preventing support for violent extremism through community...

Preventing Support for Violent Extremism throughCommunity Interventions: A Review of the Evidence

Rapid Evidence Assessment Summary Report

www.communities.gov.ukcommunity, opportunity, prosperity

Acknowledgments

This report was written by Professor Lawrence Pratchett, Dr Leila Thorp, Dr MelvinWingfield, Professor Vivian Lowndes and Ruby Jabbar from De Montfort University.

This report would not have been possible without the invaluable support of ourresearchers: Dr Mark Roberts and Steve White. We also would like to thank SuzanneWalker for her continuous administrative support throughout the project.

Preventing Support for Violent Extremism throughCommunity Interventions: A Review of the Evidence

Rapid Evidence Assessment Summary Report

March 2010De Montfort University

Department for Communities and Local Government

Department for Communities and Local GovernmentEland HouseBressenden PlaceLondonSW1E 5DUTelephone: 0303 444 0000Website: www.communities.gov.uk

© Crown Copyright, 2010

Copyright in the typographical arrangement rests with the Crown.

This publication, excluding logos, may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium for research, private study or for internal circulation within an organisation. This is subject to it being reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Crown copyright and the title of the publication specified.

Any other use of the contents of this publication would require a copyright licence. Please apply for a Click-Use Licencefor core material at www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/system/online/pLogin.asp, or by writing to the Office of Public SectorInformation, Information Policy Team, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 4DU.

e-mail: [email protected]

If you require this publication in an alternative format please email [email protected]

Communities and Local Government PublicationsTel: 0300 123 1124Fax: 0300 123 1125Email: [email protected] via the Communities and Local Government website: www.communities.gov.uk

March 2010

Product code: 09 CADO 6122/SR

ISBN: 978 1 4098 2328 5

This is printed on75% recycled paper

75%

Contents

Acknowledgements ........................................................................ inside front cover

Executive summary ................................................................................................ 4

Chapter 1 Introduction .......................................................................................... 8

Chapter 2 Methodology ........................................................................................ 9

2.1 Selecting the evidence base .............................................................. 9

2.2 Quality of the evidence base ............................................................ 10

2.3 Distribution of the evidence base ...................................................... 10

Chapter 3 Factors for analysis .............................................................................. 11

3.1 Defining success in preventing support for violent extremism ............ 11

3.2 Influencing the success of interventions toprevent violent extremism ................................................................ 11

3.3 Analysing the cases .......................................................................... 12

Chapter 4 Findings ................................................................................................ 13

4.1 Background to the findings .............................................................. 13

4.2 Summary of the main findings .......................................................... 13

4.3 Limitations to the findings ................................................................ 14

Chapter 5 Analysis ................................................................................................ 15

5.1 Work with young people .................................................................. 15

5.2 Work with women............................................................................ 15

5.3 Work with leaders ............................................................................ 16

5.4 Work with community ...................................................................... 17

Chapter 6 Conclusions .......................................................................................... 18

References ............................................................................................................ 21

Bibliography of Final Sources for Analysis ............................................................ 22

4 | Preventing Support for Violent Extremism through Community Interventions: Rapid Evidence Assessment Mapping Report – Stage One

Executive summary

Over the last few years there have been a wide range of interventions aimed at reducingsupport for violent extremism. This report focuses on those interventions which seek toprevent violent extremism, or reduce support for it, at the community level. For thepurposes of analysis, ‘community level’ is used simply to distinguish such interventionsfrom national level interventions or campaigns, or those which are focused on particularindividuals. They exclude interventions specifically targeted at radicalised individuals, forexample de-radicalisation programmes. This focus reflects the policy area ofCommunities and Local Government which commissioned this research.

The report is the product of a rapid evidence assessment. The rapid evidence assessmentundertook extensive searching of research databases and other sources to identifyevaluations that had been undertaken of interventions aimed at changing attitudes toviolent extremism. Following on from an earlier report which mapped the evidence baseon community level interventions aimed at preventing violent extremism, this reportanalyses specific interventions to identify which were most effective at preventingsupport for violent extremism in the name of religion, in what ways and with whichpopulation groups.

