Why do we not have successful deradicalisation programmes? Impact measuring struggles in European and North American programme interventions
- 1Johan Skytte Institute of Political Studies, University of Tartu
Abstract
Interventions aimed at supporting tertiary prevention (deradicalisation, disengagement, rehabilitation, and reintegration) should be designed according to participants’ needs and employ a multi-agency approach that brings together relevant stakeholders connected to the case including organisations and services from local government, state authorities, and the third sector. To provide an overview of successful interventions in extremism prevention—particularly tertiary prevention programmes—it is necessary to measure their impact. However, only approximately 50% of practitioners involved in tertiary prevention programmes assess participant progress using standardised tools or predefined criteria to evaluate impact of the intervention. Based on 12 semi-structured interviews with tertiary prevention programme providers from Europe and North America, this article analyses how “success” is defined by members of the sample. It also maps and categorises methods used in prevention interventions, including psychiatric care and trauma-informed approaches, and examines the role of practitioners’ professional and/or academic backgrounds in the selection of intervention methods. The results show that understanding of key terminology, working methods and whether impact is measured in the sample group from Europe and North America vary amongst intervention providers, including those who have been former extremists. This article suggests that without standardised terminology, working methods and training principles for intervention providers, impact, including success of interventions cannot be measured. As named problems affect global communities equally, practitioners, policymakers, and researchers are encouraged to create results in the form of “soft law” where the key ways to measure necessary types of impact, suggested working methods to support tertiary prevention processes, including guidance on choosing working methods for a tailor-made approach, are agreed.
Related
- Interventions to increase participation in lung cancer screening programmes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
- Determinants of Successful Mobile Smoking Cessation Interventions: Cross-Sectional Study
- Teacher Bullying and Emotional Harm: Power, Silence, and Gendered Struggles for Voice in Indonesian Schools
- Everyday struggles to stay healthy: experiences of people at high risk of stroke residing in low socioeconomic urban neighbourhoods in Stockholm
- Physical activity programmes for promoting bone mineralisation and growth in preterm infants
BibTeX
@article{maiberg2026have,
title = {{Why do we not have successful deradicalisation programmes? Impact measuring struggles in European and North American programme interventions}},
author = {Heidi Maiberg},
journal = {Frontiers in Psychiatry},
year = {2026},
month = nov,
doi = {10.3389/fpsyt.2026.1915471},
url = {https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2026.1915471/full},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Why do we not have successful deradicalisation programmes? Impact measuring struggles in European and North American programme interventions
AU - Heidi Maiberg
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/11/03
JO - Frontiers in Psychiatry
DO - 10.3389/fpsyt.2026.1915471
UR - https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2026.1915471/full
AB - Interventions aimed at supporting tertiary prevention (deradicalisation, disengagement, rehabilitation, and reintegration) should be designed according to participants’ needs and employ a multi-agency approach that brings together relevant stakeholders connected to the case including organisations and services from local government, state authorities, and the third sector. To provide an overview of successful interventions in extremism prevention—particularly tertiary prevention programmes—it is necessary to measure their impact. However, only approximately 50% of practitioners involved in tertiary prevention programmes assess participant progress using standardised tools or predefined criteria to evaluate impact of the intervention. Based on 12 semi-structured interviews with tertiary prevention programme providers from Europe and North America, this article analyses how “success” is defined by members of the sample. It also maps and categorises methods used in prevention interventions, including psychiatric care and trauma-informed approaches, and examines the role of practitioners’ professional and/or academic backgrounds in the selection of intervention methods. The results show that understanding of key terminology, working methods and whether impact is measured in the sample group from Europe and North America vary amongst intervention providers, including those who have been former extremists. This article suggests that without standardised terminology, working methods and training principles for intervention providers, impact, including success of interventions cannot be measured. As named problems affect global communities equally, practitioners, policymakers, and researchers are encouraged to create results in the form of “soft law” where the key ways to measure necessary types of impact, suggested working methods to support tertiary prevention processes, including guidance on choosing working methods for a tailor-made approach, are agreed.
SN - 1664-0640
ER -