How to Choose a Threat Assessment Consultant in Hawaii: Complete 2025 Guide
- CrisisWire
- Oct 13
- 11 min read
A Honolulu nonprofit recently discovered the cost of choosing the wrong consultant. They hired a security professional with 30 years local law enforcement experience to assess threats following concerning employee behavior. His fee was reasonable, his references glowing, and his law enforcement background impressive.
Six weeks later, when the situation escalated to violence, investigators found critical gaps in the consultant's assessment. He'd missed behavioral warning signs, failed to document the evaluation according to legal standards, and never implemented the multi-disciplinary approach that federal best practices require. The nonprofit now faces $2.1 million in liability claims, workers' compensation costs, and litigation—plus the immeasurable trauma to their staff.
The problem wasn't that the consultant lacked experience. He had plenty. The problem was that the nonprofit didn't know which qualifications actually matter for professional threat assessment work. They confused law enforcement experience with threat assessment expertise—a common mistake that Hawaii organizations make repeatedly.
This guide provides a systematic framework for evaluating threat assessment consultants, based on federal standards, industry best practices, and the hard lessons organizations learn after hiring unqualified providers.
Understanding What Threat Assessment Actually Requires
Before evaluating consultants, organizations must understand what genuine threat assessment involves. It's not traditional security consulting, law enforcement investigation, or mental health counseling—though it draws from all three disciplines.
Behavioral Threat Assessment and Management (BTAM) represents a specialized field with specific educational requirements, methodologies, and professional standards. The U.S. Secret Service, FBI Behavioral Analysis Unit, and Department of Homeland Security have spent decades researching how targeted violence develops and can be prevented. That research informs professional threat assessment practice.
Hawaii organizations need consultants who've formally studied these methodologies, not professionals who assume their law enforcement or security backgrounds automatically qualify them for threat assessment work. The distinction becomes critical when violence occurs and courts examine whether organizations employed appropriately credentialed consultants using evidence-based approaches.
As detailed in The Prepared Leader, effective threat assessment requires systematic frameworks that many experienced security professionals never encounter during their careers.
The 15-Point Credential Evaluation Framework
Organizations should verify specific qualifications before engaging any threat assessment consultant. These criteria reflect federal standards, professional association requirements, and legal expectations courts now apply when evaluating organizational duty of care.
1. Formal BTAM Training from Accredited Institutions
What to Ask: "Where did you complete your Behavioral Threat Assessment and Management training?"
Why It Matters: BTAM isn't something professionals "pick up" through experience. It requires formal education in structured assessment methodologies, multi-disciplinary coordination, documentation standards, and intervention strategies based on decades of research into how targeted violence unfolds.
Acceptable Answers: University of Hawaii West Oahu BTAM program, University of Nebraska, University of Denver, FBI training, Association of Threat Assessment Professionals certification courses, or similar accredited programs.
Red Flags: "I learned it on the job," "Through law enforcement experience," or inability to name specific training programs indicates absence of formal education.
2. Federal Emergency Management Certifications
What to Ask: "What FEMA certifications do you hold related to threat assessment?"
Why It Matters: Federal training ensures consultants understand national standards rather than relying solely on personal experience. FEMA courses provide systematic, evidence-based frameworks that most local-only consultants never encounter.
Minimum Standard: FEMA IS-906 (Workplace Violence Awareness), IS-907 (Active Shooter Response), IS-915 (Insider Threat Protection). Comprehensive consultants hold 15-20+ FEMA certifications including complete ICS/NIMS training.
Verification: Request certificate numbers and check authenticity through FEMA's system. Understanding why federal training matters separates professional consultants from those relying solely on local experience.
3. Multi-Sector Experience Across Industries
What to Ask: "What sectors have you worked in beyond law enforcement or security?"
Why It Matters: Campus threat assessment differs significantly from healthcare insider threats or corporate workplace violence. Consultants with experience across multiple sectors understand how threat dynamics vary by environment.
Look For: Military, law enforcement, corporate security, educational institutions, healthcare, government, diplomatic protection—consultants with 4-5+ sectors demonstrate adaptability beyond single-environment expertise.
Concern: Consultants who've only worked one sector (example: 25 years HPD only) may misapply law enforcement approaches to organizational settings where different methodologies prove more effective.
4. Published Expertise and Thought Leadership
What to Ask: "What books, research papers, or articles have you published on threat assessment?"
Why It Matters: Publishing requires peer review, editorial scrutiny, and demonstrated expertise beyond operational work. Consultants who've published threat assessment research show commitment to advancing the field, not just practicing within it.
Quality Indicators: Books published by recognized publishers, papers in academic journals or repositories, contributions to professional publications. Avoid consultants who've never published substantive work on threat assessment.