The analysis is not limited to literature concerned with preventing violent extremism inthe name of Islam within a western context but also covers interventions in relation tosectarian violence in Northern Ireland and religious violence (Christian and Muslim) inIndonesia.

The evidence base

This research was undertaken in two stages. Our stage one report set out an evidencebase of 813 references, all with some relevance to preventing support for violentextremism at the community level. Cases were drawn from UK and non-UK contexts.

In this second phase the evidence base has been refined further in terms of quality,scope, and definitional clarity, thereby reducing the evidence base from 813 references to68. Further detailed reading of these publications led to the identification of18 evaluation sources, which between them evaluated 70 different interventions. Outof these 70 interventions 55 of those relate to preventing support for violent extremismin the name of religion and it is these 55 cases which are the basis of our analysis here(see table 1).

Executive summary | 5

Limitations of the literature

In reviewing the 70 interventions from the 18 studies, there are a number of caveatswhich need to be acknowledged.

From the outset it is important to note that our remit was to undertake a REA on whatworked best in changing communities’ attitudes to violent extremism. However, it shouldbe noted that it was not possible – in the scope and timescale of the study – to identifyexamples of change in the full community. None of the cases that were identified in thesearch for evidence focused on community level changes in attitude or support forviolent extremism. Indeed, the team recognise that measuring changes in communityattitudes is intrinsically difficult and unlikely to be the focus of most activities.Consequently, the study has identified changes in the behaviour and attitudes ofindividual participants in certain interventions. It is possible that, if such changessubsequently ripple outwards to a wider community, that this community mightexperience the same change in attitudes. However, this wider change was not evidencedin the interventions identified in the study.

In part, this reflects the practical difficulty of conducting studies on whole communities –studies often focus on a group of participants, and may suggest that trends notedamong participants might reflect trends for a wider community. However, it is notpossible to conclude this from the studies assessed by our research. Our work hasuncovered some important principles in how attitudes to violent extremism can betackled; but it is not possible to infer from the assessed studies that there is a causal linkbetween such interventions and any change in community attitudes.

Due to time constraints, the review is only focused on English language sources,although it does cover international examples where they were available in English.Moreover, much of the evidence was case based and qualitative in nature, and the extentof evaluation was limited in many of them. Using the Boolean technique describedbelow, however, many of these limitations have been controlled for in the analysis.Nevertheless, the limited quality of the evidence base does imply that caution should beadopted in interpreting the findings.


Methodology

To analyse the interventions we used the Boolean approach which facilitates analysis ofqualitative data (for further information please refer to the full report) . This approachenabled the research team, in discussion with CLG, to identify a range of factors whichmight influence the effectiveness of interventions to reduce support for violentextremism, and then code each of the 55 cases to establish the presence or absence ofthese factors. The factors identified and coded for were:

The target population group:

• Young People

• Women

• Community

• Leaders

Focus of intervention:

• Capacity building/Empowerment

• Challenging Ideology

• Focus on Theology

• Debate/Discussion Forums

• Education/Training

Mechanism for delivery:

• Outreach/Peripatetic

• Multi-agency

• Community Consultation

Cases were coded for the presence of these factors and coded for whether theintervention had been evaluated as being successful in changing participants’ attitudes toviolent extremism. This allowed for the identification of factors which influenced success.

Executive summary | 7

Findings and analysis

1 The most successful interventions to prevent support for violent extremism inthe name of religion are:

In terms of interventions aimed at young people:

• Interventions to capacity build/empower delivered via outreach/peripateticmechanisms and multi-agency working.

• Interventions to challenge ideology that focus on theology and use education/trainingdelivered through outreach peripatetic work.

• Outreach/peripatetic work with young people is particularly necessary in terms ofsuccess in relation to any focus.

In terms of interventions aimed at women:

• Interventions to challenge ideology that focus on theology and are delivered viaoutreach/peripatetic means.

• Interventions that focus on theology, using debate and discussion and are deliveredvia outreach/peripatetic mechanisms.

• Outreach/peripatetic work with women is particularly necessary in terms of success inrelation to any focus.

In terms of interventions aimed more generally at the ‘community’:

• Interventions to capacity build/empower delivered via outreach/peripateticmechanisms.

