of these investigations is to prevent an attack, not to secure an arrest or conviction

or to verify facts. Thus, any errors should be made on the side of

safety and violence prevention.
40

Protective Intelligence and Threat Assessment Investigations

Corroborated information and evidence. A primary task of a

protective intelligence investigator is to seek and collect information and evidence to corroborate the statements of the subject

of the investigation. Corroborated information about the

individual’s thinking and behavior facilitates assessment of the

subject’s interests, motives, and capacity to attempt to attack a

protected person.

Corroborated evidence is more useful to investigators than subjective information and opinions. For instance, in a more traditional investigation, a detective would not ask a subject’s wife,

“Do you think he would ever pass a bogus check?” Likewise, asking the relative of a subject or a mental health professional questions such as “Do you think he is the type of person who would

try to attack the mayor?” are rarely useful.

Areas of inquiry. A protective intelligence investigation of a

subject should seek information in five areas:

The facts of the situation that initially brought the subject to the

attention of the authorities. The first area of inquiry concerns how

the subject came to the attention of the protective intelligence

unit. In cases where the subject went to the mayor’s office with

“special information only for the mayor that will keep the city

safe,” the answer is obvious. But other situations may be less

clear. For example, a threatening letter from the county jail to a

judge signed John Doe, Inmate 502, may have been written by

inmate Jones to get Doe into trouble. An anonymous call to the

local police by a “concerned citizen” about Mary Smith’s disparaging comments about the mayor and her recent purchase of a

gun may be from a disgruntled employee who hopes to embarrass her by a visit from law enforcement agents. Providers of

information may have multiple motives, and eyewitness accounts

of people’s behavior are notoriously inaccurate. Protective intelligence investigators should carefully establish the facts of a case

to determine if the subject being reported is a victim and if the

“informant” is the true threat.

General information about the subject. Three kinds of general

information about a subject are gathered in a protective intelligence
 41

Protective Intelligence and Threat Assessment Investigations

investigation: identifiers, background information, and

information about the subject’s current life situation and

circumstances.

• Identifiers. Identifying information (identifiers) includes the

following:

❍ Name and aliases.

❍ Date of birth.

❍ Social security and military identification numbers.

❍ Current address.

❍ Names and addresses of close relatives.

❍ Physical description and current photograph.

❍ Handwriting samples.

• Background information. Background information includes

the following:

❍ Education and training.

❍ Criminal history.

❍ History of violent behavior.

❍ Military history.

❍ History of expertise with and use of weapons.

❍ Marital and relationship history.

❍ Employment history.

❍ Mental health history (especially involuntary psychiatric

commitments, episodes of depression or despair, including

suicidal thinking and behavior, and violent behavior while

mentally ill).

❍ History of grievances.

❍ History of harassing others.

❍ Interest in extremist ideas or radical groups.

❍ Travel history, especially in the previous year.
42

Protective Intelligence and Threat Assessment Investigations

There are four purposes for gathering background information:

to learn about past behaviors, interests, and lifestyles of subjects that may influence their current interests, motives, or

capacity to attempt an attack; to develop sources of information, if further inquiry into a subject’s life (past and present) is

needed; to develop information that could help investigators

locate the subjects in the future; and to assist in managing

cases that are deemed serious.

• Current life situation and circumstances. A third area of

general information sought in protective intelligence investigations concerns the current living arrangements and environment of the subject being investigated. Inquiry about a

person’s current situation is based upon the knowledge that

some persons engage in extreme behavior or reach out to law

enforcement authorities when they are in transition, in crisis,

or in an unstable living situation.

Protective intelligence investigators should consider a number

of issues related to a subject’s current situation. Is the subject

in a stable living situation, with basic needs for food, clothing,

shelter, and human contact being met? Is the subject currently

employed, and how stable is the subject’s employment situation? Is the subject currently or soon likely to be in transition

or crisis? For example, has the subject recently left a marriage,

job, or community? Will the subject soon be discharged from a

correctional or mental health institution? How does the stability of the subject’s current living situation compare with past

living situations and with the subject’s likely living situation in

the near future? Does the subject appear to be on a downward

course? For example, has the subject recently appeared to be

giving up hope, becoming more desperate, losing important

contacts and supports, or becoming suicidal? Who is the best

source to identify and convey this information?

