Early detection of extremism? The local security professional on assessment of potential threats posed by youth

Abstract

Frontline professionals such as social workers and civil servants play a crucial role in countering violent extremism. Because of their direct contact with society, firstliners are tasked with detecting individuals that may threaten national security and the democratic rule of law. Preliminary screening takes place during the pre-crime phase. However, without clear evidence or concrete indicators of unlawful action or physical violence, it is challenging to determine when someone poses a threat. There are no set patterns that can be used to identify cognitive radicalization processes that will result in violent extremism. Furthermore, prevention targets ideas and ideologies with no clear framework for assessing terrorism-risk. This article examines how civil servants responsible for public order, security and safety deal with their mandate to engage in early detection, and discusses the side effects that accompany this practice. Based on openinterviews with fifteen local security professionals in the Netherlands, we focus here on the risk assessments made by these professionals. To understand their performance, we used the following two research questions: First, what criteria do local security professionals use to determine whether or not someone forms a potential risk? Second, how do local security professionals substantiate their assessments of the radicalization processes that will develop into violent extremism? We conclude that such initial risk weightings rely strongly on 'gut feelings' or intuition. We conclude that this subjectivity may lead to prejudice and/or administrative arbitrariness in relation to preliminary risk assessment of particular youth.

Case management interventions seeking to counter radicalisation to violence and related forms of violence: A systematic review

“…Two studies emphasised that the use of structured risk assessment tools is not sufficient to overcome such subjectivity (Pettinger, 2020a(Pettinger, , 2020bCherney, 2021). Studies in the UK and the Netherlands point to the subjectivity inherent in how individual practitioners assess clients (Pettinger, 2020a(Pettinger, , 2020bvan de Weert & Eijkman, 2020). For example, in the UK, the lack of consistency in assessments meant that the threshold for adopting an individual case varied across different areas, and that 'a large number' of cases did not meet the official threshold for case adoption as outlined in official UK guidance (Pettinger, 2020a, p. 5) The ability to use risk assessment tools more subjectively was not therefore always viewed negatively, with some practitioners emphasising the importance of drawing on professional judgement when using these tools and assessing clients (Pettinger, 2020a;Corner & Pyszora, 2022).…”

Adolescence as a “Radical” Age and Prevention of Violent Radicalisation: A Qualitative Study of Operators of a Juvenile Penal Circuit in Italy

“…The international publications explicitly investigating the point of view of professionals in the field have mainly addressed sectors other than the penal circuit, mainly in the area of educational and social intervention (Haugstvedt and Gunnarsdottir 2023;Mattsson 2018;Vallinkoski and Benjamin 2023;Van de Weert and Eijkman 2019, 2020a, 2020b, or schools (Holmberg 2021;Sjøen and Mattsson 2020), in several, mainly northern European countries (Norway, Sweden, Holland, and Finland). These studies analysed the ways in which professionals perceive the phenomenon of violent radicalism and how it affects their everyday work.…”

“…Moreover, it is precisely the adoption of a securitarian register and the segregationist dynamics associated with it that are described as a possible, albeit indirect, cause of the radicalisation process (Mattsson 2018). Finally, some studies highlight how practitioners do not feel adequately trained for the task that is required of them, in relation to the lack of a clear framework to distinguish radicalisation from violent extremism and the tendency to rely on personal perceptions rather than evidence-based criteria to identify people who are potentially at risk (Vallinkoski and Benjamin 2023;Van de Weert and Eijkman 2019, 2020a, 2020b.…”

Dealing With Radicalised Youth Offenders: The Development and Implementation of a Youth-Specific Framework

“…The capacity of frontline staff to identify risk factors whilst accounting for youth vulnerability and development has also been questioned in the Netherlands (17). This highlights challenges for early identification given that normal developmental experiences can increase vulnerability to youth being exposed to and influenced by extremism (1,27).…”

“…An increase in the presence of Australian youth deemed at-risk of radicalisation has also been identified (13,15). Researchers content that this relates to vulnerable youth displaying signs of radicalisation before establishing a commitment to engage in ideologically motivated violence (16,17). Australian youth are now being radicalised to varied violent extremist ideologies (18,19).…”