Risk Assessment

RISK ASSESSMENT FOR
HENRIK BRAMSBORG’S
PERSONAL PROTECTION
MODEL FOR QUESTIONNAIRES AND GRADING
01.05.2012-HB-2013
www.icpta.org
INTRODUCTION
After more than 18 years in a fascinating but motley profession, I have come
to the realization that not all professionals in the industry are equally
professional. This, of course, is not always due to lacking intellect or ability, but
is just as much a question of poor instruction and training, together with a
limited and rather ambiguous market for written material. In risk and threat
assessment, I have noticed that instructors and authors primarily explain WHAT
future bodyguards should ask when they land a client. I have yet to come
across a single explanation of HOW to use the data collected from the client.
In my own country, Denmark, I have decided to try and change this situation
by publishing different material, all of which has been tested on clients and/or
colleagues. This model is my first English publication (hope the translation is
alright). I did so because I, myself, have lacked a model for the initial steps in a
real risk assessment. The target group for this model is bodyguards. That
includes part-time executive protection specialists for anonymous businessmen
and women, full-time bodyguards for famous artists, or personal protection
specialists employed on a governmental level, protecting diplomats. It is up to
the reader to adapt the questions so they apply to the “customer” in question.
This MODEL is just that. It is a model for making an initial risk assessment
for a client. If you acquired the model in the hope that it would offer an all-
round solution, you have wasted your money. It is not intended as a
replacement for one’s own thought process, but rather as a solution model, a
method so to speak and source of inspiration.
Note that the categorization applied in this booklet is a suggestion and not a
requirement. The same applies to the number and formulation of questions. If
you look through the material in the books mentioned at the back of this
booklet, you will find an array of other possible categorizations, as a uniform
model does not yet exist. I am aware that some companies claim to use models
that are all-inclusive. To contribute to the discussion surrounding fixed models
for risk and threat assessment:
I have had many different clients from a variety of branches. Furthermore,

the vast majority have been short-term contracts, which is quite natural, as I
am an independent contractor. I have yet to come across two matching
assessments, i.e., two cases with the same profile. As no two people (this
includes individuals who hire personal protection) have had the same
childhood, the same education, the same social life, the same job, etc., there
will never be a single model capable of completely covering two different
cases. For that reason, this model is also subject to reservations. There are
simply too many external factors that will change the conclusion. So my
experience is that you can use the same method for different cases, but not
the same model. (If any readers among you disagree and can prove the
contrary, I would be very interested in hearing from you.)
It is important that I point out that the copyright existing for this booklet
only applies to the complete work. Should you wish to publish any portion of
this material or use it for instruction purposes, you may do so, provided you
inform me and properly cite the source.
Accompanying this booklet is “General Considerations for Escorting Women

Threatened by Violence,” which was written for crisis centers by Bramsborg
Security & Safety. This short piece is very useful for bodyguards in need of
evaluating a defined threat against women testifying against a former mate.
The same copyright conditions apply to “General Considerations for Escorting
Women Threatened by Violence.” Should you wish to publish any part of this
material or use it for instruction purposes, you may do so, provided you inform
me and properly cite the source.
I, personally, have derived much inspiration from other professionals in the

industry. Likewise, I have received advice and criticism from bodyguards and
instructors from around the world. My thanks go to: Tony Scotti, Gavin De
Becker, Peter Van Dartel, Robert Oatman, Andy Hollinson, Richard Kobetz, Artie
Belovin, Peter Consterdine, Mark Lonsdale, and James King. All of them have
been sources of inspiration. In addition to them, I have a world of people to
thank. I will spare the reader for all this, however, and simply thank my
colleagues and competitors in the industry for keeping me on my toes. Thanks
to my family for their support and understanding of my hectic working hours
and, finally, to those who evaluated my material.
HENRIK BRAMSBORG
2 ©2003-2013 HENRIK BRAMSBORG