Work with leaders was not sufficient on its own to produce a successful outcomein relation to preventing violent extremism in the name of religion.1

1 This is not to suggest that the involvement of leaders in projects is not beneficial, or, in some cases, necessary for success – see page15 for further information.


Chapter 1Introduction

This research, conducted by the Local Governance Research Unit, De Montfort University,provides a rapid evidence assessment (REA) of the evidence base around preventingsupport for violent extremism in the name of religion. It does not undertake primaryresearch but, instead, develops a robust and systematic analysis of the existing academicand policy literature on preventing support for violent extremism at a community level.

This report builds on an initial mapping exercise in which the broad literature onpreventing violent extremism (PVE) was examined. The mapping stage identified somebroad trends but, due to the wide scope of the exercise, was unable to develop a detailedanalysis of specific areas of intervention. It is only by focusing on specific areas ofintervention that detailed lessons can be drawn from the most relevant literature withinthe evidence base. The project team analysed four specific areas of intervention:

• work with young people

• work with women

• work with community

• work with leaders.

This report focuses on the practical implementation of policies for reducing support forviolent extremism and provides an analysis of what works best in relation to tackling theissues of extremism, and in particular, violent extremism in the name of religion. It alsolooks at the impact of working with different sections of the population, using differenttypes of intervention, or employing different mechanisms for a reduction in support forviolent extremism. Evidence on the prevention of violent extremism beyond thatassociated with religion was also investigated. However, there was only limited evidenceavailable of such interventions (15 cases) so these have been excluded from the analysis,although they have been included as an appendix in the full report.

Further supporting documents on the detail of the methodology/methods, and thefindings generated are set out in the full report.

Chapter 2 Methodology | 9

Chapter 2Methodology

2.1 Selecting the evidence base

This research undertakes a rapid evidence assessment of community level2 interventionsto prevent support for violent extremism. The stage one mapping exercise identified anevidence base of 813 references. During stage two, the evidence base has been refinedfurther in terms of quality, scope, and definitional clarity. The process of further siftingtook place in two steps.

First we reduced the references from 813 to 68. This was done by excluding referenceswith the following characteristics:

• Only related to overall community cohesion, and not specifically at changing attitudestowards extremism (e.g. general community programmes).

• Only related to localised issues of violence and not extremism per se (e.g. localdisorder or anti-social behaviour such as vandalism, gang activity, etc).

• Where the available information did not allow an assessment of the relevance of thestudy to our research.

• Where the source of the study was not deemed to be sufficiently robust. We used asix-point scale to assess the source; those sources which fell below six were excluded.The scale is as follows:

Academic peer-reviewed journal publications (1)

Theses (2)

Conference papers (3)

Centres of research (4)

Government websites (5)

International organisations (6)

Think-tanks/NGOs (7)

Foreign organisations/centres (8)

2 Our definition of ‘community’ as set out in the Stage One Mapping Report (2009: 44) was as follows: ‘Community’ is a group thatrecognise that they have something in common with each other, or who are recognised by others as such. Policy was understood as‘applicable to the community level’ as defined as relevant to: a group that is not simply focused on isolated individuals, but insteadonly includes individually focused interventions where they could be/are applied to individuals when comprising a group.


Other

The next step in this process was to obtain full text for the 68 sources identified as theresearch team had previously only had access to abstracts or titles. The sources were readand checked to see whether they included the key factors considered to be most likely toplay a part in the success or not of preventing violent extremism in terms of target group,type of intervention, and delivery mechanism. Further detailed reading of thesepublications led to the identification of 18 sources which met our criteria in terms of bothquality and focus on the topic which, between them, offered 70 different interventions.

2.2 Quality of the evidence base

The academic literature provides extensive material around violent extremism sufficientfor the Boolean analysis utilised here. However, much of the evidence base fails tocomment on the impact and outcome of preventing violent extremism at a communitylevel. The evidence base is largely restricted to a focus on participants’ attitudes topreventing violent extremism. The implicit theory within the literature is one of a‘contagion’ effect, whereby changing attitudes in preventing violent extremism in anindividual would lead to a change of attitude for the whole of the community. Moreover,much of the evidence was case based and qualitative in nature, and the extent ofevaluation was limited in many of them. Using the Boolean technique described below,much of these limitations have been controlled for in the analysis. Nevertheless, thelimited quality of the evidence base does imply that caution should be adopted ininterpreting the findings.

