This report considers the various conceptual and practical challenges in measuring the impact and value of programs designed to prevent and counter violent extremism (P/CVE). It examines potential solutions and emphasizes the significance of efforts to assess changes in attitudes, behaviors, and relationships. The report was developed in tandem with “Taking Stock: Analytic Tools for Understanding and Designing P/CVE Programs” and seeks to help advance more rigor and sustainability in P/CVE programming.

Introduction

The emergence and spread of VE and the evolution of violent extremist organizations (VEOs) pose a complex global threat. A significant and increasingly diverse community of policymakers, practitioners, and academics is striving to better understand what causes and drives VE and to develop effective interventions to prevent and counter it.

As in the peacebuilding and development fields, designing effective P/CVE programs requires practitioners to learn from what has and has not worked in the past. However, the complexity and sensitivity both of VE as a phenomenon and of P/CVE programs (as well as the diversity of lexicons, levels of analysis, and theories of change that have proliferated in this evolving field) not only complicate the task of measuring impact and assessing risk but also limit the sharing of lessons. This report gives practitioners, policymakers, and researchers an overview of challenges in evaluating P/CVE interventions, explores some potential solutions, and highlights the significance and relevance of tools that assess impact by measuring changes in attitudes, behaviors, and relationships.

This study was developed in tandem with a report that examines analytic models and frameworks used for understanding VE and designing P/CVE programs and strategies. The two studies, both published by the United States Institute of Peace,1 are intended to help improve P/CVE program design and thus give P/CVE interventions greater and more enduring impact.

Key Findings

  • There is no defined set of practices, methods, or approaches used to evaluate the impact of programs that have the goal of preventing or countering violent extremism (P/CVE), reflecting the nascent and diverse nature of the field. Yet, increasing efforts are being made to develop accessible guidelines for practitioners, as well as to develop new approaches that address some of the most significant challenges in measuring impact.
  • Those challenges can be grouped into two categories: analytic challenges, such as establishing causality, addressing contextual variations, and developing valid indicators; and practical challenges, such as collecting relevant and reliable data.
  • Attempts to establish causality in P/CVE programs run into two major obstacles: the impossibility of “measuring a negative,” or proving that violent activity or radicalization would have otherwise occurred had there not been an intervention; and accounting for the large number of variables that may have contributed to, enabled, or affected outcomes beyond the P/CVE intervention, especially in fragile or conflict-prone environments. These obstacles, however, do not preclude the possibility of rigorously evaluating P/CVE programs.
  • Practitioners and academics have focused on tools to assess individual and collective attitudes, behaviors, and relationships as meaningful metrics for evaluating the impact of localized P/CVE interventions.
  • Measures of attitudes generally assess changes in an individual’s sense of self, level of support for violent extremist groups or activity, or level of support for the use of violence generally. This is the most popular type of metric employed in P/CVE programs, but it is problematic in its assumption of a relationship between extremist beliefs and violent activity. Efforts to improve rigor in evaluation practice and circumvent some of the sensitivities unique to P/CVE programs include the use of random response, list, and endorsement experiments.
  • Measuring behavioral change provides a more direct indication of impact but is harder to accomplish. Examples of this type of analysis are found mostly in the realm of online activity. “Lab-in-field” approaches can be useful in assessing change.
  • Social relationships and networks are crucial factors in understanding and mitigating radicalization and violent extremism (VE), but they are difficult to measure. Most assessments of changing relationships take place in the online space. New research on sources of community-level resilience to VE will prove useful in informing more robust metrics for assessing the impact of P/CVE interventions.

About the Authors

Georgia Holmer is the former director of CVE at the United States Institute of Peace and is currently senior adviser for Anti-terrorism Issues at the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). She has developed, applied, and taught analytic techniques and methods for understanding—and developing strategies to prevent—radicalization, violent extremism, and terrorism. The views expressed in the article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the OSCE and its participating States.

Peter Bauman, founder and CEO of Bauman Global, has conducted extensive field research and designed and evaluated numerous peacebuilding and CVE programs globally. He has also trained and advised a range of public and private stakeholders on peacebuilding, stabilization, and CVE- related policies and programs.

Kateira Aryaeinejad serves as research associate and project manager for the RESOLVE Network at the United States Institute of Peace. Her research focuses primarily on issues associated with the evolution of and local support for violent extremist groups, geopolitical alliance patterns, and localized peacebuilding efforts in both the Middle East and Europe.

Related Publications

Chad: President Déby’s Death Leaves Vacuum in Volatile Region

Chad: President Déby’s Death Leaves Vacuum in Volatile Region

Thursday, April 22, 2021

By: Kamissa Camara; Jérôme Tubiana

The sudden violent death of Idriss Déby, the leader of Chad since 1990, throws the central African country into uncertainty. During a visit to the military frontline, Déby was allegedly killed in fighting in the country’s Lake Chad region, just days after the uncompetitive April 11 presidential elections in which he was re-elected for a sixth term. As USIP’s Kamissa Camara and researcher Jérôme Tubiana explain, Déby’s death does not change the structural deficiencies of the Chadian state. At the same time, Déby’s death leaves the West without a long-time ally in counterterrorism in the greater Sahel and Lake Chad Basin, and how the transition is managed has implications for the wider region, too.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Democracy & Governance; Violent Extremism

Guns, Camps and Deradicalization: Violent Extremists in Conflict Zones

Guns, Camps and Deradicalization: Violent Extremists in Conflict Zones

Tuesday, March 23, 2021

By: Andrew Glazzard

Violent extremists make civil conflicts more complex and less manageable. Whether in the Middle East, Africa or South Asia, one of the many problems presented by conflicts involving violent extremists is how to deal with these combatants and associates when they surrender or are captured. There have been many attempts to disengage, deradicalize, rehabilitate and reintegrate violent extremists around the world, but most research focuses on stable settings such as Western Europe and North America. What, then, do we know about how to do this in the middle of conflict?

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Violent Extremism

2020 Trends in Terrorism: From ISIS Fragmentation to Lone-Actor Attacks

2020 Trends in Terrorism: From ISIS Fragmentation to Lone-Actor Attacks

Friday, January 8, 2021

By: Alastair Reed; Kateira Aryaeinejad

In the past five years, terrorist attacks have declined notably around the globe. While this is certainly good news—particularly in the 20th year of the so-called global war on terror—terrorism remains a pervasive threat. Despite declines in its prevalence, the scale of the challenge posed by terrorism and the violent ideologies that underpin it is still immense and the mechanisms by which to address it remain complex and in need of further coordination on a global scale. What trends did we see in 2020? And how can those trends inform policy to counter violent extremism?

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Violent Extremism

View All Publications