RISK AND THREAT ASSESSMENT AS A TOOL
DEFINITION
Risk assessment is an overall assessment of factors that are or could be

direct or indirect threats against our client, his/her well-being or environment.
Threat assessment is a specific assessment of threats—natural or man-

made—against our client, his or her well-being, or environment.
WHY
We all make risk assessments in our daily lives. Most do so without really
knowing it. Who would even think that the process of looking left, right, and
then left again is actually a collection of data for a risk assessment?
When crossing a street, we assess how many vehicles are coming toward us
and then whether we can cross the road before the vehicles reach our position.
To do this, our brain must process complex mathematical formulas that take
into account distance, speed (the vehicle’s and our own), and light and
shadow. That is how we survive in traffic and everywhere else in our
environment. Man has always been capable of doing so, as it is a condition for
our species’ survival. Unfortunately, risk assessment is most often done
unconsciously. On the following pages, we will attempt, in connection with
personal protection, to bring parts of the process up to the conscious level.
In personal protection, risk assessment is our only tool for guarding against
the principle of coincidence. Naturally, it is possible to protect an individual
from a series of threats without a risk assessment. But it cannot be done
without a certain amount of security holes. Such holes, arising from
coincidental overlooked problems, are best closed by systematic process. This
will minimize the risk of accidents and facilitate the establishment of a 360
degree base with which to develop a sustainable security system.
HOW
QUESTIONNAIRE/POINT SYSTEM:

First, basic data is collected. You should not overlook this data when
creating the client-specific questionnaire. Because data such as age,
geographic address, and branch of industry can influence your
assessment, collection of basic data should always be the first step.
Basic data should include the following:
Client’s: Health: Family:

Full name Physician data Names
Date of birth Blood type Dates of birth
Place of birth Medical history Places of birth
Nationality Nationalities
Height Heights
Weight Weights
Physical description and Physical descriptions and
Photo Photos
Business: Social life: Past:
Industry Sports Military experience
Sector Memberships Unit
Company name Positions of trust Period
Ownership Routines Service locations
Position in company Humanitarian work Special service
Company address
Telephone numbers Politically active
Fax Militant
E-mail Public
Secretary data Positions
Some of the above basic data will save the bodyguard time, as it can
provide answers to a number of questions regarding security. Once the basic
data is collected, the questionnaire/point system is used.
The following seven principal sections are used in the questionnaire:
1. Personal lifestyle
2. Professional lifestyle
3. Public profile
4. Politics and religion
5. Prejudices
6. People and places
7. Prior actions and relationships

We have established a simple system in which the numbers 0, 10 and 20
figure. These numbers very deliberately do not figure next to each question, as
the client may be tempted to “adapt” his/her answers. By posing a series of
meaningful questions and then “grading” them, we are able to paint a risk
picture that is categorized as follows: no immediate risk, less likely risk, likely
risk, defined and confirmed risk, and acute danger. There are no intermediate
categories.
When all the questions have been answered, the point total will indicate
how big or small the risk is.
Grading is done as follows:
Are you prejudice with regard to, for instance, homosexuality, race, religion,
women/men on the labor market, handicaps, or in any other way?
1. Yes __ (20 points)
2. Don’t know __ (10 points)
3. No __ (0 points)
If the client checks “Yes,” for example, the answer is worth 20 points. When
all the questions are answered, the figures are added, and the total tells us
which of the five categories our client falls into.
The points can be decimalized in relation to time and qualitative relevance.

For instance, an offhand verbal threat made three years ago might not be as
relevant as a very specific threat made by phone three weeks ago. Here, time
can be an important factor. The quality factor lies in the source of your
information. We differentiate between:
1. The direct source - e.g., the victim who has been threatened or the
aggressor making the threat
2. Second-hand information – e.g., a witness or allegedly signed document
3. Third-party information – e.g., a document without confirmed signer or
rumors.
An account from the direct source is likely to be more accurate than an account
from, for instance, an attesting witness. This is not always the case, however,
as one must take into consideration the motives behind any account.
Clearly, a questionnaire system can never be comprehensive, which is why

we commonly use what we call footnote reports. A footnote report is a brief
report that furnishes a fairly comprehensive explanation for an answer. One
example could be:

