Reintegrating extremists: “Deradicalization” and desistance

Intervention programs to move people away from violent groups have been initiated across the world. Most are delivered by statutory agencies, although some use community-based actors. Although varied, interventions typically combine one or more of the following: efforts to address ideological issues; offering psychological or counselling for those traumatized by violence; improving the individual’s socio-economic situation, for example providing jobs or education; or supplying wider social support, for instance to the prisoner’s family.

However, we know relatively little about how effective these intervention programs are as few have been independently evaluated. In the UK, the Probation Services and the National Offender Management Service have developed some expertise in this area, involving in-house intervention packages and community mentors supporting the work of Offender Managers.

It is extremely difficult to interpret the likelihood someone will re-engage with a violent group following an intervention, and we lack a clear understanding of what ‘success’ looks like in this context. In the criminal justice system, the dominant model with non-extremist offenders assesses risk based on empirically validated factors linked to the likelihood of reoffending. However, these have proven inadequate for those involved in violent extremism, as the risk factors are very different.

Alternative frameworks for assessing risk with politically motivated offenders have been developed, but these are relatively new and demand much further evaluation and exploration. More generally, the risk paradigm has been criticized for neglecting the contextualized, embedded nature of people’s lives, focusing too heavily on particular risk profiles. One consequence of this focus on risk is that interventions are less attractive to prisoners, neglecting issues of personal motivation.

An alternative framework – the desistance or strengths based approach – has been found useful in interpreting existing work with those convicted of terrorism offences in the UK. This assumes we are all motivated to pursue a number of goods, for example, positive relations with others and the wider community, achievement through work, and a meaningful sense of personal agency. Further, that the most appropriate way of achieving these goods is informed by the ideological setting the individual is embedded in.

By implication, extremism is inspired by the same drive to address common human needs we all share. The difference is the ideological framework the individual is committed to and how this informs how particular goods might be achieved, alongside practical enablers that make this possible.

If engagement in extremism involves pursuing goods in ways that break social norms, disengagement can be interpreted as a growing commitment to achieving goods in ways society deems acceptable. To support desistance, it is therefore important to facilitate sustainable, pro-social ways of achieving goods.

This involves redirecting, rather than necessarily deconstructing the initial motivation to become involved in extremism. For example, if someone is primarily motivated by a desire to help their co-religionists, finding ways of doing this in pro-social rather than illegal ways is likely to support long term disengagement.

It is also important to develop resilience to people and events that might undermine any growing commitment to disengage. In this way, it is possible to support the reintegration of those involved in extremism into society. There are several implications of these arguments:

· As well as focusing on risk assessment measures, identifying the goods people seek to pursue is an important part of learning how to support an individual, facilitate successful outcomes, and determine if progress is being made.

· Identifying credible change agents that are able to model appropriate routes to personal fulfilment and who can support the individual as they pursue them.

· Rather than a causal factor, ideology is perhaps best understood as a framework that determines what is important, and how goods should be pursued. Ideological change is less relevant to public protection than ensuring goods are pursued in legal ways. People should therefore be treated holistically, taking account of their social, political, cultural and community context, as well as addressing ideas and beliefs.

· Recognizing the barriers to reintegration and disengagement is vital. Even where an individual is motivated to disengage, they face significant challenges: finding a job, developing a new social network, or even getting a bank account can be problematic. Acknowledging society’s role in supporting reintegration is therefore central to supporting successful long-term desistance.

Sarah Marsden is Lecturer of Radicalization in the Department of Politics, Philosophy and Religion at Lancaster University, and the author of Reintegrating Extremists: Deradicalization and Desistance (2017). This article is published courtesy of the Center for Research and Evidence on Security Threats (CREST).