Research: Review comprehensive threat assessment publications and school violence prevention research to understand publication standards.
5. Investigation Credentials Beyond Basic Security
What to Ask: "Do you have private investigation credentials or specialized investigation training?"
Why It Matters: Threat assessment often requires investigation capabilities: background checks, surveillance, evidence collection, interview techniques. Former law enforcement officers understand criminal investigation, but additional PI credentials demonstrate civilian investigation expertise that organizational threat assessment requires.
Advantage: Former licensed private investigators bring investigation skills specifically designed for non-criminal contexts. Understanding how insider threat audits work reveals why investigation expertise matters beyond law enforcement backgrounds.
6. Proven Experience in High-Risk Environments
What to Ask: "What's the most dangerous security environment you've worked in, and what was your track record?"
Why It Matters: Consultants who've maintained zero incidents while protecting assets or personnel in genuinely dangerous environments demonstrate capability under pressure. Hawaii consultants whose most dangerous experience was local law enforcement may lack exposure to sophisticated threat management.
Examples: Combat zone security (Iraq/Afghanistan embassies), nuclear weapons protection, executive protection in high-threat regions, diplomatic security. Ask for verifiable zero-incident track records in these environments.
7. Mainland and Hawaii Experience Combination
What to Ask: "Where have you worked outside Hawaii, and how long were you there?"
Why It Matters: Hawaii-only consultants lack exposure to sophisticated mainland threats—gang activity, organized crime, complex workplace violence cases common in major metropolitan areas. Mainland-only consultants miss Hawaii's cultural nuances and tight-knit community dynamics. Professional consultants need both.
Ideal: Significant mainland experience (10+ years law enforcement, corporate security, or military) combined with Hawaii working knowledge. This combination proves rare but invaluable for comprehensive physical threat assessments and behavioral analysis.
8. Executive Protection Background
What to Ask: "What executive protection experience do you have?"
Why It Matters: Executive protection work requires individualized threat assessment skills—protecting specific people rather than buildings. Many security consultants lack this background. As rising threats to CEOs demonstrate, behavioral threat assessment proves essential for modern executive protection.
What to Verify: Fortune 500 executives protected, diplomatic personnel security, high-net-worth individual protection. Ask about threat assessment methodologies used, not just physical protection tactics.
9. Educational Institution Leadership Experience
What to Ask: "Have you led campus safety operations, or did you teach/train in educational settings?"
Why It Matters: Leading 24/7 campus safety operations differs dramatically from teaching security classes. Directors who've managed actual campus security programs, coordinated with law enforcement, activated Emergency Operations Centers, and conducted Title IX investigations understand operational realities that classroom instructors miss.
Verify: Was the role operational leadership (Director of Campus Safety, Chief of Police) or academic (instructor, lecturer, trainer)? Campus security assessments require operational expertise, not just theoretical knowledge.
10. Business Continuity and Emergency Management
What to Ask: "What business continuity, disaster recovery, or emergency management programs have you developed?"
Why It Matters: Threat assessment integrates with broader organizational resilience. Organizations that survived versus those that collapsed reveals that integrated security and continuity planning proves essential. Consultants should understand comprehensive business continuity frameworks, not treat threat assessment as isolated security activity.
Look For: COOP (Continuity of Operations Planning), disaster recovery, emergency management plan development, mass notification system implementation, EOC activation experience.
11. Legal and Regulatory Knowledge
What to Ask: "What legal training do you have related to threat assessment documentation and privacy laws?"
Why It Matters: Threat assessments must comply with HIPAA, FERPA, ADA, Title IX, and other regulations while providing legally defensible documentation. Consultants without legal training may create liability through improper documentation or privacy violations.
Valuable Backgrounds: Paralegal certification, legal education, extensive work with legal counsel on threat cases. Understanding leadership liability and policy documentation requirements demonstrates why legal knowledge matters.
12. Mental Health Collaboration Experience
What to Ask: "How do you incorporate mental health professionals into threat assessments?"
Why It Matters: Most concerning behaviors involve mental health dimensions. Consultants must know when psychiatric evaluation is necessary, how to coordinate with mental health professionals, and how mental illness does and doesn't predict violence.
Red Flags: Consultants who assume mental illness equals danger, or who don't routinely involve mental health professionals in assessments. Professional practice requires multi-disciplinary approaches.
13. Technology and Physical Security Integration
What to Ask: "How do you integrate threat assessment with physical security systems?"
Why It Matters: Behavioral threat assessment and physical security infrastructure must work together. Consultants should understand access control systems, surveillance technology, and how behavioral concerns trigger physical security responses.
