Abstract
In this chapter, Koehler evaluates the difference between successful and failed deradicalisation and countering violent extremism programs. He recognizes that poorly designed programs are not only a waste of resources but also may increase the risk of violence. Koehler uses the Indonesian deradicalisation program as case study, giving two examples of former inmates convicted of terror offenses who conducted attacks months after leaving prison. With a growing demand for a successful deradicalisation program, Koehler underlines the importance of establishing trusted models and methods to bolster existing program infrastructure. By evaluating suggestions and approaches offered by scholars in the field, Koehler demonstrates that although many ideas and models have been put forward, “very limited attempts to implement them in practice have been tried.” Koehler concludes by noting that the key to a successful deradicalisation program is structural integrity. Although staff who are well versed in extremist ideologies, risk assessment, and the psychology of radicalisation are important, Koehler underlines that in order to be most profitable to the radicalized individual, “a solid and well-founded program design with the highest structural integrity possible” must be provided.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
Feddes, A., & Gallucci, M. 2015. A Literature Review on Methodology used in Evaluating Effects of Preventive and De-radicalisation Interventions. JD Journal for Deradicalisation, Winter 2015/16(5): 1–27; Horgan, J. 2008. Deradicalisation or Disengagement? A Process in Need of Clarity and a Counterterrorism Initiative in Need of Evaluation. Perspectives on Terrorism 2(4): 3–8; Horgan, J., & Altier, M. B. 2012. The Future of Terrorist De Radicalisation Programs. Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, Summer/Fall: 83–90; Horgan, J., Braddock, K. 2010. Rehabilitating the Terrorists? Challenges in Assessing the Effectiveness of De-radicalisation Programs. Terrorism and Political Violence 22(2): 267–291. https://doi.org/10.1080/09546551003594748; Mastroe, C., & Szmania, S. 2016. Surveying CVE Metrics in Prevention, Disengagement and De-Radicalisation Programs. Retrieved from College Par, MD: https://www.start.umd.edu/pubs/START_SurveyingCVEMetrics_March2016.pdf; Soufan, A., Fallon, M., & Freedman, D. 2010. Risk Reduction for Countering Violent Extremism. Explorative Review by the International Resource Center for Countering Violent Extremism. Retrieved from http://soufangroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/QIASS-CVE-FINAL-Report-112410-copy.pdf; Stone, D. M. 2015. The Outcome of a Long Process: Tracking Terrorist Rehabilitation and the Beginning of a Longer One – Implementing Best Practices in Regional Contexts. In R. Gunaratna & M. Bin Ali (Eds.), Terrorist rehabilitation: a new frontier in counter-terrorism, 221–246. New Jersey: Imperial College Press; Williams, M. J., & Kleinman, S. M. 2013. A utilization-focused guide for conducting terrorism risk reduction program evaluations. Behavioral Sciences of Terrorism and Political Aggression 6(2): 102–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/19434472.2013.860183
- 2.
Bjørgo, T., & Horgan, J. 2009. Leaving Terrorism Behind: Individual and Collective Disengagement. London/New York: Routledge, 3.
- 3.
Barrelle, K. 2015. Pro-integration: disengagement from and life after extremism. Behavioral Sciences of Terrorism and Political Aggression 7(2): 129–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/19434472.2014.988165; Dalgaard-Nielsen, A. 2013. Promoting Exit from Violent Extremism: Themes and Approaches. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 36(2), 99–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/1057610x.2013.747073; Koehler, D. 2016. Understanding Deradicalisation. Methods, Tools and Programs for Countering Violent Extremism Oxon/New York: Routledge; Koehler, D. 2017a. How and why we should take deradicalisation seriously. Nature human behaviour 1, 0095. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0095
- 4.
Susan, S. 2012. Captured Terrorists as Intelligence Sources and Counterradicalisation Leverage: Lessons from Terrorist Rehabilitation Programs. In A. Duyan (Ed.), Analyzing Different Dimensions and New Threats in Defence Against Terrorism 104: 65–86. Amsterdam: IOS Press, 82.