Information about attack-related behaviors. ECSP examinations of

the thinking and behaviors of persons who have attacked or approached to attack prominent persons in the United States suggest

that many attacks and near-lethal approaches are preceded by

discernible attack-related behavior. This behavior is often observed by people in the subject’s life; the protective intelligence
 43

Protective Intelligence and Threat Assessment Investigations

investigator who discovers such behavior in a subject will

recognize it as a warning sign.

The idea that most assassins and near-lethal approachers engage

in similar attack-related behaviors is consistent with an understanding of what is involved in mounting an attack on a protected

person. An individual must select a target, locate the target,

secure a weapon, travel to the vicinity of the target, and try to

thwart whatever security measures are in place. These efforts

may provide clues, indicating that the subject being investigated

has been planning an attack. Protective intelligence investigators

should look for evidence of attack-related behaviors, which can

be categorized by whether or not weapons are involved.

Behaviors of concern in a threat assessment include:

• An interest in assassination. Manifestations of such an interest include gathering information about murder or assassination, writing to or about assassins, following news accounts

of violence directed at public figures, visiting sites connected

with assassinations, and emulating assassins.

• Ideas and plans about attacking a public figure or official.

Evidence that a person has been thinking about or planning an

attack may be revealed in comments to others, notes in a diary

or journal, recent attention to the activities or travel of a public person, inquiries about law enforcement protective measures, travel patterns, attempts to breach security, or recent

efforts to secure a weapon.

• Communicating an inappropriate interest in a public official

or figure, especially comments that express or imply an

interest in attacking the person. ECSP information suggests

that attackers and near-lethal approachers rarely communicate

direct threats to their targets or to law enforcement agencies,

but many communicate information that indicates their intention to harm a target to relatives, coworkers, neighbors, or

others.

• Visiting a site linked to a protectee. Appearance at an event

or site where a public official or figure is, is believed to be, or
44

Protective Intelligence and Threat Assessment Investigations

will be in the future is significant. Visits to these sites, when

there is no obvious reason for the subject’s appearance there,

may be evidence of attack-related behavior.

• Approaching a protectee. To attack a protected person, an

individual usually must travel to an event or site where the

public official or figure is scheduled to be. Information that an

individual has approached a target by visiting a site under

these circumstances may be cause for concern.

Evidence of attack-related behavior involving a weapon should be

taken very seriously by protective intelligence investigators. Of

special interest is information about subjects purchasing or otherwise acquiring a weapon around the same time as they develop

or hold an inappropriate or unusual interest in a public official or

figure. In these circumstances, investigators must determine the

intended use of the weapon.

Investigators should presume that an individual who has engaged

in attack-related behavior involving a weapon or who has

breached security is interested in attacking if given the opportunity. Investigative efforts in such a case should focus on ruling

out the possibility of an attack. For example, investigators might

establish that the individual had valid reasons, unrelated to a

possible attack on a protected person, to carry a weapon or to

travel to a certain site.

Motives. A thorough protective intelligence investigation involves

careful attention to a subject’s motives, because motives may

determine whether a public official or figure is being targeted for

attack and, if so, which persons are at greatest risk.

As noted in chapter 2, the 83 American assassins and near-lethal

approachers studied by ECSP researchers had some combinations of eight motives. However, U.S. Secret Service case experience suggests that the motives of protective intelligence subjects

who did not engage in near-lethal behavior have included the

following:

• Bringing themselves to the attention of persons they perceived

to be authorities.
 45

Protective Intelligence and Threat Assessment Investigations

• Instigating their involuntary commitment to a mental health or

correctional institution.

• Effecting change in a current living situation viewed as intolerable

(for example, to be moved from one prison to another).

• Obtaining help, e.g., being stopped from acting violently.

• Getting someone else in trouble.

• Obtaining attention or notoriety or bringing a concern to

public attention.

• Achieving a special relationship with a public official or figure.

• Correcting a perceived wrong.

• Being injured or killed.

An investigator’s opinion about the rationality of the subject’s

motives has no bearing on whether the subject will take action.

Because subjects’ acts are based on their perceptions of reality,

the investigator’s views will not determine a subject’s future

course of conduct. It may not matter whether the motives are

illogical or rational, foolish or realistic, self-destructive or in the

individual’s best interests.