Have you had any romantic affair or other amorous relationship that could
trigger threats from jilted parties?
1. No
2. Maybe X
3. Yes
Answer: Checked “Maybe,” as two relationships over the last two years
ended in confrontation. In these confrontations, the client was the passive
party and the rejected partners were the aggressive parties. Since then there
have been no confrontations or threats from the rejected parties.
The answer in the footnote report is furnished verbally during an interview

that follows completion of the form.
Upon completion of the risk assessment, if it is found that a threat exists;

additional interviews are conducted with the client. If the threat is defined,
these interviews should focus as much as possible on the defined threat. If the
threat is not defined, the interviewer should try to aim their questions in
multiple directions so as to investigate as many threats as possible. For
example, a political background, an unfortunate media statement, or a
romantic affair all constitute directions that should be investigated.
The form here is industry-specific and should be adapted so that the

questions are relevant for each client. Likewise, not all questions on the form
are necessary for all clients.
The described example relates to a businessman occupying a top position in

an international firm. The series of questions is not comprehensive, but will
give you an idea of how the model can be used. Practically-speaking, it is
impossible to draw up an exhaustive list of questions, as the answer to each
existing question in the model can give rise to a whole series of new questions.
Example:
Do you take or have you taken any kind of medicine or narcotic?
1. Yes X
2. Occasionally __
3. No __

A “Yes” is not comprehensive, since we do not know whether the substance
the client takes is hazardous or whether it has a life-prolonging or healing
effect.
New questions, therefore, could include:
What medicine/narcotic?
Why do you take the medicine/narcotic?
When do you take the medicine/narcotic?
How often do you take it/them?
Etc.
The same can be said of a number of other questions, such as those

regarding sports. Not all sports are equally healthy. Both scuba diving and
skydiving are categorized as sports, but do not require any particular physical
skill. A man or woman with circulatory problems owing to obesity would
absolutely NOT benefit from diving for corals at a depth of 30-50 feet—
regardless of whether or not it is a sport.
Again, you can start with a 5-page list of questions and end up with a 50-page
list.
Underlining the complexity of this type of form, the questioning technique

should/will also vary from client to client. Some clients are academically
educated and are used to the type of language spoken in an academic
environment. Others, for instance, those with newly acquired wealth who
started independently and later became successful businessmen, might expect
a more relaxed language. Some artists’ education was so fundamental that it is
reminiscent of “My Fair Lady.”
How far should you then go in your assessment? The short answer is: as far
as practically possible. Naturally, this depends on a number of factors: The
client’s immediate entourage, the client’s expectations, your own
assessment/intuition, environment, culture, etc.
Again, the following pages are only question proposals!

PERSONAL LIFESTYLE
Are you in good physical shape?
1. No __
2. Maybe __
3. Yes __
Are you physically active?1
1. No __
2. Occasionally __
3. Yes __
What kind of person are you?
1. Bachelor/Fast lane __
2. Relaxed social life __
3. Family man/woman __
Do you have any allergies?
1. Yes __
2. Don’t know __
3. No __
1
Active sports are generally considered healthy, but extreme sports are not always without risks.
Therefore, you should consider the type of sport practiced by the client and his physiological level.

Do you take or have you taken any kind of medicine or narcotic?
1. Yes __
2. Occasionally __
3. No __
Do you have or have you had any physical afflictions?
1. Yes __
2. Don’t know __
3. No __
Do you have or have you had any mental afflictions?2
1. Yes __
2. Don’t know __
3. No __
What kind of person are you?
1. Dominant or provocative __
2. Introverted and quiet __
3. Assertive, empathetic __
What is your sexual preference, based on societal standards?3
1. Extreme __
2. Experimental __
3. Normal __
2
Note: In some cultures, there is a great deal of shame attached to having suffered from depression or
the like, so the answer may be somewhat colored.
3
More than a few people have died during sexual acts that got out of hand. What is more, there can be
risks associated with certain sexual subcultures.

Cont.
Are you monogamous?4
1. No __
2. Occasionally __
3. Yes __
Are you law-abiding?
1. No __
2. Almost always __
3. Yes __
4
This is primarily with respect to problems with rejected lovers or former partners.