2.3 Distribution of the evidence base

A total of 18 cases were selected with 70 different interventions from the evidence basefor the rapid evidence assessment. Out of these 70 interventions 55 of those related toPVE in the name of religion and it is those 55 cases which form the basis of our analysishere. The cases are predominately drawn from the academic literature but also includereports from the local government. Cases were drawn from both UK and non-UKcontexts.

For further information on the methodology please refer to the full report.

Chapter 3 Factors for analysis | 11

Chapter 3Factors for analysis

3.1 Defining success in preventing support for violentextremism

We considered two types of successful outcomes in our stage two analysis. These were:

1 Whether the intervention resulted in a reduction in participants’ support for violentextremism.

2 Whether the intervention resulted in a reduction in participants’ support for violentextremism in the name of religion.

Our definition of ‘success’ in terms of the outcomes of the case studies was set by thestudies themselves. ‘Success’ was self-defined either by the author of the study, or by thefeedback reported from study participants.

Definition:

• Violent Extremism = taking actions to cause injury or death to people in orderto make a political protest.

3.2 Influencing the success of interventions to preventviolent extremism

Alongside a definition of what is meant by a successful outcome to prevent support forviolent extremism, it is also necessary to identify those factors that are likely to drive orinhibit different types of outcomes. Influencing factors fall into three main categories: thepopulation group with whom the intervention is played out, the main content of theintervention, and the mechanism for delivery. Within these categories we distinguishedbetween them as follows:

The target population group:

• Young People

• Women

• Community

• Leaders.


Focus of intervention:

• Capacity building/Empowerment

• Challenging Ideology

• Focus on Theology

• Debate/Discussion Forums

• Education/Training.

Mechanism for delivery:

• Outreach/Peripatetic – delivered via a community embedded individual ororganisation.

• Multi-agency – conducted formally via partnerships or informally throughcollaboration or cooperation.

• Community Consultation – consultation with leaders or more broad mechanisms ofparticipation for the purposes of consultation.

3.3 Analysing the cases

To analyse the evidence base we used an approach known as fuzzy-set Qualitative CaseAnalysis (fsQCA). This approach involved the research team coding each of the 55different interventions for the presence or absence of the influencing factors identifiedabove. Through computerised analysis, these influencing factors can then be reduced tothose factors that are most important in influencing success (for more details of thefsQCA method see the full report), thereby identifying a number of ‘pathways tosuccess’. These pathways show which combinations are most likely to support ‘success’as defined above. It is the findings from this analysis which are reported below.

Chapter 4 Findings | 13

Chapter 4Findings

This section details the findings to have come out of the analysis conducted on the 70interventions contained in our sample of 18 literature sources. However, as mentionedabove it is those interventions related to PVE in the name of religion that form the basisof our analysis in the main body of the report.

4.1 Background to the findings

The majority of our literature and the interventions therein, related to preventing violentextremism in the name of religion. Before we proceed it is important to note that theinterventions covered in this literature were not all in terms of preventing violentextremism in the name of Islam within a western context. They also covered interventionsin relation to sectarian violence in Northern Ireland and religious violence (Christian andMuslim) in Indonesia. These have not been analysed separately in terms of the differentcontexts; all interventions, irrespective of context, were analysed according to thepresence or absence of the influencing variables thought most likely to be successful inchanging attitudes to violent extremism.

4.2 Summary of the main findings

One of the key features of the fsQCA approach is that it emphasises that different pathsmay lead to the same outcome. Instead of assuming a simple line of causality in relationto particular policy goals, it recognises the complex and often messy world of real policymaking. It allows, therefore, for different combinations of influencing factors to beequally important in leading to a particular outcome.

The most successful interventions to prevent support for violent extremism in thename of religion are:

In terms of interventions aimed at young people:

• Interventions to capacity build/empower delivered via outreach/peripateticmechanisms and multi-agency working.

• Interventions to challenge ideology that focus on theology and use education/trainingdelivered through outreach peripatetic work.

• Outreach/peripatetic work with young people is particularly necessary in terms ofsuccess in relation to any focus.