Comprehensive Consultants: Understand both behavioral analysis and security technology, ensuring recommendations integrate rather than conflict with existing workplace violence prevention systems.
14. Case Management Beyond Termination or Arrest
What to Ask: "Describe a threat assessment case you managed without law enforcement involvement or employee termination."
Why It Matters: This reveals whether consultants have intervention tools beyond punishment. Professional threat assessment emphasizes de-escalation, connection to support services, and ongoing monitoring—not just exclusion tactics.
What to Listen For: Descriptions of mental health referrals, modified work arrangements, collaborative monitoring, successful reintegration. If every example ends in termination or arrest, the consultant likely defaults to law enforcement approaches rather than behavioral intervention strategies.
15. Professional Association Membership and Continuing Education
What to Ask: "What professional associations do you belong to, and what continuing education have you completed recently?"
Why It Matters: Threat assessment evolves as research advances. Professional consultants maintain Association of Threat Assessment Professionals (ATAP), ASIS International, or similar memberships requiring continuing education. Consultants who stopped learning after initial law enforcement training apply increasingly outdated approaches.
Current Knowledge: Ask about 2024-2025 training or conferences attended. Threat assessment best practices change—consultants must stay current.
Evaluating Consultant Responses: The Scoring System
After asking all 15 questions, score responses objectively:
Highly Qualified Consultant (12-15 boxes checked):
Formal BTAM training from accredited institution
15-20+ FEMA certifications including IS-906, IS-907, IS-915
Multi-sector experience (4-5+ different environments)
Published books or research papers on threat assessment
Investigation credentials beyond basic security
High-risk environment experience with zero-incident track record
Both mainland and Hawaii working experience
Executive protection background
Educational institution operational leadership
Business continuity program development experience
Legal training or paralegal background
Regular mental health professional collaboration
Physical security technology expertise
Case management examples beyond termination/arrest
Active professional association membership with recent continuing education
Organizations in this category can confidently proceed with engagement.
Qualified Consultant (8-11 boxes checked):
BTAM training or equivalent specialized education
Some federal certifications (5-10 FEMA courses)
Experience in 2-3 sectors
Some published work or professional presentations
Solid law enforcement or security background
Hawaii working knowledge
Understanding of multi-disciplinary approaches
Current with continuing education
These consultants can handle most threat assessment needs but may require supplemental expertise for complex cases.
Limited Consultant (4-7 boxes checked):
Law enforcement or security experience
Local Hawaii knowledge
Some understanding of threat concepts
Basic training only
Suitable for basic security consulting but insufficient credentials for comprehensive threat assessment requiring behavioral expertise, federal standards compliance, or complex case management.
Insufficient Credentials (0-3 boxes checked):
Security guard experience only
No formal threat assessment training
No federal certifications
Single-sector experience
No published expertise
No multi-disciplinary collaboration experience
Organizations should not engage these individuals for threat assessment work regardless of years of "security experience."
Red Flags That Should Disqualify Consultants
Certain responses indicate consultants lack fundamental qualifications regardless of other credentials:
"I don't need BTAM training—I learned threat assessment on the job." This reveals misunderstanding of threat assessment as a specialized discipline requiring formal education. Experience matters, but without systematic training, consultants apply personal judgment rather than evidence-based frameworks.
Cannot produce FEMA certificates when requested. Claims of "federal training" without documentation suggest exaggeration. Professional consultants maintain copies of all certifications and willingly provide verification.
Defensive about credential verification. Legitimate consultants welcome questions about qualifications. Defensiveness suggests insecurity about credentials or unwillingness to be held accountable to professional standards.
Only discusses law enforcement career. While valuable, law enforcement experience alone doesn't qualify someone for organizational threat assessment. Consultants should articulate how they've expanded beyond initial training to develop threat assessment expertise.
Cannot explain specific threat assessment frameworks. Asking "What model do you use?" should yield specific answers: WAVR-21, Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth, Secret Service protocols, comprehensive approaches detailed in professional threat assessment handbooks. Vague responses like "my own system" indicate lack of formal methodology.
No published work or research contributions after 20+ years. Consultants committed to their field publish books, papers, or professional articles sharing expertise. Complete absence of publications after decades suggests limited engagement with threat assessment as an evolving discipline.
Hawaii-Specific Considerations
Beyond universal qualifications, Hawaii organizations should consider local factors:
Cultural Competency: Consultants must understand Hawaii's tight-knit communities, cultural diversity, and relationship-oriented culture. Approaches that work in anonymous mainland cities may fail on islands where everyone knows everyone. However, cultural knowledge alone doesn't substitute for formal threat assessment training.
Multi-Jurisdiction Coordination: Hawaii requires coordination between county, state, and federal agencies. Consultants with ICS/NIMS training understand these frameworks; local-only consultants often struggle with multi-agency dynamics affecting corporate security programs.
