Summary

The EC-financed project Recognising and Responding to Radicalisation (RecoRa) set out to explore the question: what would assist front line professionals, and community activists, develop an enhanced understanding of the process of radicalisation? The project was specifically concerned with the process of radicalisation leading to support for or engagement in acts of terror inspired by a violent Islamist ideology. This ideology has increasingly been communicated as a “single narrative” using an abusive interpretation of Islam, a distorted view of the history of the relationship between Muslims and the so called “West” in order to exploit local and national grievances and the apparent search for meaning and identity amongst sections of Muslim communities in European Cities.

Over a ten month period, across six European Cities, clusters of workers who directly interface with local Muslim communities were engaged in a range of learning and assessment processes. These activities were designed to reflect on the training and development needs of these key influencers, and to develop a tool for matching adequate training programmes which could enhance their ability to both recognise and respond to the radicalisation of individuals. Relevant training programmes were therefore tested and assessed as part of these processes.

The project was not concerned with adding to the body of research related to the definitions of radicalisation or terrorism or indeed to enter into a dialogue regarding the validity or not of a specific focus on this form of extremism relative to other forms of extremism. Rather it posed the question that within the context of national and local policy that sought to prevent violent Islamist inspired extremism, how front line professionals were being supported to both recognise and respond to this form of radicalisation.

There were marked differences in terms of each city’s assessment of the nature of the risk that this process of radicalisation posed. This was reflected in differences in the level of activity at a policy and practice level being delivered to counter this threat. The Cities contact with and understanding of Muslim communities also differed, as did the history of migration and sources of migration.

The nature of who were engaged in this exercise and how the engagement took place varied but included the following processes:

The following groups were engaged, although not universally across all cities:

This activity was undertaken over a 10 month period across the following cities: Amsterdam, Utrecht, The Hague, Rotterdam, Essen and Birmingham. Each City allocated an expert whose role was to coordinate and evaluate the in-city activity and evaluate the common findings across all cities. It is interesting to note that the cities’ participants hailed from different departments. The Dutch cities have organised radicalisation issues in their Security and Public Order departments, whereas Birmingham has positioned it within the Equality and Diversity Division and Essen has placed the topic within the Integration and Intercultural Bureau.

Initial findings were presented at the project’s final conference in Amsterdam, where local partners were invited to exchange their experiences with policy makers. The conference introduced the six cities and their programs. There were panel discussions on the different roles and needs that professionals may have in countering radicalisation. To make the issue of radicalisation more real a few personal stories were shared and finally this was tied together by the presentation of the project’s findings, which can be outlined as follows:

Key Findings

  1. There appears to remain a significant need to enable key front line professionals to recognise the need to be proactive in responding to radicalisation in order to address the terrorist threat.
  2. The analysis of the radicalisation process developed in Amsterdam has a significant explanatory power that assist front line professionals understand the nature of the problem.
  3. The model for prompting signals and planning interventions developed and tested in the Dutch Cities is significant and should be replicated across the E.U.
  4. The supply of Islam to young people “at risk” may be a significant protective factor and the approach in Birmingham is significant and should be further assessed in order to inform practice in other E.U. states.
  5. There is a need to develop understanding of the protective factors that would build resilience in young people’s ability to reject violent extremisms (rather than simply look for risk factors).
  6. Policy makers concerns regarding the separation between State and religion may itself hinder the delivery of interventions that work in preventing violent extremism.
  7. Policy makers concerned with promoting partnership working with Muslim communities need to consider the extent to which they are addressing those factors specific to Muslim activists which hinder or alternatively promote their active engagement.
  8. The active involvement of community activists may be significantly contingent on the nature of relationships with key individuals working within municipalities and not the organisation itself.

For more information, please see the final report.

See also:

more information: Pieter Jan van Slooten Hassan al-Ghazi