In terms of interventions aimed at women:

• Interventions to challenge ideology that focus on theology and are delivered viaoutreach/peripatetic means.

• Interventions that focus on theology, using debate and discussion and are deliveredvia outreach/peripatetic mechanisms.

• Outreach/peripatetic work with women is particularly necessary in terms of success inrelation to any focus.

In terms of interventions aimed generally at the ‘community’:

• Interventions to capacity build/empower delivered via outreach/peripateticmechanisms.

Work with leaders was not sufficient on its own to produce a successful outcomein relation to preventing violent extremism in the name of religion.3

Further detail can be found in the full report.

4.3 Limitations to the findings

In addition to the general caveats discussed previously there are some specific limitationsrelated to the results of the analysis:

• We had disappointingly low scores in terms of the extent to which each pathway tosuccess explains the outcome. The consequence of these low scores is that in nopathway is there a clear and strong message about what works or does not work. Thepathways do offer some direction but need to be treated with some caution.

• Our method is used to working with low numbers of cases. However, when we referto our spread of cases they were particularly low in some instances (e.g. women,leaders, focus on theology/ideology, community consultation). This low spread ofcases may be a further factor to explain why these outcomes did not appear to be sosuccessful.

• The computer analysis sometimes threw up pathways to success with almost thesame factors present consecutively. The difference between paths was simply theaddition of a couple of new variables (conditions) in one as opposed to another. Onanalysing this data therefore we focused on the extent to which each of the pathwaysresulted in success (using the raw coverage calculation), in selecting the mostplausible success story.

3 This is not to suggest that the involvement of leaders in projects is not beneficial, or, in some cases, necessary for success – see page15 for further information

Chapter 5 Analysis | 15

Chapter 5Analysis

Following the fsQCA analysis a second level of qualitative analysis of the source materialswas undertaken by researchers working on the project, both to verify the validity of ourfindings and to provide more context to the findings presented. Only outcomes related toPVE in the name of religion are discussed within each heading as the majority ofinterventions were focused on this particular area.

5.1 Work with young people

A review of the literature confirms the fsQCA analysis results in broad terms. Work withyoung people is the most important focus in the literature in this area, since it is thisgroup that is felt to be the most susceptible to becoming attracted to extremism.

Work with young people does seem to require high levels of trust and community-ledengagement in order to be successful. In this way it makes sense that outreach/peripatetic work is particularly useful. Personal development and ongoing supportedleadership development were strong elements relating to work to challenge ideology andfocus on theology through the use of education and training.

Interventions with young people were generally delivered through a mix of multi-agencyworking and/or outreach/peripatetic working. The focus on outreach/peripatetic work inorder to develop and maintain trusting relations between community hubs and localpartners, was mirrored in terms of success in the PVE Pathfinder UK interventions.Similarly community-led interventions were identified as vital to their success.

Education and training delivered to challenge ideology and theology was successfulwhen it was non-prescriptive, but instead focused on allowing individuals to developindependent thinking or research and leadership skills in order to question and challengethemselves and others in where and what knowledge they received from sources such asthe internet and radical groups (Marcouch, 2008; Change Institute, 2008).

5.2 Work with women

Much of the work with women to date within the PREVENT UK strategy has beenfocused around empowerment and capacity building. However, an important part ofsuch empowerment has been supporting women to debate theological issues aroundtheir role in Muslim society. Theological debate within a Western context has also helpedwomen to support their children’s understanding and negotiation of identity. In additionto this, many women have taken the initiative to challenge Islamophobic ideas anddivisive ideologies of which they often feel they are a direct target.


Due to their traditional role in Muslim society women have not previously been engagedin public institutions on a large scale. Reports note (Faith Associates, 2008) that someMuslim women lack good English language skills and the confidence to engage in widersociety (including further education) as well as facing cultural barriers to accessing publicservices. These factors, alongside more widespread findings in feminist literature, implythat the most successful way to deliver work to women is through outreach/peripateticroutes. In some case studies the use of drama and role play was an effective way to breakdown barriers to communication and build trust between women (OPM, 2008).