P R O F E SS I O N A L L I F E S T Y L E
Are you:
1. Employer/manager __
2. Freelancer or similar __
3. Employee __
Do you work5
1. Over 50 hours a week __
2. 40 hours a week __
3. Less than 40 hours a week __
Is your work stressful?
1. Yes __
2. Occasionally __
3. No __
Is your work physically demanding?6
1. Yes __
2. Occasionally __
3. No __
5
The response here could give us an indication of potential future problems such as stress and burn-out.
6
In addition to the more obvious risks, this could give us an indication of the relative length of the client’s
work life and possible health problems associated with stress.

PUBLIC PROFILE
Are you a public personality?
1. Yes __
2. Partly __
3. No __
Have you made public statements about controversial issues, politics, religion,
sexuality, the environment, animal welfare or the like?
1. Recently __
2. Long ago __
3. Never __
Are you a member of any association that makes public statements or which is
often in the spotlight?
1. Yes __
2. Don’t know __
3. No __
Do you serve on any board that makes public statements or which is often in
the spotlight?
1. Yes __
2. Don’t know __
3. No __

POLITIC S AND RELIGION
Are you politically active?
1. Very __
2. Somewhat __
3. No __
Are you a member of a political party?
1. Yes __
2. Don’t know __
3. No __
Do you meet with politicians?7
1. Yes __
2. Don’t know __
3. No __
Are you religious?
1. Yes __
2. Somewhat __
3. No __
Cont.
7
The primary concern here is that the client may be an unfortunate victim of a criminal act aimed against
the political figure whom the client happens to be with.

Do you go to mass or confession?
1. Regularly __
2. Rarely __
3. Never __
Do you meet with religious figures?
1. Yes __
2. Don’t know __
3. No __
Do you know any individuals who are political or religious radicals?8
1. Yes __
2. Don’t know __
3. No __
8
Here, the concern is that the client may fall victim to hearsay or gross accusations and, therefore, could
be designated as a target of certain governments or extremists.

PREJUDICE
Are you prejudice with regard to, for instance, homosexuality, race, religion,
women/men on the labor market, handicaps, or in any other way?
1. Yes __
2. Don’t know __
3. No __
If so, do you speak openly about the topic?9
1. Yes __
2. Rarely __
3. No __
Have you ever been accused of being prejudice?
1. Yes __
2. Possibly __
3. No __
Have you had confrontations with any of the above categories of individuals?
1. Yes __
2. Don’t know __
3. No __
9
Even when intended as humoristic anecdotes, prejudice comments can be taken amiss.

PEOPLE AND PLACES
Do you know or have you known anyone who might want to harm you?
1. Yes __
2. Possibly __
3. No __
Have you, your family, your company or your industry ever been threatened?
1. Yes __
2. Possibly __
3. No __
Can you, your family, or your company be associated with people who have
been threatened?
1. Yes __
2. Possibly __
3. No __
Do you live in a geotechnically stable area? (By this, we mean an area where
earthquakes, hurricanes, tidal waves, landslides/mudslides and cloudbursts do
not normally occur.)
1. Yes __
2. Don’t know __
3. No __
Do you work in a geotechnically stable area? (By this, we mean an area where
earthquakes, hurricanes, tidal waves, landslides/mudslides and cloudbursts do
not normally occur.)

1. Yes __
2. Don’t know __
3. No __
Do you vacation in a geotechnically stable area? (By this, we mean an area

where earthquakes, hurricanes, tidal waves, landslides/mudslides, cloudbursts,
etc., do not normally occur.)
1. Yes __
2. Don’t know __
3. No __
Are you ever stationed in foreign countries?
1. Yes __
2. Possibly __
3. No __
Does your company have units in countries in which your company’s presence
is unwanted by the population or parts of the population? 10
1. Yes __
2. Possibly __
3. No __
Do you work, travel, or vacation in areas where there are nuclear, biological or
chemical companies?
1. Yes __
2. Possibly __
3. No __
10
Even though the client may not personally work in that country, he/she is not out of harms way. A
radical group could aim an attack against the company’s domestic parent company.