For example, a subject who believes that she is a relative of a

public figure and that she has been invited to move into the

public figure’s residence is unlikely to be dissuaded by an

investigator’s rational analysis. Such a person is likely to continue

to believe that she is related to the public figure despite facts to

the contrary. The interviewer’s tasks in such a case are to understand how the subject views her situation, not to reinforce any

delusional ideas, and to try to gauge what action the subject

might take based on her perceptions and beliefs.

The motive of suicide can also be a factor in near-lethal approaches or attacks on public figures and officials. This phenomenon—“suicide by cop”—has received considerable attention in

the past 10 years. An individual who wants to die, but is not willing or able to take his or her own life, may believe that instigating

gunfire by approaching a protected person with a weapon is a

way to get killed.
46

Protective Intelligence and Threat Assessment Investigations

When coupled with an individual’s wish for fame or notoriety,

suicide becomes an even more ominous motive. An individual

whose motives are notoriety and suicide may consider attacking

a political leader, even though he or she has no political interest

and no negative feelings about the protected person. The only

issue that matters is that the public official is protected by armed

law enforcement officers and will be accompanied by news media

that will record the assailant’s death.

Target selection. Many attackers and near-lethal approachers may

consider several potential targets and change their primary target

several times.

For example, the published diary of Arthur Bremer (who shot

Alabama Governor George Wallace in 1972) suggests that his first

target was President Richard Nixon. After unsuccessfully attempting to position himself to shoot the President during a trip to

Ottawa, Canada, Bremer shifted his interest to Wallace, by then a

Presidential candidate. Other near-lethal attackers have shifted

from one target to another based on their perception of the importance of a given target. One subject shifted between attacking

a Governor, a Senator, and a Presidential candidate, settling on

the candidate because he thought a “Presidential candidate is

much more powerful.”

When gathering information, therefore, investigators should be

alert to the possibility that a subject has considered, is simultaneously considering, or might consider in the future a number of

public officials or figures as possible targets. Selection of a primary target may depend on many factors, such as the subject’s

motives, ability to travel, financial situation, and opportunities to

approach a target, as well as the perceived importance of, the

media attention given to, and the perceived security afforded a

target.
CHAPTER

Evaluating a Threat

Assessment Case

5
 49

Protective Intelligence and Threat Assessment Investigations

Aprotective intelligence investigation, at least in part, is an

effort to predict specific future violence. Two points about

violence prediction are worth consideration. First, violence prediction is conditional—not a yes-no, “this person

will be violent or will never be violent” proposition. A prediction

of violence is a statement that, given certain circumstances or

conditions, a specified risk exists that a particular subject will act

violently toward a particular target.

Second, targeted violence is different than other kinds of violence, and attacks on public officials or figures appear to be a

specific kind of targeted violence. An attack on a mayor, Governor, or President is a different kind of behavior than an armed

robbery, rape, or attack on a roommate. A murder of a celebrity

or a business leader is a different kind of violence than a murder

of a parent or neighbor. ECSP information about attackers and

would-be attackers of prominent persons suggests that some

factors that have been seen as general predictors of violence,

such as a history of violence, may not specifically predict

violence toward a public official or figure.

Principles to Guide a Protective 

Intelligence Evaluation

After information about a subject has been gathered, this material must be organized and evaluated. A two-stage process is suggested. First, information should be examined for evidence of

behavior and conditions that would be consistent with the likelihood of a violent attack on a public person. In the second stage of

evaluation, the protective intelligence investigator will determine

whether a subject appears to be moving toward an attack and, if

so, how rapidly.

Protective intelligence investigators should conduct threat assessments using two principles discussed in chapter 2 as guides:

• Assassination is the result of an understandable and often

discernible process of thinking and behavior.
50

Protective Intelligence and Threat Assessment Investigations

• Assassination stems from an interaction of the potential

attacker, event, situation, and target.

Questions to Ask in a Threat Assessment

Investigators should ask a number of questions of both the subject and collateral sources throughout the investigation. The

answers to these questions will guide the evaluation:

• What motivated the subject to make the statement or take the

action that caused him or her to come to attention?

• What, if anything, has the subject communicated to someone

else (target, law enforcement, family, friends, colleagues,

associates) or written in a diary or journal concerning his or

her intentions?

