Violent Extremism, Community-Based Violence Prevention, and Mental Health Professionals

Abstract

New community-based initiatives being developed to address violent extremism in the United States are utilizing mental health services and leadership. This article reviews current approaches to preventing violent extremism, the contribution that mental illness and psychosocial problems can make to violent extremism, and the rationale for integrating mental health strategies into preventing violent extremism. The authors describe a community-based targeted violence prevention model and the potential roles of mental health professionals. This model consists of a multidisciplinary team that assesses at-risk individuals with comprehensive threat and behavioral evaluations, arranges for ongoing support and treatment, conducts follow-up evaluations, and offers outreach, education, and resources for communities. This model would enable mental health professionals in local communities to play key roles in preventing violent extremism through their practice and leadership.

Extremism and common mental illness: cross-sectional community survey of White British and Pakistani men and women living in England

“…Those who commit acts of terrorism are hypothesised as having been through a process of radicalisation, defined as the adoption of extreme political or ideological attitudes 3 , 4 . In high-income countries, radicalisation and terrorist offending are largely managed by criminal justice agencies, although public mental health interventions are now proposed as having preventive value 5 – 7 . Public health approaches to understanding and preventing radicalisation require better evidence of the risk factors associated with the adoption of extremist attitudes and terrorist behaviour more generally 8 , 9 .…”

“…Extremist views and attitudes are more common than acts of terrorism, and may indicate a preliminary stage of the radicalisation process that can be prevented 5 , 8 , 10 . Research into violence prevention, especially in relation to terrorist offending, presents a significant ethical challenge.…”

“…Research into violence prevention, especially in relation to terrorist offending, presents a significant ethical challenge. Violence prevention in general and countering violent extremism within a public health framework requires a different type of population science and cycles of learning to implement and test favoured theories in research and actual practice 5 , 7 . Therefore, this study adopts a population approach to better understand the drivers of radicalisation and extremist attitudes more generally, and the links with symptoms of psychological and mental illnesses.…”

Between vulnerability and risk? Mental health in UK counter-terrorism

“…Regardless of practice so far, to put significant expectations and weight onto a disaggregated category of 'mental health' in any new or existing terrorism-extremism-or 'radicalisation'-related risk or vulnerability assessment tool would hence seem ill advised (see also Powis, Randhawa, & Bishopp, 2019). It would also pose the possible hazard of unnecessarily increasing the stigma already associated with mental health difficulties, and of securitising such difficulties by associating an unspecified idea of 'mental health' with terrorism-related risk (see also Bhui, James, & Wessely, 2016;also McKendrick & Finch, 2017a, 2017bWeine et al, 2017). The continuing existence of insufficiently clear categories of 'mental health' indicators in terrorism-related risk assessment tools certainly moves mental health vulnerabilities closer to the field of terrorism-related risk within UK counter-terrorism.…”

“…Partial exceptions have been provided by practitioners themselves, such as social care workers and psychiatrists who have become involved in counter-terrorism-related work: Research and writings by and on such professionals have concentrated on opportunities and challenges raised by their field's engagement with counter-terrorism, including questions around effectiveness, professional ethics, worries about securitisation and of over-extension of competences (e.g. Peddell, Eyre, McManus, & Bonworth, 2016;RCP, 2016;Sestoft, Hansen, & Christensen, 2017;Tunariu, Tribe, Frings, & Albery, 2017;Ventriglio et al, 2017;Weine et al, 2017;Wright, 2016;Yakeley & Taylor, 2017).…”