Assessment and management of group-based violence: Assessing an individual's dynamic risk using the MLG

It is notoriously difficult to distinguish between those who simply espouse radical beliefs and those who are prepared to commit acts of extremist-related violence. This poses a problem for those responsible for counter terrorism (CT) needing to discriminate between the two. The present study adopted an empirical approach to compare violent extremists (VEs) and nonviolent extremists (NVEs). In-depth case studies on 40 extremist individuals were developed and analyzed for key themes, subthemes and underlying variables. VEs and NVEs were compared to understand where similarities and differences lie. Identified were a number of variables that distinguish between VEs and NVEs; this has implications for CT in terms of prevent, pursue, and intervention. Results can, for example, assist those responsible for CT and law enforcement to focus on variables that distinguish between VEs and NVEs to identify those who are most high risk (i.e., likely to actively facilitate and/or commit acts of extreme violence) and focus their efforts on these, rather than on those who are not. Results can also inform CT practitioners and policymakers on the development of tailored interventions for different types of extremist individuals and groups.

Section: Empirical Studies Of Violent Versus Nonviolent Extremismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Violent versus nonviolent actors: An empirical study of different types of extremism.

Knight

Woodward

Lancaster

2017

“…As the MLG is intended for the assessment of risk for multiple forms of group-based violence (GBV), not just extremist violence, this framework is broad in nature and thus is not restricted to answering Logan and Lloyd’s (2019) call for extremism-specific risk instruments. The framework set out in the MLG (Cook et al, 2013, 2015) differs from existing frameworks because it was developed and revised through two systematic reviews, which are presented in this article. No other current GBV or violent extremism framework has been based on this kind of extensive, replicable review process.…”

Section: The Present Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The authors of the MLG divided these processes into four domains (i.e., individual, individual-group, group, and group-societal) and emphasize that it is critical to view GBV broadly, considering not only each domain but how each domain connects within and across one another. The domains are described in detail in the MLG manual (Cook et al, 2013, 2015). In brief, the individual domain is focused on risk factors that are relatively independent from that of the individual’s group membership (e.g., an individual’s personal criminal history).…”

Section: The Present Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

The empirical grounding of a framework for the risk assessment of violent extremism and other forms of group-based violence.

Cook¹,

Vargen²

2023

Self Cite

This article first describes the systematic review that informed the development of the multilevel framework of risk for group-based violence (GBV), including violent extremism, set out in the Multi-Level Guidelines (MLG; Cook et al., 2013Cook et al., , 2015. The article then reviews a follow-up confirmatory systematic review of this multilevel framework and the specific content of the 2015 revision of the MLG (Cook et al., 2015). The follow-up confirmatory review found that there is an uneven distribution in the quantity and quality of research on various forms of GBV, that the MLG's domains and factors are relevant to consider when evaluating the risk for GBV, and that the revised version of the MLG had not omitted any strongly supported risk factors for GBV. Together, these reviews indicate the importance of using a comprehensive nested ecological framework in understanding, assessing, and managing risk for extremist violence and other forms of GBV. This article can guide practice and the ongoing development, review, and revision of all new and existing risk assessment tools for violent extremism and other forms of GBV. Public Significance StatementThis article outlines the research support for a framework of group-based violence (GBV) set out in the Multi-Level Guidelines (MLG). The research indicates that the MLG framework contains relevant factors for threat assessment professionals to consider in their understanding, assessment, and management of risk of violent extremism and other forms of GBV. Using a broad framework that encompasses individuals, the groups to which they belong, and the broader social context appears important in this area of work.

“…For threat management to be effective and successful it requires an interdisciplinary approach involving collaboration and discussion between police, law enforcement, forensic, and general mental health professionals as well as other experts. The developers of the TRAP-18 (e.g., Meloy, Roshdi, et al, 2015; Meloy, 2017) recommend that it is used in conjunction with other assessment tools, such as the MLG for the Assessment and Management of Group-Based Violence (MLG; Cook et al, 2013) and the VERA (Pressman, 2009) as multimethod assessment practice provides increased accuracy (Meloy, Roshdi, et al, 2015).…”

Section: Clinical and Legal Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The feasibility and utility of the Terrorist Radicalization Assessment Protocol (TRAP-18): A review and recommendations.

Allely¹,

Wicks²

2022

The ability to accurately predict the risk of an individual committing an act of targeted violence is likely to be impossible given the low base rate of these acts (Goodwill & Meloy, 2019). Nevertheless, prevention is possible if there is a focus on fact-based behaviors, and threat management is in place. The Terrorist Radicalization Assessment Protocol (TRAP-18; Meloy, Habermeyer & Guldimann, 2015; Meloy, Roshdi, et al., 2015; Meloy & Gill, 2016; Meloy, 2017) is a collection of 18 behavior-based warning signs for terror incidents. There are eight proximal characteristics and 10 distal characteristics. The aim of this review was to identify studies which have utilized the TRAP-18 either prospectively (operational use) or retroactively or studies which have investigated the validity and reliability of the TRAP-18. A total of 17 relevant articles were identified in the review including six case studies and 11 empirical articles.