5.3 Work with leaders

The fsQCA analysis did not produce pathways to success in this area. This could be dueto several reasons. Firstly, the literature on interventions with leaders and the level ofevaluation within it was not sufficiently detailed in this area for the coding to supportsuch analysis. Secondly, in relation to this point, work with leaders was underdevelopedat the community level.

Although the analysis did not lead to any successful pathways, it is possible to discernfrom the literature that work with leaders in relation to the UK PREVENT agenda, hasbeen primarily focused on developing the role of religious leaders. The focus for this workhas been on supporting better training for religious leaders. Such leaders are operatingwithin a Western context, often without the background or skills to do so effectively. Inaddition to this, a particular focus has been on improving the ability of Imams to relate toyoung people and to support those most susceptible to radicalisation.

In some instances, where the language competences are good and local trust can bedeveloped, Imams have proved a vital resource in improving inter-generational relations,diffusing local tensions (myth-busting), or offering theological support to other initiativesaround citizenship (for example Marcouch, 2008). For Imams, as long as it is felt thattraining courses are not imposed, or do not interfere in religious issues, capacity buildingin areas such as statutory requirements, or teaching skills have proved useful. These canfacilitate better links and networks with schools and other statutory agencies to sustainsuch work in an ongoing manner and build better community cohesion (Ali, 2008;Change Institute, 2008).

It is also important to note that while work with leaders did not come out as successfulon it’s own, the involvement of leaders in projects directed at youth, women or thecommunity in general may be highly beneficial – in some cases even necessary – for someprogrammes. Hence their involvement may contribute to success. However, the analysiswas neither able, nor designed, to test the role of leaders in this context.

Chapter 5 Analysis | 17

5.4 Work with community

The fsQCA analysis on PVE in the name of religion was only able to highlight onesuccessful pathway. The results referred to the importance of community interventions tocapacity building. For PVE in the name of religion community capacity building washighlighted as important through the use of outreach/peripatetic work. This result makessense when we consider the rationale for capacity building work is one of reconcilingsocial divisions that are often exacerbated by differences in skills based resources. In workrelated to PVE in the name of religion for instance, a media workshop allowedparticipants to gain skills in communication as well as understand how to access a meansof communication that they thought was closed to them as a community (WaterhouseConsultancy Group, 2008).


Chapter 6Conclusions

In this concluding section we shall discuss both PVE generally and PVE in the name ofreligion together, as much of what we say here relates to both outcomes. In this reportwe have analysed existing studies and evaluations of attempts to prevent violentextremism. We first approached this research with two types of successful outcomes:whether the intervention/treatment resulted in a reduction in community support forviolent extremism or whether the intervention/treatment resulted in a reduction incommunity support for violent extremism in the name of religion. However, as notedabove there is no evidence from the 18 literature sources to suggest which interventionsworked best in changing communities’ attitudes towards violent extremism, The implicittheory within the literature is one of a ‘trickle down’ or ‘contagion’ effect, wherebychanging attitudes in preventing violent extremism in an individual will spill over into achange of attitude for the whole of the community. Therefore, our findings relate tointerventions which worked best in reducing participants’ support for violent extremism.Also due to the limited number of interventions related to PVE generally we decided tofocus the analysis solely on PVE in the name of religion. As we have noted above, thisdoes not imply extremism in the name of Islam but also include studies from the sectarianconflict in Northern Ireland conflict as well as religious conflict in Indonesia.

Much of the evidence from the 18 studies was case based and qualitative in nature, andthe extent of evaluation was limited in many of them. By adopting the fsQCA approachwe have compensated for any shortcomings that may have arisen.

In this concluding section we highlight some of the broader lessons that can be drawnfrom the analysis. Three factors form the basis of these conclusions.

Target group

The importance of a clearly defined target group in relation to a detailed overarchingtheory of preventing support for violent extremism is highlighted in the literature and is akey feature of success. Having such a theory not only provides a justification for theintervention but also offers a clear set of criteria against which to evaluate it. Severalconclusions nevertheless stand out.

• Work with any of the four main groups – women, leaders, young people, and thecommunity – needs to be firmly linked to a theoretically informed strategy (seeabove). It is also important to understand links between these four groups. It is notsufficient to simply assume that work with one group will automatically trickle downor across to other groups within the community. In order to both explain and evaluatesuch interventions it is necessary to have an explicit theory for why the interventionsare taking place and how they link between or across groups, which takes intoaccount both the internal and external factors.

