Corporate Risk Intelligence & Threat Advisory

It is the disciplined collection and analysis of information about threats to a business, and the translation of that analysis into decisions a company can act on. The subject may be a facility, a person, a region, an event or a commercial relationship. The output is not raw information: it is a written assessment that separates established fact from judgment, describes the exposure at a specific site or itinerary, and recommends proportionate measures. It is analytical work in support of management, not a security guard contract and not a promise of prediction.

A conventional security assessment is mostly about the property: lighting, access control, camera coverage, staffing, procedures and physical condition. Risk intelligence adds the external picture and the actors: who may want to cause a problem, what they have done elsewhere, what conditions in the surrounding market are changing, and what that means for this site or this itinerary. The two are complementary. USPA assessments typically pair both, because a well-controlled building can still sit in a market where cargo theft has doubled in a year.

Protective intelligence is the analytical work that supports a protection program: reviewing the principal's public exposure, identifying indicators of fixation or targeting in publicly available material, evaluating venues and travel windows, and briefing the detail so protective decisions rest on something more than instinct. It does not replace the close protection team, and it does not imply surveillance of anyone. It is the research and judgment layer that a professional detail works from.

OSINT is open-source intelligence: material that is lawfully available to anyone, including public records, court filings, corporate registrations, published reporting, social media, mapping data and regulatory databases. HUMINT is human-source intelligence: information developed through people, which in a commercial context means authorized interviews, voluntary conversations with employees or witnesses, and assessment of what a source says against what can be corroborated. OSINT is usually the starting point because it is verifiable and fast; HUMINT becomes relevant when the question cannot be answered from records.

Yes. Protective intelligence assignments cover principals, family members and sensitive engagements, and they begin with a review of public exposure: what a determined person could learn about a home, a school routine, a travel pattern or a board schedule. Family exposure is usually higher than executives assume, because school and activity schedules are more predictable than a corporate calendar. Findings feed directly into protective planning, residential coverage and secure transportation when the client authorizes it.

Yes, and multi-site work is where it earns its keep. A portfolio assessment evaluates locations against the same criteria so management can compare them: incident history, surrounding criminal conditions, regulatory exposure, life-safety systems, staffing and access control. The point is prioritization. Most organizations cannot fund every improvement at once, and a comparative assessment shows which three sites carry the greatest exposure rather than distributing budget evenly across forty.

No. Risk intelligence and investigative work can be engaged independently of any guard, fire watch or protection contract, and many clients begin with an assessment before deciding whether to deploy personnel at all. Where the finding does support a protective measure, that deployment is scoped and authorized separately. USPA does not treat an intelligence engagement as an automatic staffing commitment, in either direction.

Typically: the defined scope and the decision being supported; the threat picture for the specific site or operation; the exposure analysis covering access, occupancy, life-safety systems and surrounding conditions; the actors or conditions of concern and what is actually known about them; a risk rating with the reasoning shown; and a prioritized set of recommendations. The report states its sources and its limitations. Where the client provides internal incident records, those are reconciled against the external picture.

Yes, within limits of time and law. During a developing incident the work is verification and situational reporting: confirming what has actually occurred, tracking official statements, identifying protective considerations for the client's people and sites, and flagging where reporting is unreliable. It is not a live surveillance service and it does not substitute for calling 911 or the responsible public agency. After the incident, the same file supports a review of what the response did well and what should change.

Yes, and that is the practical advantage of working with an organization that also staffs posts. A finding that a loading dock is the exposure point should change the post orders, the patrol route and the reporting format, not sit in a report. Where a client already has coverage, the assessment can be written to inform revisions to existing post orders. Where new coverage is warranted, it is quoted and authorized as a separate engagement.

Confidentiality is set in the engagement terms and applied through handling practice: need-to-know access inside an assignment, minimization of personal information, documented file control, and reports delivered only to the client's designated contact. Public web forms are not used for sensitive case material; an advisor arranges an appropriate channel before detailed information is exchanged. USPA does not disclose that a client is a client without authorization.

Pricing is quoted per engagement because scope drives it: the number of sites or principals, the depth of research required, the number of interviews, the timeline and the format of the deliverable. A single-facility threat assessment and a multi-country travel program are not the same piece of work and should not share a rate card. Scope and fee are agreed in writing before work begins, so there is no open-ended billing.

Initial consultation is usually same-day through the dispatch line at (800) 214-1448. A defined single-site threat assessment can generally begin once scope is agreed and the client provides access or records, with preliminary findings often available within days depending on the depth required. Urgent protective questions are triaged immediately. No service level is promised here that has not been scoped for the specific assignment.

Yes, for organizations with personnel, travel or operations outside the United States. International work draws on published advisories, local reporting, regulatory material and, where the client authorizes it, coordination with in-country protective resources. The scope states which jurisdictions are covered and which are not, and findings distinguish clearly between what could be verified at a distance and what requires local confirmation. Country conditions change, so international findings carry a review date.

An assessment is judgment applied to incomplete information at a point in time. It cannot predict a specific event, cannot see inside private communications, cannot verify what no source establishes, and cannot make an organization safe by itself. A finding of no credible threat reflects the evidence available when the work was done. Decisions taken on the basis of an assessment remain the client's, and the assessment should be revisited when the site, the itinerary or the surrounding conditions change.