Evaluations in Extremism Prevention

Conducting evaluations helps us to understand the effects of prevention work aimed at countering radi­calization and extremism in the social context. They aim to pro­vide us with answers to fre­quently posed questions relating to the tangible out­comes of prevention work. Such evaluations, however, are often sub­ject to overblown expectations as to the results they can offer and their feasibility. The justified in­terest in arriving at solid evidence of their efficacy runs into serious difficulties asso­ciated with the planning and implementation of evalu­ation studies in the area of deradicalization, dis­tancing and radicalization prevention.

One of the aims here is to present and discuss a number of approaches for e­valuating the impact of prevention measures in the area of radicalization prevention, dera­dicalization and demobilization. In this film, we also look into quality criteria and stan­dards for evaluation research. These criteria can help the agencies that contract evalu­ation studies, as well as their target groups, assess their reliability and sig­nificance.

The investigations clearly show that the idea of “evidence-based” prevention only proves viable when eva­luation research takes account of the particularities, contra­dictions and controversies that exist among researchers and practitioners and when these are criti­cally reflected upon. One crucial step here is to clarify contested concepts such as radicali­zation, prevention (of radicalization) and evidence-basing (for radicali­zation prevention). In this context, evidence-based means that measures aimed at pre­venting social problems are developed, implemented and eva­luated on the ba­sis of research findings. As prevention can be infinitely ex­panded in terms of time and target groups, one con­ceptual and normative question that arises has to do with where (ra­dicalization) pre­vention should start and finish.

1. A clear assignment. Assignments that have not been clearly defined can re­sult in poor evaluations. The client contracting the evaluation should therefore clearly arti­culate which type of evaluation is desired when issuing a tender.
2. An evaluation is not an automatism. An obli­gation to evaluate is desirable. Impact-oriented evaluations are only use­ful when: first, the target of prevention, the level of prevention, the objective of prevention and the project logic (the effect mechanisms) have been specified; second, the know­ledge that the evaluation study aims to acquire has been formulated in agree­ment with the parties in­volved; and, third, sufficient financial re­sources have been allocated for an evalu­ation that is appropriate for its target.
3. Practice patience. Quick results should neither be expected in prevention work nor in their evaluations. Sponsoring agencies should there­fore plan evaluations with a long-term orientation and allot sufficient funding.
4. Consider all relevant data. All of the rele­vant project data should be useful for an evaluation. In many cases, the most essential data only be­comes available once a project has concluded, meaning that accompanying program evaluations should be funded for the pe­riod after the measure has ended, as well.
5. A plurality of methods. No patent recipes exist for evaluating radi­calization prevention. Choosing the suitable empirical social research methods for evalua­tions will depend on the concrete findings and on the target of the evaluation.
6. Reflexivity. Policy-makers, society and evaluation re­searchers should bear in mind that evaluation projects do not simply take a “neutral” and “external” view of practical findings. Rather, they always shape the target they are evaluating to some degree, even in the very selection of the study design. As such, it is necessary for all actors involved to confront and reflect upon this complexity.