Chapter 6 Conclusions | 19

• Work with leaders at the community level, needs to consider their involvement ascommunity participants, rather than just as representatives.

• Work with young people seems to be the most important area on which policy-makers should focus their attention. This message is one which is sustained across theliterature and which appears to offer the greatest likelihood of success.

• Inter-generational work is an important aspect to promoting community resilience,that needs development and one where learning could be drawn from other workaround PVE.

Type of intervention

Focusing on target groups within a community will only be successful if the correct typeof intervention is adopted. It is evident that different groups will respond better to sometypes of intervention than others. Moreover, the context in which the intervention isadopted, and the way it is combined with others, will matter. Our analysis suggests thatthe following issues are most important in relation to the type of intervention:

• Successful types of intervention were those which focus on challenging ideology,often combined with a focus on theology. Discussion and debate was often a sub-type of this kind of approach but was not necessarily sufficient on its own.

• Challenging ideology and extremist interpretations of theology are best whencommunity-led debates occur, encouraged through sessions to gain skills onindependent thinking and a questioning of information.

• Providing long-term, sustainable support for spaces, resources and training in offeringsuch community-led support is important.

• There is some evidence (see Marcouch 2008) to suggest that when identity issues andideology issues are addressed this needs to be a two stage process. Firstly, initiated asa process where community debate on Islam and Muslim politics can take place insafe, accessible spaces. Secondly, moving to a process where there is wider debate,and discussion forums on these issues to involve a two-way dialogue with other faithgroups and those of no faith.

• A successful type of intervention is one which focuses on capacity building/empowerment. Informal education and training was often a sub-type of thisapproach.

• Capacity building/empowerment was successful particularly when it gainedsustainability either through a peer-led continuation of mentoring type schemes, orwhen linked to a recognised leadership qualification.

• Multi-agency involvement in capacity building/engagement was crucial in terms ofproviding ongoing signposting to support continued individual development.


Mechanism

Alongside the type of intervention, the mechanism through which it is delivered has alsobeen identified as being crucial to success. The key factors here were:

• The importance of outreach/peripatetic work was strongly confirmed in our study. Thekey point here is that interventions need to go where the specific communities or sub-communities are, rather than working through more formal channels. In relation toyoung people in particular, outreach work in more informal settings seems to bemuch more successful than working through schools or other more formalorganisations. Within the area of outreach/peripatetic work, the way in which thiswas adopted seems to be important in terms of successful engagement taking place.The following seemed to be important:

– Adopting a ‘listening mode’ of engagement.

– Relating to all target group members, as people with experience of theircommunity, rather than representatives. This relies on integrating such membersinto governance structures appropriately in order to support such a role.

– Building good relations of trust with existing community hubs, allowing them tosupport new community engagement and leadership development.

Not surprisingly, our analysis concludes by recognising the ongoing difficulties whichpolicy makers face in identifying and implementing appropriate interventions to reducesupport for violent extremism in the name of religion within specific communities.However, in bringing together the existing literature and policy evaluations on this topicand subjecting them to a systematic analysis, we have gone some way to identifyingthose types of interventions which might be most successful. A rapid evidenceassessment of this type cannot give definitive direction to future policy, not least because,as we have discussed earlier, the evidence base on which it is premised remains limited.Nevertheless, the report has highlighted some areas and combinations which holdgreater promise of success. In this respect, this rapid evidence assessment should providea valuable resource for all those concerned with reducing support for violent extremism.

References | 21

References

Ali, Aisha (2008) Capacity building of staff in Madressahs (Islamic Schools) PVE PathfinderEvaluation 2007-8. For Kirklees Council (received via CLG).

Change Institute (2008) Study on Best Practices in Cooperation between authorities andcivil society with a view to the prevention and response to violent radicalisation: A studycommissioned by DG JLS of the European Commission.

Faith Associates (unpublished) ‘The Muslimah make a difference’ High Wycombe 2007-8PVE pathfinder evaluation (received via CLG).

