Risk assessment and management in violent extremism: a primer for mental health practitioners

Logan, Caroline; Sellers, Rachel

doi:10.1080/14789949.2020.1859591

Cited by 9 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These considerations seem particularly pertinent given the recent findings from Salman and Gill (2020), who surveyed 41 threat assessment professionals on their opinions regarding the process, skills, and characteristics of those who conduct risk assessment of terroristic violence. While all participants agreed that assessors should be required to have professional training to conduct these assessments, which is consistent with what we and others (i.e., Logan & Sellers, 2021) recommend, opinions of the type of training required were varied and many views diverged from professional guidance in the field (i.e., the minority held views that training in a specific tool or SPJ protocol, training in general threat/risk assessment principles, and training in understanding of terrorism risk/protective factors should be expected for those conducting terrorism risk assessments). Given the low response rate Salman and Gill (2020) reported ( N = 41) following their attempted recruitment of all threat assessment professionals who are members of four large professional organizations (i.e., African Association of Threat Assessment Professionals, Association of European Threat Assessment Professionals, Asia Pacific Association of Threat Assessment Professionals, Association of Threat Assessment Professionals, and Canadian Association of Threat Assessment Professionals), we have low confidence in the generalizability of the results.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

“…We encourage professionals conducting assessments in this area to consider the findings presented in this article in the context of the general literature and Logan and Sellers’ (2021) guidance to mental health professionals tasked with assessing an individual’s risk for extremist violence in the current climate when making decisions on how to approach their assessments. We want to emphasize the importance of a thoughtful approach to the adoption of risk assessment instruments and frameworks and the importance of specific expertise in this area of practice.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…First, there is no option to wait for research to catch up to a practical need to assess individuals who are at risk for violent extremism. While existing evidence has limitations, there is a clinical and practical need to use what we do know to inform practice (see Logan & Sellers, 2021, for guidance in assessing an individual’s risk for violent extremism in the current climate). The alternative would be unstructured clinical judgment, in which an evaluator relies on their intuition, experience, and discretion to identify risk factors and appraise risk.…”

Section: The Present Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The empirical grounding of a framework for the risk assessment of violent extremism and other forms of group-based violence.

Cook¹,

Vargen²

2023

Journal of Threat Assessment and Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article first describes the systematic review that informed the development of the multilevel framework of risk for group-based violence (GBV), including violent extremism, set out in the Multi-Level Guidelines (MLG; Cook et al., 2013Cook et al., , 2015. The article then reviews a follow-up confirmatory systematic review of this multilevel framework and the specific content of the 2015 revision of the MLG (Cook et al., 2015). The follow-up confirmatory review found that there is an uneven distribution in the quantity and quality of research on various forms of GBV, that the MLG's domains and factors are relevant to consider when evaluating the risk for GBV, and that the revised version of the MLG had not omitted any strongly supported risk factors for GBV. Together, these reviews indicate the importance of using a comprehensive nested ecological framework in understanding, assessing, and managing risk for extremist violence and other forms of GBV. This article can guide practice and the ongoing development, review, and revision of all new and existing risk assessment tools for violent extremism and other forms of GBV. Public Significance StatementThis article outlines the research support for a framework of group-based violence (GBV) set out in the Multi-Level Guidelines (MLG). The research indicates that the MLG framework contains relevant factors for threat assessment professionals to consider in their understanding, assessment, and management of risk of violent extremism and other forms of GBV. Using a broad framework that encompasses individuals, the groups to which they belong, and the broader social context appears important in this area of work.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Present Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The empirical grounding of a framework for the risk assessment of violent extremism and other forms of group-based violence.

Cook¹,

Vargen²

2023

Journal of Threat Assessment and Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Based on the dual perspective of public health and security agendas, practical recommendations for psychiatrists focus primarily on the question of what specific roles psychiatrists should play in P/CVE (Al-Attar, 2019 ; Dom et al, 2020 ) and how they can contribute to risk assessment (Eisenman and Flavahan, 2017 ; Logan and Lloyd, 2019 ; Bhui et al, 2020 ; Logan and Sellers, 2021 ). Several tools now exist to assist psychiatrists in risk assessment, such as Trap-18 (Meloy, 2018 ) and the VERA-2R (Pressman et al, 2016 ).…”

Section: Right-wing Extremism and Psychiatrymentioning

confidence: 99%

Not in Their Right Mind? Right-Wing Extremism Is Not a Mental Illness, but Still a Challenge for Psychiatry

Schumann¹,

Brook²,

Heinze³

2022

Front. Sociol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most research in psychiatry on extremism focuses on the question whether there is a connection between extremism and psychiatric diagnoses. In addition, practitioners are increasingly asked to take part in programs aimed at preventing and countering violent extremism by assessing risk for radicalization. However, an issue that remains largely unaddressed is that the rise of the far right in many countries during the last years poses a challenge for psychiatric services as working with right-wing patients can be a source of conflict for practitioners and patients alike. In this article, we assert that the narrow conceptual scope on psychological vulnerabilities and the practical focus on risk assessment contribute to processes of psychiatrization and limit the scope of research on right-wing extremism in psychiatry. By giving a brief overview of social research into right-wing extremism, the article argues that right wing beliefs should not be conceptualized as an expression of psychological vulnerabilities but rather as attempts to deal with conflict-laden social reality. Thus, a shift of perspective in psychiatric research on extremism is needed. On a conceptional level, the scope needs to be broadened to grasp the interplay of individual and social factors in radicalization with sufficient complexity. On a practical level, it is necessary to further investigate challenges for practitioners and institutions working with right-wing extremist patients.

show abstract

“…2 and Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth -SAVRY) with the addition of recognized characteristics of persons associated with violent extremism and terrorism. It determines the extent of the presence of risk factors and protection factors, and practitioners are recommended a combination of general violence risk assessment tools and violent extremism risk assessment tools (Logan & Sellers, 2021). The current third version from 2016 contains 34 indicators related to violent extremism, classified into five areas: beliefs, attitudes and ideology; social context and intention; past, activities and capacity; commitment and motivation, and indicators of protection, that is mitigation of risk.…”

Section: Current Approaches In Assessing the Individual Risk Of Radic...mentioning

confidence: 99%

The assessment of individual risk of radicalization and violent extremism

Vuković¹

2022

Nauka bezbednost policija

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Modern counter-terrorism strategies include, among other preventive mechanisms, assessing the risk of radicalization and violent extremism. Undoubtedly, this is a very important preventive mechanism that should enable the timely identification of potentially dangerous individuals against whom further measures and actions should be taken to prevent them from joining terrorist groups or organizations and carrying out a terrorist attack. Although it is already well known that there is no universal profile of a terrorist, which does not support the efforts to establish reliable instruments for assessing the risk of radicalization and violent extremism, it is the fact that an increasing number of such instruments have been used in risk assessment and positive results are expected from them. The aim of this paper is to indicate the possibilities of practical application of such instruments based on the analysis of their characteristics as well as possible limitations. Such observations could be useful to national practitioners to improve risk assessment of potential threats, as well as to researchers to encourage and develop further research that is certainly a necessity in this domain.

show abstract

Risk assessment and management in violent extremism: a primer for mental health practitioners

Cited by 9 publications

References 27 publications

The empirical grounding of a framework for the risk assessment of violent extremism and other forms of group-based violence.

The empirical grounding of a framework for the risk assessment of violent extremism and other forms of group-based violence.

Not in Their Right Mind? Right-Wing Extremism Is Not a Mental Illness, but Still a Challenge for Psychiatry

The assessment of individual risk of radicalization and violent extremism

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About