• Has the subject shown an interest in any of the following?

❍ Assassins or assassination.

❍ Weapons (including recent acquisition of a weapon).

❍ Militant or radical ideas/groups.

❍ Murders, murderers, mass murderers, and workplace

violence and stalking incidents.

• Is there evidence that the subject has engaged in menacing,

harassing, and/or stalking-type behaviors? Has the subject

engaged in attack-related behaviors? These behaviors combine

an inappropriate interest with any of the following:

❍ Developing an attack idea or plan.

❍ Approaching, visiting, and/or following the target.

❍ Approaching, visiting, and/or following the target with a

weapon.

❍ Attempting to circumvent security.

❍ Assaulting or attempting to assault a target.
 51

Protective Intelligence and Threat Assessment Investigations

• Does the subject have a history of mental illness involving

command hallucinations, delusional ideas, feelings of persecution, etc., with indications that the subject has acted on those

beliefs?

• How organized is the subject? Does the subject have the ability

to plan and execute a violent action against a target?

• Is there evidence that the subject is experiencing desperation

and/or despair? Has the subject experienced a recent personal

loss and/or loss of status? Is the subject now, or has the subject

ever been, suicidal?

• Is the subject’s “story” consistent with his or her actions?

• Are those who know the subject concerned that he or she

might take action based on inappropriate ideas?

• What factors in the subject’s life and/or environment might

increase or decrease the likelihood that the subject will

attempt to attack a target (or targets)?

In addition, an investigator should address troubling or unresolved issues about a particular case, which could include missing information or new information that might clarify the

subject’s motives and interests.

Attacks on public officials and figures are rare; all cases that are

serious enough to be opened deserve a thorough investigation.

Usually, information gathered during the investigation will lead to

the conclusion that the subject does not pose a threat. However,

sometimes the facts cause the investigator to become concerned

about the risk a subject poses. These cases require particularly

painstaking investigative efforts and consideration.

In most cases, an investigator should consult with other professionals before drawing a conclusion about whether a subject

poses a threat to a public official or figure. Another investigator

with protective intelligence experience is often the most effective

consultant. However, people with special expertise that might

pertain to the facts of a given case can sometimes offer a useful
52

Protective Intelligence and Threat Assessment Investigations

perspective. For example, a mental health professional who has

experience assessing mentally ill persons who act violently and

who is familiar with the operations of law enforcement agencies

could help assess information about a mentally ill subject.

Documenting and keeping a record of the information gathered

and evaluated in a protective intelligence investigation is vital.

A well-documented record permits others to review the case and

offer assistance, and shows that the investigation was performed

with care and attention. Also, a carefully documented case file

provides baseline information about a subject’s thinking and

actions at a certain point in time, which can be invaluable if the

subject is investigated again or if future investigators need to

determine whether the subject has changed thought or behavior

patterns.

Protection

Those charged with protection of the targeted public official

or figure must be notified about cases of concern, and the information should be incorporated into protection activities. The

structure and operations of an organization should determine

how threat assessment data are connected to protection activities. For instance, if an organization has one unit responsible for

protection and one for threat assessment functions, this often

can be accomplished through intramural briefings. Briefing of

protectors usually includes a description of a subject’s identifiers, behavior, interests, and current location and situation.

However, such briefings should be two-way exchanges of information, because protectors often have information that can be

important in a protective intelligence investigation as well as in

followup investigations used in monitoring the subject.
CHAPTER

Managing a

Protective

Intelligence Case

6
 55

Protective Intelligence and Threat Assessment Investigations

I

n most protective intelligence cases, based on the information

gathered, investigators determine that an individual does not

pose a risk to a public person. The majority of these cases are

closed following the investigation, unless a criminal violation

occurred (for example, the subject threatened a public official) or

protectors feel that the subject may harm a person other than the

original target. If a criminal violation has occurred, the case may

be presented to the prosecutor’s office for possible charges. If

investigators believe that a subject is a threat to an unprotected

person, they can attempt to direct the subject to the appropriate

resources or otherwise intervene to prevent violence.

When a thorough investigation suggests that the subject has the

interest, motive, and ability to attempt an attack on a public official or figure, the investigator’s task is to manage the case so that

violence does not occur. Successful case management involves

considerable time and effort and is composed of two functions:

efforts directed at protection (discussed in chapter 5), so that

a target is shielded from the potential assailant, and efforts

directed at monitoring, controlling, and redirecting the subject.

