Abstract
Violent radicalisation is a complex problem, complicated by the lack of a clear terrorist profile and variation in the risk factors that predict violent extremism across individuals and groups (Campelo, Oppetit, Neau, Cohen, & Bronsard, 2018; Carlsson et al., 2020; Desmarais, Simons‐Rudolph, Brugh, Schilling, & Hoggan, 2017; Wolfowicz, Litmanovitz, Weisburd, & Hasisi, 2019). While models of understanding radicalisation vary (Borum, 2015; Christmann, 2012; Desmarais et al., 2017; Horgan, 2008; Koehler, 2017; Kruglanski, Belanger, & Gunaratna, 2019; Sarma, 2017), it is broadly defined as the process by which a person adopts extremist views and moves towards committing a violent act (Irwin, 2015; Jensen, Atwell Seate, & James, 2018). Radicalisation has been linked with individual and group engagement in terrorist attacks against innocent civilians (Wilner & Dubouloz, 2010), as well as individuals entering conflict zones to join formal extremist groups to engage in violent combat (Lindekilde, Bertelsen, & Stohl, 2016). As a result, radicalisation has become a key focus for counterterrorism and violence prevention interventions. The complex and varied nature of individuals' progression from radicalisation to violence presents challenges for designing and evaluating appropriate interventions and policy responses (Hafez & Mullins, 2015; Helmus et al., 2017; Horgan & Braddock, 2010; Horgan, 2008; Jensen et al., 2018; Kruglanski et al., 2019). This level of complexity has driven national counterterrorism policy agendas to adopt intersectoral and multiagency responses that aim to address various radicalisation processes and risks (Beutel & Weinberger, 2016). These multiagency responses often involve partnerships and collaborations between various different agencies and entities (Hardy, 2018), such as governmental agencies, private businesses, community organisations and service providers.
Highlights
This review will include any multiagency intervention, where at least one of those partners is the public police and where the intervention explicitly aims to address terrorism, violent extremism, or radicalisation to violence. This type of intervention can include a range of approaches, including: police engaging with different community and agency stakeholders to help identify terrorist threats (Innes, Roberts, & Innes, 2011; Ramiriz, Quinlan, Malloy, & Shutt, 2013); police working with other agencies to refer, assess, or case‐manage individuals convicted of terrorism or identified as at‐risk for radicalisation (Cherney & Belton, 2019); or police forming task forces or partaking in regular structured meetings with other agencies to problem‐solve issues pertaining to radicalisation or extremism (Koehler, 2016)
The results from this review will inform future decision‐making regarding the design and evaluation of multiagency programmes by synthesising the evidence for their effectiveness, identifying potential gaps in the evidence‐base and providing insight into what level of investment is required for the implementation and evaluation of primary studies
Approaches that involve police working with other agencies to refer, assess, or case‐manage individuals convicted of terrorism or identified as at risk of radicalisation (Cherney & Belton, 2019)
Summary
1.1 | The problem, condition or issue agencies, private businesses, community organisations and service providers. This review will include any multiagency intervention, where at least one of those partners is the public police and where the intervention explicitly aims to address terrorism, violent extremism, or radicalisation to violence This type of intervention can include a range of approaches, including: police engaging with different community and agency stakeholders to help identify terrorist threats (Innes, Roberts, & Innes, 2011; Ramiriz, Quinlan, Malloy, & Shutt, 2013); police working with other agencies to refer, assess, or case‐manage individuals convicted of terrorism or identified as at‐risk for radicalisation (Cherney & Belton, 2019); or police forming task forces or partaking in regular structured meetings with other agencies to problem‐solve issues pertaining to radicalisation or extremism (Koehler, 2016). The results from this review will inform future decision‐making regarding the design and evaluation of multiagency programmes by synthesising the evidence for their effectiveness, identifying potential gaps in the evidence‐base and providing insight into what level of investment is required for the implementation and evaluation of primary studies
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
