Building Effective Threat-Prevention Systems: Insight from Wood County, Ohio

In the evolving landscape of targeted violence and terrorism prevention, local jurisdictions are increasingly taking proactive, community-based approaches. A recent evaluation out of Wood County, Ohio offers valuable, grounded lessons for practitioners, policymakers, and community stakeholders.

Why this matters

As the article notes, unlike many counter-terrorism functions which are covert or intelligence-driven, prevention efforts—particularly those that focus on youth and behavioral threat assessment and management —are overt and therefore lend themselves to evaluation and evidence-building. In other words: if we are going to invest in programs to prevent targeted violence, we must also invest in measuring how well they work, so we can refine, improve and scale them.

The Wood County model—supported by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Science & Technology Directorate and evaluated by CNA —offers eight key findings that can help jurisdictions develop more effective behavioral threat assessment and management (BTAM) systems.

Below are several of the most salient take-aways, along with reflections on how they might apply to other communities.

Key lessons & implications

1. The critical role of parents

   
   

   The evaluation highlights how parents or guardians play a pivotal role in the identification, referral, and ongoing support/management phases of youth threat-assessment and intervention: they control much of the flow of information and treatment participation. HSToday

   
   

   Implication: BTAM teams and school/community-based programs must proactively engage parents, clarify expectations, build trust, and position the process as supportive rather than punitive.

   
   

2. Pros and cons of different cadence/threshold approaches

   
   

   The study observes that BTAM teams face a trade‐off: a lower threshold and frequent meetings (inclusive approach) can increase early identification and build confidence, but may risk over-labelling youth or stigmatizing mental-health issues. Conversely, a higher-threshold/exclusive approach reduces stigma but may miss early opportunities. HSToday

   
   

   Implication: Jurisdictions should thoughtfully design their cadence and threshold policies, calibrating for their local context—for example the size of school districts, resources available, and community attitudes toward behavioral-health interventions.

   
   

3. Building a shared understanding across disciplines

   
   

   A key challenge identified: multidisciplinary teams often have divergent definitions, use different threat-assessment models, and don’t always ‘speak the same language’. HSToday

   
   

   Implication: Invest in cross-discipline training, use common terminology, and decide early on which threat-assessment model(s) will apply to ensure smoother coordination among schools, mental-health providers, law enforcement, juvenile justice and other stakeholders.

   
   

4. There are no “typical” cases

   
   

   The evaluation found that youth threat cases vary widely—there was no consistent pattern of identification, involved stakeholders, or intervention path. HSToday

   
   

   Implication: Flexibility is key. One-size-fits-all protocols may falter. Systems must allow case teams to adapt to unique dynamics and bring in specialized expertise as needed.

   
   

5. Barriers to continuity of care

   
   

   Continuity often breaks down during transitions: changing schools, graduation, college entry, aging out of pediatric services. HSToday

   
   

   Implication: Local communities should design pathways that bridge school-based BTAM systems into community or adult systems and ensure hand-offs carry forward assessments, supports, and service links.

   
   

6. A deep bench of resources and partners

   
   

   BTAM effectiveness relies on more than a core team—it depends on a broader network of locally available partners and specialized services. HSToday

   
   

   Implication: Jurisdictions should map and engage a wide array of community assets (mental-health, juvenile justice, youth services, faith/community groups, public safety) early on and make them part of the network.

   
   

7. Cooperation, not coercion

   
   

   Especially when no crime has yet occurred, BTAM teams have limited leverage. Success depends on building cooperation—fostering motivation, creating rapport, and engaging youth and families in the process rather than applying force. HSToday

   
   

   Implication: Program design should prioritize voluntary engagement, focus on motivational strategies, and consider leading with youth-centred, non-law-enforcement-led interventions.

   
   

8. The power of a well-coordinated interagency network

   
   

   Wood County’s approach capitalized on existing local relationships and distributed partners rather than creating a central “hub.” However, coordination, accountability, and role clarity were essential. HSToday

   
   

   Implication: While centralization may sound efficient, leveraging and connecting existing community systems can be more sustainable—provided intentional coordination is in place.

   
   

What this means for your community or organization

While every jurisdiction will have different resources, demographics, school systems, and risk profiles, the lessons from Wood County are broadly applicable. Whether you are in a rural county, suburban district or urban setting:

• Conduct an asset‐map: who are the community partners (schools, behavioral health, juvenile justice, youth services, faith/community groups) already working on youth risk/intervention?

• Clarify your model: decide your threshold for BTAM activation, meeting frequency, team composition and trade-offs for inclusivity versus exclusivity.

• Invest in training and shared understanding: ensure your team uses common terms and threat-assessment frameworks and roles are clear.

• Design for transitions: build processes that carry youth from school → community → adult services, avoiding loss of continuity.

• Prioritize engagement: design your system to foster cooperation rather than reliance on enforcement—especially critical for youth.

• Monitor, evaluate and iterate: As the article underscores, measurement and evaluation (M&E) of prevention programmes is essential for continuous improvement and accountability. HSToday

The Bottom Line

The Wood County evaluation underscores a fundamental truth: preventing targeted violence and terrorism is not simply about security forces reacting to imminent threats—it’s about building resilient, community-based systems that spot potential risk early, support at-risk youth, engage families, coordinate diverse stakeholders, and retain continuity of care. The eight lessons highlighted offer a practical roadmap for jurisdictions looking to strengthen their BTAM capacities.

As we move forward, our challenge is to convert these insights into practice, measure their impact, and refine our prevention ecosystems. By putting people, partnerships and processes at the center—not just policy or enforcement—we stand the best chance of making meaningful, sustainable gains in violence and terrorism prevention.

-Author: Jordan Garza, Founder of Lifeline Strategies

Lifeline Strategies specializes in community health, resilience, and evidence-based approaches to improving public safety and well-being.