Het Kenniscentrum Sociale Innovatie van Hogeschool Utrecht doet onderzoek naar de maatschappelijke effecten van de lokale aanpak extremisme. Centraal staat daarbij de vraag: beschikken eerstelijnswerkers over de nodige kennis en begrip om de mate van bereidheid voor (gewelddadig) extremisme en terrorisme van een individu te beoordelen? Vandaag komt het tweede rapport uit in een reeks van drie. Het verkennende onderzoek richt zich op risico-inschattingen van lokale veiligheidsprofessionals aangaande de volgende vraag: in hoeverre is een jongere over wie signalen van vermeende radicalisering binnenkomen, bereid om geweld te gebruiken? In de meeste gevallen gaat het wellicht om vijandige uitingen of gedrag, maar niet om jongeren die voornemens zijn om daadwerkelijk gewelddadige acties te ondernemen. Als zodanig beslissen eerstelijnsprofessionals bij het adresseren van risico’s of bedreigingen tegelijkertijd ook over het recht op vrijheid van meningsuiting. Dan is het wel van groot belang om in kaart te brengen hoe vermeende signalen gewogen en geduid worden op gemeentelijk niveau.
Frontline professionals such as social workers and civil servants play a crucial role in countering violent extremism.Because of their direct contac twith society,first liners 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 subjectivitymayleadto prejudiceand/oradministrativearbitrariness in relationtopreliminary risk assessment of particular youth.
This article is about the effect of local tailored interventions to counter (violent) extremism, and therefore contributes to the academic and policy debates. It focusses on local, professional perspectives on person-specific interventions utilising a Dutch case study as the basis. The interventions are part of the wider-ranging counter terrorism policy that entails (local) measures that are deployed in relation to designated high-risk individuals and groups. By reviewing policy documents and conducting semi-structured interviews, the exploratory study concludes that the key factors for a hand-tailored intervention are a solid network, expert knowledge to assess potential signs of extremist ideology, an awareness of not having too many concurrent measures, good inter-institutional cooperation and information-sharing. The professionals involved felt that person-specific interventions have contributed to reducing the threat of religious extremism in the Netherlands. Nonetheless, municipal officials and security agents emphasised the importance of setting realistic goals and a focus on preventive rather than repressive measures. Furthermore, despite the central role that municipal actors play, they run up against problems such as cooperation within the security and care sector. National entities appear to emphasize information-gathering and monitoring more than community-focused cooperation. Thereby questioning whether, on the national level, local professionals are perceived as playing a key role in dealing with extremism.
