The Importance of Violence Risk Mitigation Plans

Risk assessments are static snapshots, but threat mitigation plans provide the active, ongoing interventions needed to prevent real-world violence.

• By Brian Van Brunt, Ed.D., Dr. Amy Murphy
• September 18, 2026

Behavioral threat assessment, recently being discussed under the new term title Behavioral Threat Assessment and Management (Reeves & Brock, 2018; NATC & PBIS, 2025), involves a three-phase process: gathering contextual information about a potential risk or threat, assigning a level of concern, and developing interventions designed to match the level of concern through a threat mitigation plan. Each phase is essential, but risk assessment often receives the greatest attention.

A violence risk assessment is a snapshot, a polaroid picture that reflects the information available at a particular moment, under a particular set of circumstances. Risk, however, is dynamic. It can increase or decrease as relationships change, grievances deepen, losses accumulate, access to weapons shifts, treatment begins or ends, and protective connections strengthen or disappear.

A mitigation plan turns the assessment from a conclusion into an ongoing safety process. A violence risk assessment without an active mitigation strategy is little more than a medical diagnosis without a treatment plan.

Seven Qualities of a Successful Threat Mitigation Plan

Individualized and behavior focused. Any plan should identify the specific conditions contributing to concern and match them with practical interventions. It should not rely primarily on diagnoses, labels, stereotypes or generic interventions.

Directly connected to identified risk factors. Each intervention should address a concern uncovered during the assessment while strengthening existing protective factors whenever possible. For example, social isolation may call for structured connection, weapon access may require safety restrictions, and an escalating grievance may require conflict management and monitoring.

Clear, practical and measurable. The plan should document what actions will occur, who handles each action, when they will be completed, and how progress will be evaluated. Vague recommendations such as “monitor the situation” are less useful than specific responsibilities and review dates.

Multi-system and collaborative. Effective mitigation rarely depends on one department or professional. Plans may require coordination among behavioral threat assessment teams, counseling providers, law enforcement, human resources, student affairs, family members, academic staff or community resources.

Balanced between support and accountability. The plan should maintain clearly defined behavioral expectations and communicate the consequences for noncompliance. Support without accountability may not interrupt harmful behavior, while discipline without support may increase isolation, instability, or grievance.

Dynamic and regularly reassessed. Risk changes over time. The plan should include regular review, case-specific indicators of increasing and decreasing risk, methods for gathering new information, warning signs that will trigger reassessment, and how the team will determine whether the interventions are working, with flexibility to revise the plan as circumstances change.

Sustained through transitions and separation. Suspension, termination, hospitalization, withdrawal, or referral does not automatically eliminate risk. Successful plans anticipate transitions, reduce gaps in services, coordinate handoffs when appropriate and maintain safety procedures until the concern have been meaningfully stabilized.

This last challenge requires deeper consideration. Employees may resign or be terminated. Students may withdraw, be suspended, or be expelled. Patients may be referred to another provider. These actions may be necessary to protect others, enforce boundaries, or maintain accountability. However, separation should not be confused with safety.

Removal can disrupt access to stabilizing relationships, treatment, housing, employment, structure, and social connection. It may also intensify an existing grievance or create a new sense of humiliation, rejection, or desperation. The person may no longer be physically present within the organization, but the underlying risk factors may remain unchanged or become more pronounced. From a threat management perspective, the person has not disappeared. The institution or workplace may simply have lost visibility.

When considering removal, attend to the loss of leverage and optics (Van Brunt, 2015). Leverage refers to using an individual’s remorse as a motivational catalyst to connect them with treatment, academic planning, job opportunities, counseling and other supports, while optics refers to maintaining enough contact to recognize whether risk is improving or escalating. Although separation may sometimes be necessary, it can reduce both support and visibility and, in some cases, accelerate movement toward violence. In these cases, consider reviewing alternatives to using the subject’s remorse, as well as addressing ongoing threat monitoring.

Ultimately, the goal of behavioral threat assessment is not simply to classify risk. It is to reduce the likelihood of harm. Behavioral threat assessment helps organize information and determine urgency, but violence risk mitigation plans create the pathway toward safer outcomes. This assessment is the beginning of the process, not its endpoint. Threat and risk management requires threat professionals and teams to remain engaged, monitor change, coordinate interventions, and adjust their approach until the concern has been responsibly stabilized.

This article originally appeared in the September/October 2026 issue of Campus Security Today.