Monitoring, Controlling, and

Redirecting the Subject

The central premise of case management efforts is that violence

directed against a protected person is in no one’s best interest,

including that of the potential assailant. Coordinated, consistent

efforts to tell the potential attacker that an attack will not be

permitted and that it is not in anyone’s best interest to attack

can increase the chance that a subject will abandon the idea of

assassination.

Unless there is reason to do otherwise, the subject should be

made aware of the investigation and told that unacceptable

interest in a protected person and unacceptable behavior must

change. This message should be communicated to the subject

clearly and professionally. However, in certain investigations—

for example, those involving a member of a radical or militant

group—it may not be appropriate to alert the subject.
56

Protective Intelligence and Threat Assessment Investigations

Many people considered a threat want attention and will accept

ongoing contact with the law enforcement or security organization responsible for protective intelligence. Therefore, the subject

should be asked to cooperate with being monitored by the investigator and the law enforcement or security agency. For example,

the agency might ask the subject to report all planned travel and

to check in with the investigator on a regular basis.

Many subjects see law enforcement officers as important authority figures in their lives. Regular, respectful interviews, in which

investigators listen while delivering a consistent, clear message

about unacceptable behavior, are key to supporting these subjects as they attempt to change. For a mentally ill subject, simply

reinforcing the idea that he or she must remain connected to and

cooperative with mental health treatment professionals may be

sufficient. Other cases, such as those involving terrorists, call for

different strategies.

Effective case management is aided by a systems perspective.

That is, investigators should identify existing social systems that

might help them manage persons who are potential threats. Social systems that might work cooperatively with the investigator

to engage, neutralize, and redirect the potential attacker include

the following:

• Criminal justice system (prosecutors, courts, probation

officers, correctional officials).

• Health and mental health care organizations (managed care

organizations, public mental health agencies, local hospitals).

• Social services organizations.

• Religious organizations to which the subject belongs or in

which the subject is interested.

• Community organizations.

• Family and friends.
 57

Protective Intelligence and Threat Assessment Investigations

Ending Monitoring

The purpose of connecting the subject to services and systems

that will aid and encourage change is ultimately to enable the

investigator to discontinue monitoring. After monitoring is ended

and a case is closed, the subject may continue to be involved with

service systems that aid successful functioning.

The investigator will be able to end monitoring after performing

the following tasks:

• Assessing whether (and to what extent) the subject has

changed unacceptable thinking and behavior over time.

• Developing and supporting intervention strategies that

encourage and help the subject to change.

Sources of postassessment information

To evaluate changes in behavior, an investigator should develop

a baseline of the subject’s behaviors of concern and then collect

information over time about the subject from multiple and consistent sources. Such a strategy takes into account the likelihood that

the living conditions may change, as may the law enforcement or

security staff with responsibility for ongoing investigation of the

subject.

To permit later comparisons to baseline behavior, the investigator should write detailed descriptions of the subject’s initial

attack-related behavior and worrisome thinking and actions when

he or she was first deemed a threat. A list also should be compiled of persons and organizations who can be contacted at

regular intervals for information about the subject’s behavior.

Collateral-source information can corroborate or clarify information gained directly from interviews with a subject during the

case management process. An interview with such a subject

might be followed by interviews with others who are in regular

contact with the subject to determine whether he or she behaves

in a manner consistent with his or her statements to the investigator. For example, a prison inmate who tells an investigator that

he is no longer interested in the Governor but who is described
58

Protective Intelligence and Threat Assessment Investigations

by the shift commander on the cell block as being intensely interested each time the Governor appears on the news might be

suspect in other comments about his interests and behaviors.

Similarly, seeking an opinion from a doctor in a mental health unit

who has little contact with a subject about the likelihood that the

patient will try to kill the Governor may prove less useful than interviewing a mental health worker who frequently interacts with

the patient.

Closing a Case

A protective intelligence investigator can close a case when he or

she is able to:

• Articulate why a subject was originally considered to pose a

threat.

• Document changes in the subject’s thinking and behavior that

negate the original concerns.

• Describe why the subject is unlikely to pose a future threat to

protected persons.