P R E V I O U S A C T S A N D R E L AT I O N S H I P S
Have you ever committed a crime in this country, other countries or cultures?
1. Yes __
2. Possibly __
3. No __
Have you ever committed an act that might be considered morally offensive by
others?
1. Yes __
2. Possibly __
3. No __
Have you ever been involved in an armed conflict? (either civil or military)
1. Yes __
2. Possibly __
3. No __
Were you once politically or religiously active?
1. Yes __
2. Possibly __
3. No __
Can you be associated with people from your past who have been politically or
religiously active?

1. Yes __
2. Possibly __
3. No __
G R A D I N G A N D C O N C LU S I O N
Depending on the questionnaire you used and, in particular, the point

system you used, you can use a graph with a given number of points ranging
from 0 to 500, as in this example.
In this system, we have chosen to use the following five categories:
No immediate risk, Less likely risk, Likely risk, Defined and

confirmed risk and, finally, Acute danger.

Acut
e
dang
er
301-400
Defined
and
confirmed
risk
201-300
Likely risk
101-200
Less likely risk
0-100
No immediate risk
This is just an example. Form is not important when you change the
questionnaire, as the variables can be changed in relation to the number of
questions, the significance of the answers, etc.
In this example, the categories do not change. The only way to change the
values is to change the answers. This can happen if the client, deliberately or
not, gives the wrong answer and the error is discovered during the interview.
Hence, the importance of the interview.
Let’s imagine we get a questionnaire back from a client and we do a

preliminary analysis. In other words, we analyze the answers based on what we
already know, what we have learned from the client’s entourage, and can learn
from public sources. Out of 30 questions, there are three answers regarding
personality and lifestyle that are eye-catching in that they seem remarkably
positive vis-à-vis the client. What’s more, the remaining 27 answers total 190
points.

If the interview reveals that the client has embellished the truth in the three
answers concerning personality and lifestyle, the threat picture changes from
Less likely risk to Likely risk. In addition, each answer must be re-
examined, as there is a theoretical possibility that the client also answered
other questions favorably in his own short-sighted egoistic interest. During the
interview, the results of the risk assessment might jump up as many as two
categories.
This occurs frequently with questions relating to personality and lifestyle, in

particular. Not necessarily owing to mean-spiritedness, a sense of honor, or
mere vanity. It is just as often a misunderstood perception of the ego.
The conclusion can be drawn with or without a threat assessment. It goes

without saying, if no reason is found during the analysis to make a threat
assessment, then there is no reason to do so. Unless, of course, it is to point
out that smoking is unhealthy or that too much bacon with breakfast will kill
the client in the long run.
The conclusion should contain the following:
Date and time of the analysis

Method used for the analysis
Sources used for the analysis
Description of highlights and significant changes following interview(s)
Summary, with recommendations
Signature of interviewer and any assistants
In addition, it is important not to forget reservations pertaining to external

factors and false information. As pointed out earlier, the client may have
different reasons to say one thing when reality is another. I will not get into
motives and causal need1, but merely point out that we all adapt our behavior
to our environment, and very personal questions can seem frightening to
some.
1. Causal needs often arising in childhood
T H R E AT A SS E SS M E N T
Definition:
1. Identification of one or more threats

2. Investigation into and assessment of the threat(s)
3. Handling of each threat
Threat assessment is an important tool in the consulting process. If

anything, the client naturally wants to know what he/she has to
be afraid of.
As we said earlier, a threat assessment is only relevant when there is

a specific threat. For instance, if we know for a fact that Al Qaeda
has the client on its list of targets or that the client’s profile
matches the type of target usually pursued by a particular
criminal / terrorist organization. Another threat could be the direct
threat derived from the client’s own conduct. Many famous
personalities have lost money through compensation claims—not
to mention jobs and market shares—because they have physically
or verbally abused others in public. Some have been labeled by
prostitutes as sexual deviants. Such behavior constitutes a direct
threat to the client’s renommé and, consequently, revenue, and
should be uncovered.
But the threat assessment is especially based on data collected from

public sources. Start with what you, yourself, can find out. Then, if
deemed safe to do so, look for information from the client’s
entourage/organization and, lastly, from the authorities2.
After data has been collected, threat models can be useful in

defining the characteristics that are typical of the threats. This
could be, for instance, the dynamics of a car pile-up, a hurricane’s
potential trajectory and strength, or a terrorist group’s modus
operandi. When all possibilities have been considered, a
conclusion should be drawn again—this time only regarding the
relevant threat scenario(s). Advice is then given accordingly.
2. The more information you possess, the greater the chances are that the authorities will cooperate.