Marcouch, Ahmed (2008). Slotervaart Action Plan – Countering Radicalisation Council ofAmsterdam Borough of Slotervaart.

OPM (unpublished) ‘Preventing Violent Extremism Pathfinder Evaluation – Draft FinalReport for West London Alliance’. April 2008. PVE Pathfinder Evaluation 2007-8(received via CLG).

Ragin, C. (1987) The Comparative Method, Berkeley: The University of Californiahttp://www.u.arizona.edu/~cragin/fsQCA/

Ragin, C. (2000) Fuzzy-Set Social Science, Chicago/ London: The University of ChicagoPress.

Ragin, C. and Davey, S. (2008) User’s Guide to Fuzzy-set/Qualitative ComparativeAnalysis, Arizona: University of Arizona.

Waterhouse Consultancy Group, (2008) PVE – An independent evaluation of theBirmingham Pathfinder. For Birmingham City Council PVE Pathfinder Evaluation 2007-8(received via CLG).


Bibliography of Final Sources for Analysis

Ali, Aisha (2008) Capacity building of staff in Madressahs (Islamic Schools) PVE PathfinderEvaluation 2007-8. For Kirklees Council (received via CLG).

Change Institute (2008) Study on Best Practices in Cooperation between authorities andcivil society with a view to the prevention and response to violent radicalisation: A studycommissioned by DG JLS of the European Commission.

Faith Associates (unpublished) ‘The Muslimah make a difference’ High Wycombe 2007-8PVE pathfinder evaluation (received via CLG).

Haddad and Balz (2008) Taming the Imams: European Governments and IslamicPreachers Since 9/11. Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 215-235.

Hughes, J. (1998) Community Relations from Northern Ireland: Lessons from Drumcree.Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, Vol. 24: 3, pp. 433-450.

Hughes, J. (2009) Peace Reconcilation and a Shared Future: a policy shift or slightly moreof the same? Community Development Journal, Vol. 44, No. 1, pp. 22-37.

Khuri, L. M. (2004) Facilitating Arab-Jewish Intergroup Dialogue in the College Setting.Race Ethnicity and Education, Vol. 7: 3, pp. 229-50.

Knox and Hughes (1996) Crossing the Divide: Community Relations in Northern Ireland.Journal of Peace Research. Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 83-98.

Lowndes and Thorp (unpublished) East Midlands PVE Pathfinder Evaluation 2007-8.

Lowry, C. and Littlejohn, S. (2006) Dialogue and the discourse of peacebuilding inMalaku, Indonesia. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, Vol. 23: 4, pp. 409-426.

Marcouch, Ahmed (2008). Slotervaart Action Plan – Countering Radicalisation Council ofAmsterdam Borough of Slotervaart.

McEvoy, McEvoy and McConnaichie (2006) Reconciliation as a dirty word: Conflict,community relations and education in Northern Ireland. Journal of International Affairs,Vol. 60: 1, pp. 81-108.

OPM (unpublished) ‘Preventing Violent Extremism Pathfinder Evaluation – Draft FinalReport for West London Alliance’. April 2008. PVE Pathfinder Evaluation 2007-8(received via CLG).

Bibliography of Final Sources for Analysis | 23

Renaisi – Pearce and Barnett (2008) Evaluation: Young Muslim Leaders London Boroughof Waltham Forest. PVE Pathfinder Evaluation 2007-8 (received via CLG).

Rieker, P. Glaser, M. and Schuster, S. (Eds) (2006) Prevention of Right-wing Extremism,Xenophobia and Racism in European Perspective. Deutsches Jugendinstitut, AussenstelleHalle.

Ross, M. H. (2000) Creating the conditions for peacemaking: theories of practice inethnic conflict resolution. Ethnic and Racial Studies, Vol. 23, No. 6, pp. 1002-1034.

Slough Local Authority (Unpublished) Slough against Violent Extremism – Final Report –Draft Only 2007-8 PVE Pathfinder (received via CLG).

Waterhouse Consultancy Group, (2008) PVE – An independent evaluation of theBirmingham Pathfinder. For Birmingham City Council PVE Pathfinder Evaluation 2007-8(received via CLG).

ISBN: 978 1 4098 2328 5

preventing support for violent extremism through community...

Documents