The 3 R’s of risk assessment for violent extremism

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore two distinct yet complimentary “structured professional judgement (SPJ)” approaches to terrorist/extremist risk assessment on the vexing issue of how best to deal with the subjectivity inherently involved in professional judgement. Design/methodology/approach An SPJ methodology is considered the best practice approach for assessing terrorism risk. Currently there are four specific terrorism risk instruments that have been published in the literature. Two of these SPJ tools are examined in detail, namely the Violent Extremist Risk Assessment tool (Pressman, 2009; Pressman et al., 2012) and the Structured Assessment of Violent Extremism (SAVE) tool (Dean, 2014). The paper critically unpacks the conceptual and methodological stumbling blocks of an SPJ methodology for controlling human subjectivity. Findings The paper presents the case for adopting a “controlling in” approach rather than a “controlling out” approach of an analyst’s subjective tacit (in-the-head) knowledge inherent in their professional judgement. To have a quantifiable SPJ tool that triangulates the multi-dimensionality of terrorism risk which can validate an analyst’s professional judgement is the next logical step in terrorist/extremist risk assessment work. The paper includes a case example of this “controlling in” approach and the validation methodology used by the SAVE software system. Practical implications The implications for practice range from incorporating the SAVE system in operational policing/national security work with its quantitative nature, triangulated risk scores, visualisation output of a prioritised case report with in-built alerts, to the required training for system calibration to enhance user proficiency. Originality/value This is a highly original and innovative paper as this type of quantified SPJ tool (SAVE) has up until now never been applied before in terrorist/extremist risk assessment work.

Risk and threat assessment instruments for violent extremism: A systematic review.

“…The current and more enhanced version of the instrument is the VERA, Version 2–Revised (VERA-2R). In 2016, as an add-on to VERA-2, a cyber risk analysis tool for violent extremism was presented with the name CYBERA, which supports the assessment of relevant cyber content (Dean & Pettet, 2017). Indicators were operationalized in a user-friendly and criteria-based way, and its indicators were based on empiric findings and expert knowledge (Pressman et al, 2017), and scientific literature research (Rettenberger, 2016).…”

“…It was developed based on a scientific literature research, experts’ revision, and methodological validation of RAVE in six countries. Its theoretical foundation is a neurocognitive learning model of radicalization (Dean & Pettet, 2017). The application requires a brief training with the tool.…”

“…Content-related information is rarely accessible, the authors mentioned that SAVE shares similar factors with the ERG 22+, TRAP-18, and VERA but focuses on cognitions and extreme thinking. The 30-item checklist consists of a terrorism scale, a militancy scale, and a shooter scale (Dean & Pettet, 2017). Logvinov (2019) outlines three key areas of the prototype RAVE: causing factors, psychological mechanisms of self-categorization, and capabilities that may have particularly influenced the revised version of SAVE.…”

Preventative Strategy to Solve Radicalism in University: The Case Study in State University of Surabaya, Indonesia

“…Baines et al, (2010) explain that terrorists use ideological politicization and the pretext of religious awareness raised with propaganda. According to Dean & Pettet (2017), the government needs to detect the seeds of terrorism by implementing risk triangulation (estimating, calculating, and managing risk). In addition to these efforts, compelling and coercive counter-terrorism strategies are needed to give a deterrent effect by implementing deradicalization programs (Hofmann, 2017).…”

Understanding Lone-Actor Terrorists: The Global Context and How it can be Applied to New Zealand

“…183 Perceived benefits of weightings are the guidance provided to lessexperienced analysts, differentiation of more serious indicators, 184 and an expedited process of overall prioritisation. However, given that even less research has been conducted on weightings than indicators themselves, and the very low base rate of loneactor terrorists, 185 any numbers chosen would be close to random and not evidencebased. Furthermore, weightings are unable to account for nuances present in indicators, such as levels of dysfunction within a family or severity of mental health problems.…”