RISK MANAGEMENT
Definition: As it pertains to personal protection, risk management is

traditionally divided into three categories:
A. Risks that can be eliminated
B. Risks that can be reduced
C. Risks that can be neither eliminated nor reduced
Examples:
Risks that can be eliminated.

Proof exists that a client has been threatened and attacked by a
former colleague.
! – The client is protected physically, evidence is collected, the
case is reported, and the aggressor is taken into custody.
Risks that can be reduced.

A client lives in a geographic area known for its high criminal
statistics.
! - The statistics are laid out and acceptable alternative homes
are proposed.
Risks that can be neither eliminated nor reduced.

A client lives in a country where kidnapping is a frequent
occurrence. The client cannot or does not wish to stop working
there and cannot afford bodyguards.
! – The client is trained in personal safety and safety in hostage
situations. A crisis plan is developed and insurance is taken out.
As we have seen, risk management is largely a matter of controlling

one’s conduct. Who does what in a particular situation? Here, too,
we must rely on the client’s willingness to cooperate. Not only to
change the client’s behavior, but also to convince the client’s
entourage that their behavior can be more appropriate.
Efforts to protect a client from terrorism or criminality can be in vain

if the client’s private chauffeur chooses to drive like a madman or
while intoxicated. In this case, a request from the client could be a
way in which to change the driver’s behavior.
Common to Risk Assessment, Threat Assessment, and Risk

Management is that you, as consultant, must constantly adjust
your results. The world is constantly evolving and so will your
conclusions and subsequent advice to the client.

In principle, an analysis that is two days old is outdated. Naturally,
this depends on the topic and external factors:
Know that the client's reaction to your advice will largely depend on
your argumentation and the manner in which you present the
conclusion/advice. As such, it can be a good idea to obtain written
reports from authorities or public/semipublic institutions that can
back your advice.
There will be those customers who consciously object to having a risk

assessment done. There can be many reasons for objecting to an
assessment, but it is most often merely a sign of ignorance. I always
do a risk assessment. Regardless of the client’s wishes. The client can
choose not to participate, but that merely means that the assessment
will be based on a weaker foundation. This is formulated in writing to
the client, who then has the opportunity to see what risk assessment
is and to change their mind regarding their participation in the
assessment.
A client can also choose to participate in the assessment, only to

ignore or reject your advice. Depending on the relationship
between you and your client, you can politely protest or you will
have to adapt your advice and protection according to the client’s
conduct. This can be quite frustrating, but is part of being a
consultant/bodyguard.
Some colleagues in the industry choose not to do risk assessments.

We have heard some argue that the customer will not be using
the assessment for anything anyway or that the client will not pay
the extra cost involved in doing a risk assessment. That attitude is
regrettable. In part, because it is part of our job to do the
assessments. Also, because the risk assessments serve to help
the bodyguard, so they are not harmed while providing personal
protection.
Thus, whatever the client’s attitude toward risk assessments, we

strongly recommend that persons providing personal protection
should make such assessments. In some cases, for example one-
day assignments, it may appear to be a burden on resources.
That way of thinking can kill.
The U.S. Secret Service, U.S. State Department, Danish PET,

Metropolitan Police, and Scotland Yard all use risk assessments.
No government agency operating in the field of personal
protection works without risk assessments. Nor do I see any
reason why we in the private sector should do so.

Source material is taken from the following books:
The New Executive Protection Bible.

M.J. Braunig
The Art of Executive Protection.

Robert L. Oatman
The Modern Bodyguard.