- 5.
Hanifah, H. 2017. Danger of terrorist recidivism in prisons. The Jakarta Post. Retrieved from http://www.thejakartapost.com/academia/2017/02/24/danger-of-terrorist-recidivism-in-prisons.html
- 6.
See for analysis: Koehler, D. 2016. Understanding Deradicalisation. Methods, Tools and Programs for Countering Violent Extremism Oxon/New York: Routledge; Mastroe, C., & Szmania, S. 2016. Surveying CVE Metrics in Prevention, Disengagement and De-Radicalisation Programs. Retrieved from College Par, MD: https://www.start.umd.edu/pubs/START_SurveyingCVEMetrics_March2016.pdf
- 7.
For an in-depth discussion, see Koehler, D. 2016. Understanding Deradicalisation. Methods, Tools and Programs for Countering Violent Extremism Oxon/New York: Routledge.
- 8.
Ration weighting: Horgan, J., & Braddock, K. 2010. Rehabilitating the Terrorists? Challenges in Assessing the Effectiveness of De-radicalisation Programs. Terrorism and Political Violence 22(2): 282–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/09546551003594748
- 9.
Ibid.
- 10.
Williams, M. J., & Kleinman, S. M. 2013. A utilization-focused guide for conducting terrorism risk reduction program evaluations. Behavioral Sciences of Terrorism and Political Aggression 6(2): 102–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/19434472.2013.860183
- 11.
Ibid.
- 12.
Williams, M. J., & Kleinman, S. M. 2013. A utilization-focused guide for conducting terrorism risk reduction program evaluations. Behavioral Sciences of Terrorism and Political Aggression 6(2): 112. https://doi.org/10.1080/19434472.2013.860183
- 13.
Romaniuk, P., & Fink, C. N. 2012. From Input To Impact. Evaluating Terrorism Prevention Programs. Retrieved from http://globalcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/CGCC_EvaluatingTerrorismPrevention.pdf
- 14.
For a recent example see: Williams, M. J., Horgan, J., & Evans, W. P. 2016. Evaluation of a Multi-Faceted, U.S. Community-Based, Muslim-Led CVE Program. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/249936.pdf
- 15.
Feddes, A., & Gallucci, M. 2015. A Literature Review on Methodology used in Evaluating Effects of Preventive and De-radicalisation Interventions. JD Journal for Deradicalisation, Winter 2015/16(5): 1–27.
- 16.
GCTF. 2013. Rome Memorandum on Good Practices for Rehabilitation and Reintegration of Violent Extremist Offenders. Retrieved from https://www.thegctf.org/documents/10162/159878/Rome+Memorandum-English.pdf
- 17.
Koehler, D. 2016. Understanding Deradicalisation. Methods, Tools and Programs for Countering Violent Extremism Oxon/New York: Routledge; Koehler, D. 2017b. Structural quality standards for work to intervene with and counter violent extremism. Retrieved from https://www.konex-bw.de/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/20180202-FINAL-KPEBW-HandbuchExtremismus_A4_engl_04I18_web.pdf
- 18.
Samuel, H. 2017. French attempts to ‘de-radicalise’ homegrown jihadists pronounced a ‘total fiasco’. The Telegraph. Retrieved from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/23/french-attempts-de-radicalise-homegrown-jihadists-pronounced/
- 19.
Koehler, D. 2017b. Structural quality standards for work to intervene with and counter violent extremism. Retrieved from https://www.konex-bw.de/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/20180202-FINAL-KPEBW-HandbuchExtremismus_A4_engl_04I18_web.pdf
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Koehler, D. (2019). Are There ‘Best Practices’ in Deradicalisation? Experiences from Frontline Intervention and Comparative Research. In: Jayakumar, S. (eds) Terrorism, Radicalisation & Countering Violent Extremism. Palgrave Pivot, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-1999-0_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-1999-0_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Pivot, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-13-1998-3
Online ISBN: 978-981-13-1999-0
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)