New Study Shows Reporting Concerns to Law Enforcement Can Stop Violence Before It Starts – Homeland Security Today

Report on Law Enforcement Monitoring and its Contribution to Sustainable Development Goals

Executive Summary

A study published in Law and Human Behavior, titled “Breaking the Silence: Bystander Reporting to Law Enforcement Disrupts Individuals Moving Toward Targeted Violence,” provides empirical evidence that active law enforcement monitoring of individuals exhibiting concerning behaviors significantly reduces the risk of targeted violence. This research validates established threat assessment practices and underscores their critical contribution to achieving global safety and sustainability targets, particularly Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 16, which aims to promote peaceful and inclusive societies.

Key Findings and Analysis

Empirical Validation of Threat Mitigation

The study addresses a foundational question in threat assessment, confirming that monitoring by law enforcement is not merely a passive tracking activity but an active form of risk mitigation. For years, the efficacy of this practice was an operational assumption among professionals. This research provides the first robust evidence base, validating that being “on the radar” of law enforcement serves as a direct intervention to disrupt the path toward violence.

The Critical Role of Bystander Reporting

The research highlights the relationship between community reporting and violence prevention. The findings indicate that when bystanders—including family members, colleagues, or community members—report concerning behaviors, the subsequent law enforcement monitoring and intervention lead to a measurable decrease in violence risk. This establishes a clear, evidence-based link between community vigilance and public safety outcomes.

Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

The study’s conclusions have profound implications for the advancement of several UN Sustainable Development Goals, reinforcing the interconnectedness of public safety, justice, and sustainable community development.

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

This research directly supports the objectives of SDG 16 by:

• Promoting Peaceful Societies: The validated practice of law enforcement monitoring is a key mechanism for reducing violence and preventing fatalities, directly contributing to Target 16.1 (Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere).
• Building Effective and Accountable Institutions: The study provides an evidence-based justification for law enforcement’s role in preventative security, reinforcing the development of effective and accountable institutions at all levels (Target 16.6).

SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

By establishing a proven method for reducing the risk of targeted violence, these findings contribute to SDG 11, which seeks to make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable. Proactive threat management is essential for ensuring the safety and security of all citizens in community spaces (Target 11.1).

SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

The report strongly advocates for a multi-stakeholder approach, which is the core principle of SDG 17. Effective threat management requires robust partnerships between:

1. Law enforcement agencies
2. Mental health professionals
3. Educational institutions
4. Social services
5. Community partners

This multidisciplinary model exemplifies the collaborative effort needed to achieve sustainable development outcomes.

SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

Preventing violence is fundamental to ensuring healthy lives and promoting well-being for all ages (SDG 3). The integration of mental health professionals into threat assessment teams, as supported by the study’s implications, directly addresses the need for comprehensive health and well-being strategies within public safety frameworks.

Policy and Operational Recommendations

Strengthening Multidisciplinary Frameworks

Policy decisions should prioritize resource allocation for the establishment and maintenance of multidisciplinary threat assessment and management teams. The evidence confirms that integrated teams involving law enforcement, mental health, and other community partners are more effective than siloed operations.

Investment in Training and Reporting Mechanisms

To leverage these findings, sustained investment is required in two key areas:

• Behavioral Threat Assessment and Management (BTAM) Training: Law enforcement personnel must receive specialized training to effectively participate in coordinated prevention efforts.
• Bystander Reporting Systems: Public-facing programs and mechanisms that encourage and simplify the process for reporting concerning behaviors should be enhanced and promoted.

Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Addressed in the Article

1. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   • The article’s core theme is the prevention of violence through effective law enforcement and community reporting. This directly supports the goal of promoting peaceful and inclusive societies. The research validates a method to “reduce their risk of engaging in violence,” which is central to achieving peace and justice. The focus on strengthening law enforcement’s role in “threat assessment and management programs” is about building effective and accountable institutions.

2. SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

   • The article explicitly advocates for a multi-stakeholder approach. It underscores the importance of “law enforcement personnel working alongside mental health professionals, educators, social services, and other community partners.” This call for “multidisciplinary threat assessment teams” is a clear example of the partnerships needed to achieve sustainable development goals.

3. SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

   • By focusing on preventing “targeted violence,” the article addresses a key component of making communities safe and resilient. The reduction of violence risk contributes directly to the overall safety and security of communities, which is a prerequisite for sustainability.

4. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

   • Violence prevention is intrinsically linked to health and well-being. By mitigating violence, the practices discussed in the article help prevent deaths and injuries. Furthermore, the inclusion of “mental health professionals” in threat assessment teams acknowledges the connection between mental health and community safety, contributing to overall well-being.

Specific SDG Targets Identified

1. Target 16.1: Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere.

   • The article directly addresses this target by providing “empirical evidence” for a strategy that leads to a “measurable reduction in violence risk.” The entire purpose of the law enforcement monitoring and bystander reporting system discussed is to “prevent violent incidents,” which aligns perfectly with the goal of reducing violence.

2. Target 16.a: Strengthen relevant national institutions… to prevent violence and combat terrorism and crime.

   • The article calls for policy decisions that support “resource allocation for threat assessment programs” and “training for law enforcement personnel.” This is a direct call to strengthen the capacity of a key national institution—law enforcement—to effectively prevent violence.

3. Target 17.17: Encourage and promote effective public, public-private and civil society partnerships…

   • This target is identified through the article’s strong emphasis on “multidisciplinary approaches.” The text states that “effective threat management requires law enforcement personnel working alongside mental health professionals, educators, social services, and other community partners,” which is the definition of a multi-stakeholder partnership for a common goal.

Indicators for Measuring Progress

1. Indicator for Target 16.1 (Implied): Reduction in the rate of targeted violence.

   • The article states that the study found a “measurable reduction in violence risk.” This implies that a key indicator for success is the statistical decrease in violent incidents or attempted acts of violence in areas where these threat assessment and monitoring programs are active.

2. Indicator for Target 16.a (Implied): Investment in and capacity building for threat assessment programs.

   • The article’s recommendation to “inform policy decisions about resource allocation” and “reinforce the value of… training for law enforcement personnel” suggests that progress can be measured by tracking the financial investment in these programs and the number of officers who have completed specialized behavioral threat assessment and management (BTAM) training.

3. Indicator for Target 17.17 (Implied): Number and composition of multidisciplinary threat assessment teams.

   • The article’s validation of a multidisciplinary approach implies that a relevant indicator would be the number of formal, functioning threat assessment teams that have been established. The composition of these teams—specifically, the documented participation of law enforcement, mental health, education, and social service professionals—would also serve as a measure of the partnership’s effectiveness.

Summary Table: SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: hstoday.us