Peter Consterdine
Bodyguard: A Practical Guide to VIP Protection.

Mark V. Lonsdale
The Bodyguard Manual: Protection Techniques of the Professionals.

Leroy Thompson
Providing Executive Protection I+II.

Edited by Dr. Richard Kobetz
Providing Protective Services.

James A. King
Bodyguarding: A Complete Manual.

Burt Rapp & Tony Lesce
Executive Protection Specialist Handbook, sec. edition

J. Glazebrook & N. Nicholson, Ph.D.
Men in Black. Bodyguard Training Manual.

Mark Yates

In addition the above, there are a number of other interesting books that
briefly address the subject. It is my hope that the model and explanations
in this booklet have been useful and can be instrumental in your work. It
is a good idea to reread the example from time to time, as these types of
models have a tendency to be forgotten. When this happens, we fall back
into the ”old” routine of guessing our way forward or asking too few
questions.
ICPTA offers the following courses:
7 day Basic Close Protection course
Stalking countermeasures
PR-24/Tonfa courses
Selfdefense and combatives courses
Evasive driving courses
The above courses are open courses.
For more information, visit us at
www.icpta.org
The content of this material may not be reproduced in either hard

copy or electronic form. Partial reproduction is permitted with the
author’s written consent. Contact Henrik Bramsborg at
bramsborg@hotmail.com concerning reproduction.


Risk Assessment

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Risk Assessment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RISK ASSESSMENT FOR

I have had many different clients from a variety of branches. Furthermore,

Accompanying this booklet is “General Considerations for Escorting Women

I, personally, have derived much inspiration from other professionals in the

2 ©2003-2013 HENRIK BRAMSBORG

Risk assessment is an overall assessment of factors that are or could be

Threat assessment is a specific assessment of threats—natural or man-

3 ©2003-2013 HENRIK BRAMSBORG

Basic data should include the following:

Client’s: Health: Family:

The following seven principal sections are used in the questionnaire:

4 ©2003-2013 HENRIK BRAMSBORG

Grading is done as follows:

1. Yes __ (20 points)

2. Don’t know __ (10 points)

The points can be decimalized in relation to time and qualitative relevance.

Clearly, a questionnaire system can never be comprehensive, which is why

5 ©2003-2013 HENRIK BRAMSBORG

The answer in the footnote report is furnished verbally during an interview

Upon completion of the risk assessment, if it is found that a threat exists;

The form here is industry-specific and should be adapted so that the

The described example relates to a businessman occupying a top position in

6 ©2003-2013 HENRIK BRAMSBORG

New questions, therefore, could include:

Why do you take the medicine/narcotic?

When do you take the medicine/narcotic?

How often do you take it/them?

The same can be said of a number of other questions, such as those

Underlining the complexity of this type of form, the questioning technique

Again, the following pages are only question proposals!

7 ©2003-2013 HENRIK BRAMSBORG

Are you in good physical shape?

Are you physically active?1

What kind of person are you?

2. Relaxed social life __

Do you have any allergies?

8 ©2003-2013 HENRIK BRAMSBORG

Do you have or have you had any physical afflictions?

Do you have or have you had any mental afflictions?2

What kind of person are you?

2. Introverted and quiet __

What is your sexual preference, based on societal standards?3

9 ©2003-2013 HENRIK BRAMSBORG

Are you monogamous?4

Are you law-abiding?

10 ©2003-2013 HENRIK BRAMSBORG

1. Over 50 hours a week __

3. Less than 40 hours a week __

Is your work stressful?

Is your work physically demanding?6

11 ©2003-2013 HENRIK BRAMSBORG

Are you a public personality?

12 ©2003-2013 HENRIK BRAMSBORG

Are you politically active?

Are you a member of a political party?

Do you meet with politicians?7

Are you religious?

13 ©2003-2013 HENRIK BRAMSBORG

Do you meet with religious figures?

Do you know any individuals who are political or religious radicals?8

14 ©2003-2013 HENRIK BRAMSBORG

If so, do you speak openly about the topic?9

Have you ever been accused of being prejudice?