Learning and Adapting: The Use of Monitoring and Evaluation in Countering Violent Extremism – A Handbook for Practitioners

Project Title

Performance measurement and evaluation of countering violent extremism interventions

Lead / Author

Royal United Services Institute

Relevant Dates

Report published May 2014.

Description

This handbook aims to provide basic guidance to those designing and delivering countering violent extremism (CVE) programs. The resource draws on a rapid evidence assessment of evaluation approaches in CVE and related social policy fields, as well as interviews with representatives from Global Counterterrorism Forum (GCTF) member governments, and subject matter experts and practitioners in the CVE field.

Included are eight evaluation tools that can be used to help measure the impact and effectiveness of particular CVE initiatives; and some ideas on how online tools – including social media and online surveys – can form part of a CVE program evaluation toolbox. Also provided are evaluation-focused lessons learned from other policy fields, including gang prevention and overseas development. A concluding section of the handbook briefly outlines some specific CVE initiatives – and CVE evaluation-focused lessons learned – from seven Western countries.

Select Findings

Advantages and disadvantages of each of the evaluation tools are provided in the handbook. So too are suggestions on when usage may be most appropriate. Regarding the ‘Peer-Group Review’ evaluation tool, for example, the method is one where two or more project groups review each other’s work, and where the researchers see the principal advantage being utility for identifying best practices. For CVE, where specific context – e.g. neighborhood, social networks, type of violent extremism – can have such influence on success or failure of a program approach, peer review is portrayed as well-tailored to identifying the importance of context. A limitation noted, however, is that the peer review method is suited for when the program teams come from similar backgrounds, the risk being to encourage a narrow range of solutions, when CVE is such diverse and multifaceted problem.

With respect to the use of online technology for measurement and evaluation, the authors note that state and non-state actors can make use of social media-based tools, such as through quickly identifying violent propaganda online, responding with interventions such as counter-narratives, and monitoring changes in online behaviour, such as the changing nature of debate, the extent to which extremist content is shared, or the forming of online groups working to counter violent extremism.

On lessons learned from other policy fields, the handbook emphasizes the importance of learning from crime prevention, given similar challenges with measuring the impact of CVE programs. These include demonstrating causal connections between interventions and outcomes, as well as determining whether community-based programs reduce criminality at the individual level, and whether interventions are contributing to broader community goals of health, safety and wellbeing. In this context, one case considered by the authors concerns an Ontario-based gang prevention initiative, which aimed to provide coaching and involvement in other activities for youth at risk of gang involvement, for goals such as increasing motivation to participate in pro-social behaviours, and decreasing positive views toward gangs.

The Ontario program experienced a number of implementation challenges that the authors consider directly relevant for CVE programs, including high drop-out rates among the participating youth, as well as coaches feeling insufficiently trained when higher-risk individuals, who were already involved in gangs, entered the program. The program also struggled in its goal to establish a comparison group of individuals from similar circumstances outside the program, and when combined additional challenges such as the small number who completed the program, the result was limited data available to measure the impact of the program. The authors emphasize that such problems of gathering relevant information will be common for CVE programs, and that therefore learning from how crime prevention evaluation research works within such limitations will be important.

Further Information

Learning and Adapting: The Use of Monitoring and Evaluation in Countering Violent Extremism – A Handbook for Practitioners

Related Initiatives

Peter Romaniuk, “Does CVE Work? Lessons learned from the global effort to counter violent extremism,” Global Center on Cooperative Security, 2015.

Rachel Briggs and Sebastien Feve, “Review of Programs to Counter Narratives of Violent Extremism: What Works and What are the Implications for Government?,” Institute for Strategic Dialogue, 2013.

Charlie Edwards, Calum Jeffray and Raffaello Pantucci, “Out of Reach? The Role of Community Policing in Preventing Terrorism in Canada,” RUSI, 2015.

Theme(s)

Keyword(s)

Date modified: