Abstract
There is a lack of consensus in the academic literature and among policy makers and practitioners on the definition of violent radicalisation, and current counter-radicalisation policy responses and procedures are informed by a weak and, at times, confused understanding of the motivational and structural factors underpinning such a process. The result is a variety of interventions across the EU, signalling a lack of consensus on the purposes of counter-radicalisation. In addition, indicators of success of counter-radicalisation policies are often unclear or unspecified. One consequence of this is that assessments of the effectiveness of counter-radicalisation measures and policy responses are either lacking or often methodologically questionable, impairing our understanding of the impacts of counter-radicalisation interventions on targeted communities. The article investigates problems of assessing the impact of counter-radicalisation measures using Denmark as case study. It shows how the model of radicalisation underlying the Danish counter-radicalisation efforts translate into multilayered policy objectives and diversified policy solutions, and how the initial academic and official assessments of the impact of Danish counter-radicalisation policies on end target groups following is impaired and weakened by common methodological problems and challenges. The article concludes by suggesting some ways ahead for more systematic and valid assessments of the impact of counter-radicalisation policies in Denmark and elsewhere.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ashour, O. (2009). The de-radicalization of Jihadists transforming armed islamist movements. New York: Routledge.
Barrett, R., & Bokhari, L. (2009). Deradicalization and rehabilitation programmes targeting religious terrorists and extremists in the Muslim world: An overview. In T. Bjørgo & J. Horgan (Eds.), Leaving terrorism behind: Individual and collective disengagement (pp. 170–180). New York: Routledge.
Bjørgo, T., & Horgan, J. (2008). Leaving terrorism behind: Individual and collective disengagement. New York: Routledge.
Bjørgo, T., van Donselaar, J., & Grunenberg, S. (2008). Exit from right-wing extremist groups: Lessons from disengagement programmes in Norway, Sweden and Germany. In T. Bjørgo & J. Horgan (Eds.), Leaving terrorism behind: Individual and collective disengagement (pp. 135–151). New York: Routledge.
Boucek, C. (2008). Extremist re-education and rehabilitation in Saudi Arabia. In T. Bjørgo & J. Horgen (Eds.), Leaving terrorism behind: Individual and collective disengagement (pp. 212–223). New York: Routledge.
Cebulla, A. (2011). Evaluation methods in quantitative social research. Available for download at http://socres.net/recent/77-eval.
CLG (2010). Preventing support for violent extremism through community interventions: A review of the evidence. Rapid Evidence Assessment Summary Report. London: Department of Communities and Local Government. http://www.demos.co.uk/files/Bringing%20it%20Home%20-%20web.pdf.
COWI (2011). Midtvejsevaluering af regeringens handlingsplan ‘En fælles og tryg fremtid’ [Midway evaluation of the Government action plan’A common and safe future]. External evaluation report conducted by COWI.
Crenshaw, M. (1981). The causes of terrorism. Comparative Politics, 13(4), 379–399.
David, M., & Sutton, C. D. (2011). Social research. An introduction (Secondth ed.). New Delhi: Sage.
Demant, F., Wagenaar, W., & van Donselaar, J. (2009). Deradicalisation in practice. Anne Frank House: Racism and Extremism Monitor. Leiden University.
El-Shubky, A. (2011). Can Jihadists be merged into public life? The future of reviews. In G. Fahmi & L. Lindekilde (Eds.), De-radicalization coalition building: Lessons from the past and future challenges. Cairo: Al-ahram Center for Advanced Studies. Forthcoming.
Elster, J. (1983). Sour grapes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fink, N., & Hearne, E. (2008). Beyond terrorism: Deradicalization and disengagement from violent extremism. New York: International Peace Institute.
Grunenberg, S., & van Donselaar, J. (2008). Deradicalisation: Lessons from Germany, options for the Netherlands? Amsterdam, Anne Frank Foundation, 8th Report of Monitor Racism and Extremism.
Heath-Kelly, C. (2011). State of exception, state of prevention; radicalized British counterterrorism policy in the war on terror. IJCV conference, Bielefeld, 6–8 April.
Home Office (2011). Prevent strategy. Presented to parliament in June 2011. http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/counter-terrorism/prevent/prevent-strategy/prevent-strategy-review?view=Binary.
Hopkins, R. (1995). Impact assessment: Overview and methods of application. Oxford: Oxfam/Novib.
Horgan, J. (2008). From profiles to pathways and roots to routes: perspectives from psychology on radicalization into terrorism. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 618(1), 80.
Lindekilde, L. (2012a). Neo-liberal governing of ‘radicals’: Danish radicalization prevention policies and potential iatrogenic effects. Forthcoming in International Journal of Conflict and Violence, 6.
Lindekilde, L. (2012b). A typology of backfire mechanisms: How soft and hard forms of state repression can have perverse effects in the field of counterterrorism. In: L. Bosi, C. Demetriou and S. Malthaner (Eds.), Dynamics of political violence: A process-oriented perspective on radicalization and the escalation of political conflict. Ashgate Publishing Limited (forthcoming).
Lipsky, M. (1980). Street level bureaucracy. The dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York: Sage.
MHT Consult. (2011). Målrettet inklusion skaber aktivt medborgerskab. Evaluering af Københavns Kommunes VINK program [Targetted inclusion creates active citizenship. Evaluation of the Copenhagen Municipality’s VINK program]. Conducted by MHT Consult on the behalf of Copenhagen Municipality. http://www.kk.dk/~/media/2A66998B2BC84B81AB28472A5C352CD9.ashx.
MRIIA. (2010). The challenge of extremism. Examples of deradicalisation and disengagement programmes in the EU. Denmark: Ministry of Refugee, Immigration and Integration Affairs.
Mythen, G., Walklate, S., & Khan, F. (2009). I’m a Muslim, but I’m not a terrorist: victimization, risky identities and the performance of safety. British Journal of Criminology, 49, 736–754.
Oakley, P., Pratt, B., & Clayton, A. (1998). Outcomes and impact: Evaluating change in social development. Oxford: Intrac.
Precht, T. (2007). Home grown terrorism and islamist radicalisation in Europe: From conversion to terrorism, an assessment of the factors influencing violent Islamist extremism and suggestions for counter radicalisation measures. Danish Ministry of Justice (http://www.justitsministeriet.dk/fileadmin/downloads/Forskning_og_dokumentation/Home_grown_terrorism_and_Islamist_radicalisation_in_Europe_-_an_assessment_of_influencing_factors__2_.pdf).
Qadir, H. Q. (2011). Radicalization and de-radicalization – a personal journey. In G. Fahmi & L. Lindekilde (Eds.), De-radicalization coalition building: Lessons from the past and future challenges. Cairo: Al-ahram Center for Advanced Studies.
Regeringen (2009). A common and safe future. An action plan to prevent extremist views and radicalisation among young people. Available in English from http://www.nyidanmark.dk/NR/rdonlyres/58D048E7-0482-4AE8-99EB-928753EFC1F8/0/a_common_and_safe_future_danish_action_plan_to_prevent_extremism.pdf.
Roche, C. (1999). Impact assessment for development agencies: Learning to value change. Oxford: Oxfam/Novib.
Schiffauer, W. (2009). Suspect subjects. Muslim migrants and the security agencies in Germany. In J. Eckert (Ed.), The social life of Anti-Terrorism Laws, 55–79. Transcript : Bielefeld.
Sedgwick, M. (2010). The concept of radicalization as a source of confusion. Terrorism and Political Violence, 22(4), 479–494.
SI (2011a). Lokale strategier [Local strategies of radicalisation prevention], Forebyggelse af Ekstremisme – En håndbogsserie, published by the Danish Ministry of Social Affairs and Integration. http://www.sm.dk/data/Lists/Publikationer/Attachments/531/Lokale_strategier.pdf.
SI (2011b). 14 eksempler fra arbejdet med radikalisering [Fourteen examples from the work to prevent radicalization], Forebyggelse af Ekstremisme – En håndbogsserie, published by the Danish Ministry of Social Affairs and Integration. http://www.sm.dk/data/Dokumentertilnyheder/2011/Forebyggelse%20af%20ekstremisme.pdf.
Silke, A. (2011). The psychology of counter-terrorism. Abingdon: Routledge.
Slootman, M., & Tillie, J. (2006). Processes of radicalisation. Why some Amsterdam Muslim become radicals. Research report published by Institute for Migration and Ethnic Studies, University of Amsterdam on request from the City of Amsterdam.
The Change Institute (2008). Study on the best practices in cooperation between authorities and civil society with a view to the prevention and response to violent radicalization. A study commissioned by DG JLS of the European Commission.
Vidino, L. (2008). A preliminary assessment of counter-radicalisation in the Netherlands. CTC Sentinel, 1(9).
Vidino, L. (2010). Countering radicalization in America. Lessons from Europe. Special report published by the United States Institute of Peace. Washington: USIP.
Winter, S., & Nielsen, V. L. (2008). Implementering af politik. Copenhagen: Academica.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lindekilde, L. Value for Money? Problems of Impact Assessment of Counter-Radicalisarion Policies on End Target Groups: The Case of Denmark. Eur J Crim Policy Res 18, 385–402 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-012-9178-y
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-012-9178-y