If postassessment contacts have been made, closing the case involves ensuring that the subject understands that the protective

intelligence investigator will initiate no further contact. For some

subjects, cessation of contact with the investigator may be a

desired goal and a relief; for others, the thought of ending contact

with officials who they viewed as helping them may be difficult.

In most cases, therefore, it makes sense that discontinuance of

contact be gradual, rather than abrupt. Ongoing contact with

other organizations, such as mental health or social services

agencies, can help these subjects function after their contact

with the law enforcement or security organization has ended.

Conclusion

The ECSP has developed knowledge about assassins, attackers,

and near-lethal approachers and about other forms of targeted

violence. This guide has incorporated this information and is

offered as an aid for law enforcement agencies and other organi-
 59

Protective Intelligence and Threat Assessment Investigations

zations to formulate their own processes and protocols

for investigating, evaluating, and managing people who are

considered threats to public officials and figures.

The ECSP underscores an important point: Nearly all citizens of the

United States share the task of preventing assassinations and attacks—physical protection and protective intelligence are not just

the responsibility of law enforcement and security organizations.

The public, other law enforcement and security organizations,

mental health and social services agencies, the private sector, and

the media can help identify, assess, and manage potential attackers

and thus help to prevent attacks and assassinations.

Notes

1. Fein, Robert A., and Bryan Vossekuil, Preventing Assassination:

Secret Service Exceptional Case Study Project, unpublished report,

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice

Programs, National Institute of Justice, and U.S. Department of

the Treasury, U.S. Secret Service, 1997.

2. A near-lethal approacher is defined here as an individual who

exhibits behaviors that suggest he or she is preparing for an

attack on another person and who, without intervention, might

attack. Such behaviors include acquiring a weapon and traveling to

a site where the target is believed to be. An attacker is a person

who actually mounts an attack, while an assassin is a successful

attacker.
To find out more information about the National Institute of Justice,

please contact:

National Criminal Justice Reference Service

Box 6000

Rockville, MD 20849–6000

800–851–3420

e-mail: askncjrs@ncjrs.org

To obtain an electronic version of this document, access the NIJ Web site

(http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij).

If you have any questions, call or e-mail NCJRS.
About the National Institute of Justice

The National Institute of Justice (NIJ), a component of the Office of Justice Programs,

is the research agency of the U.S. Department of Justice. Created by the Omnibus

Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended, NIJ is authorized to support

research, evaluation, and demonstration programs, development of technology, and

both national and international information dissemination. Specific mandates of the

Act direct NIJ to:

• Sponsor special projects and research and development programs that will improve

and strengthen the criminal justice system and reduce or prevent crime.

• Conduct national demonstration projects that employ innovative or promising

approaches for improving criminal justice.

• Develop new technologies to fight crime and improve criminal justice.

• Evaluate the effectiveness of criminal justice programs and identify programs that

promise to be successful if continued or repeated.

• Recommend actions that can be taken by Federal, State, and local governments as

well as by private organizations to improve criminal justice.

• Carry out research on criminal behavior.

• Develop new methods of crime prevention and reduction of crime and delinquency.

In recent years, NIJ has greatly expanded its initiatives, the result of the Violent Crime

Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (the Crime Act), partnerships with other

Federal agencies and private foundations, advances in technology, and a new international focus. Some examples of these new initiatives:

• Exploring key issues in community policing, violence against women, violence

within the family, sentencing reforms, and specialized courts such as drug courts.

• Developing dual-use technologies to support national defense and local law

enforcement needs.

• Establishing four regional National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology

Centers and a Border Research and Technology Center.

• Strengthening NIJ’s links with the international community through participation in

the United Nations network of criminological institutes, the U.N. Criminal Justice

Information Network, UNOJUST (United Nations Online Justice Clearinghouse),

and the NIJ International Center.

• Improving the online capability of NIJ’s criminal justice information clearinghouse.

• Establishing the ADAM (Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring) program—formerly the

Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) program—to increase the number of drug-testing sites

and study drug-related crime.

The Institute Director establishes the Institute’s objectives, guided by the priorities of

the Office of Justice Programs, the Department of Justice, and the needs of the criminal

justice field. The Institute actively solicits the views of criminal justice professionals

and researchers in the continuing search for answers that inform public policymaking

in crime and justice.