A survey of risk and threat assessors: Processes, skills, and characteristics in terrorism risk assessment.

Abstract

Threat and risk assessment are increasingly an integral part of counterterrorism. This process currently relies heavily on the judgment of professionals, who play a vital role in a potentially high-stakes environment. However, thus far, little research focuses on the professionals themselves. This study provides insight into the experiences and opinions of professional threat and risk assessors, particularly regarding how they conduct terrorism assessments, their expectations for training, and the experience and characteristics of those that conduct them. An online survey solicited quantitative and qualitative responses from a sample of 41 professional threat assessors. The findings highlight the training and experience required differs greatly across different disciplines involved, and the importance of considering the context in which threat and risk assessments takes place. These findings also highlight cognitive abilities and personality characteristics that may be desirable for risk assessors in this context and provide avenues for further research to examine the role of these factors in risk assessment.

EXPO-12: Development and validation of the Exposure to Violent Extremism Scale.

“…Understanding the role of exposure in violent extremism is a key concern of relevant stakeholders, including practitioners charged with managing risk among vulnerable populations. Such stakeholders often make use of risk and/or threat assessment tools with differing methodologies (Salman & Gill, 2020). Many of these tools consider, either implicitly or explicitly, exposure to violent extremism as a risk factor for engagement in violent extremism.…”

The empirical grounding of a framework for the risk assessment of violent extremism and other forms of group-based violence.

“…While all participants agreed that assessors should be required to have professional training to conduct these assessments, which is consistent with what we and others (i.e., Logan & Sellers, 2021) recommend, opinions of the type of training required were varied and many views diverged from professional guidance in the field (i.e., the minority held views that training in a specific tool or SPJ protocol, training in general threat/risk assessment principles, and training in understanding of terrorism risk/protective factors should be expected for those conducting terrorism risk assessments). Given the low response rate Salman and Gill (2020) reported ( N = 41) following their attempted recruitment of all threat assessment professionals who are members of four large professional organizations (i.e., African Association of Threat Assessment Professionals, Association of European Threat Assessment Professionals, Asia Pacific Association of Threat Assessment Professionals, Association of Threat Assessment Professionals, and Canadian Association of Threat Assessment Professionals), we have low confidence in the generalizability of the results. Nonetheless, we highlight this finding given how divergent the findings of Salman and Gill (2020) were from professional guidance in the field.…”

“…Given the low response rate Salman and Gill (2020) reported ( N = 41) following their attempted recruitment of all threat assessment professionals who are members of four large professional organizations (i.e., African Association of Threat Assessment Professionals, Association of European Threat Assessment Professionals, Asia Pacific Association of Threat Assessment Professionals, Association of Threat Assessment Professionals, and Canadian Association of Threat Assessment Professionals), we have low confidence in the generalizability of the results. Nonetheless, we highlight this finding given how divergent the findings of Salman and Gill (2020) were from professional guidance in the field.…”

“…In view of these challenges, several scholars have made calls to action for the development of structured professional judgment (SPJ) 3 instruments for violent extremism and terrorist risk assessment (e.g., Monahan, 2012). Since their call, several instruments have been developed to address this gap in research and practice (Salman & Gill, 2020). Four tools are commonly cited for the assessment of risk of violent extremism: (a) the Violent Extremism Risk Assessment Version 2 revised ( VERA-2R ; Pressman et al, 2016), (b) the Extremist Risk Guidelines ( ERG-22+ ; Lloyd & Dean, 2015), (c) the Multi-Level Guidelines ( MLG ; Cook et al, 2013, 2015), and (d) the Terrorist Radicalization Assessment Protocol-18 ( TRAP-18 ; Meloy, 2017).…”

“…We want to emphasize the importance of a thoughtful approach to the adoption of risk assessment instruments and frameworks and the importance of specific expertise in this area of practice. These considerations seem particularly pertinent given the recent findings from Salman and Gill (2020), who surveyed 41 threat assessment professionals on their opinions regarding the process, skills, and characteristics of those who conduct risk assessment of terroristic violence. While all participants agreed that assessors should be required to have professional training to conduct these assessments, which is consistent with what we and others (i.e., Logan & Sellers, 2021) recommend, opinions of the type of training required were varied and many views diverged from professional guidance in the field (i.e., the minority held views that training in a specific tool or SPJ protocol, training in general threat/risk assessment principles, and training in understanding of terrorism risk/protective factors should be expected for those conducting terrorism risk assessments).…”