Island-Specific Challenges: Geographic isolation, limited resources, tourism industry pressures, and military presence create unique contexts. Consultants should demonstrate understanding of these dynamics while applying systematic threat assessment methodologies.
Existing Hawaii Resources: Professional consultants know Threat Team Hawaii, Hawaii State Fusion Center, and University of Hawaii West Oahu BTAM Initiative. They should articulate how they leverage these resources rather than operating in isolation.
The Cost of Choosing Wrong
Organizations that select underqualified consultants face predictable consequences:
Missed Warning Signs: Consultants without BTAM training miss behavioral indicators that research shows precede violence. They rely on intuition rather than structured assessment, increasing risk of preventable incidents.
Inadequate Documentation: Without legal training, consultants create documentation that fails to protect organizations during litigation or violates privacy regulations, creating additional liability.
Over-Reaction or Under-Reaction: Lacking systematic frameworks, consultants either dismiss genuine threats ("not a big deal") or recommend extreme responses (immediate termination) when intervention would prove more effective.
Liability Exposure: When violence occurs after inadequate threat assessment, plaintiff attorneys focus on consultant qualifications: "This person had no BTAM training, no federal certifications, no published expertise—yet you hired them to assess threats?"
Insurance Implications: Carriers increasingly scrutinize consultant credentials when evaluating claims. Coverage may be limited if organizations hired consultants lacking recognized qualifications for work performed.
Understanding comprehensive threat management and organizational resilience frameworks demonstrates why choosing qualified consultants matters legally and operationally.
Taking Action: Your Selection Process
Organizations should follow this systematic evaluation process:
Step 1: Request credential documentation before initial meetings—BTAM training certificates, FEMA certifications, professional licenses, published works. Legitimate consultants provide these immediately.
Step 2: Conduct structured interviews using the 15-point framework. Take notes on responses. Compare consultants objectively against same criteria.
Step 3: Verify credentials independently. Check FEMA certificate authenticity, confirm published works exist, validate professional association memberships.
Step 4: Request and check references specifically about threat assessment work—not just general security consulting. Ask references: "What specific threat assessment methodologies did this consultant use?"
Step 5: Review consultant proposals for systematic approaches. Professional assessments should reference evidence-based frameworks, multi-disciplinary coordination, legal compliance, and ongoing case management—not just "conduct assessment and provide report."
Step 6: Confirm insurance and liability coverage appropriate for threat assessment consulting, which differs from general security consulting.
Organizations can learn more about implementing comprehensive threat assessment programs through professional resources combining research, federal standards, and practical application guidance.
The Investment That Prevents Tragedy
Choosing qualified threat assessment consultants costs more upfront than hiring basic security advisors. The difference averages $5,000-$15,000 for comprehensive programs versus $2,000-$5,000 for surface-level assessments from underqualified providers.
That differential becomes meaningless when comparing prevention value. A single workplace violence incident costs $250,000-$5 million. Professional threat assessment preventing one incident provides 10:1 to 100:1 ROI.
More importantly, qualified consultants protect organizational leaders from personal liability, demonstrate duty of care meeting legal standards, and provide the systematic threat management capability that courts, regulators, and insurance carriers increasingly expect.
Hawaii organizations deserve consultants who combine local knowledge with nationally recognized expertise—professionals who've invested in formal education, maintain federal certifications, publish research advancing the field, and demonstrate zero-incident track records in genuinely dangerous environments.
Those consultants exist. Organizations simply need frameworks for identifying them among security professionals whose impressive experience doesn't necessarily translate to threat assessment qualification.
📧 Need Help Evaluating Threat Assessment Consultants?
Contact CrisisWire for consultation from a specialist meeting all 15 qualification criteria: BTAM training (UH West Oahu), 20+ FEMA certifications, 40 years protecting lives across military/law enforcement/diplomatic/corporate/university environments, published author of five threat assessment books, and zero-incident track record across four decades.
Email: crisiswire@proton.me
Available 24/7 for Hawaii organizations.
About the Author
Warren Pulley founded CrisisWire after 40 years protecting lives across military service (U.S. Air Force nuclear security), law enforcement (12 years LAPD), diplomatic protection (U.S. Embassy Baghdad), and corporate security (Fortune 500 executive protection). He completed BTAM training at University of Hawaii West Oahu, holds 20+ FEMA certifications, and authored five books including The Prepared Leader, Threat Assessment Handbook, and Campus Under Siege. Contact: crisiswire@proton.me
This article provides educational guidance for evaluating threat assessment consultants. Organizations should conduct independent verification of any consultant's credentials.
Comments