Exploring the transferability and applicability of gang evaluation methodologies to counter-violent radicalisation

Matthew Davies, Richard Warnes, Joanna Hofman

ResearchPublished Jul 21, 2017

Cover: Exploring the transferability and applicability of gang evaluation methodologies to counter-violent radicalisation

There are currently few evaluations of interventions designed to counter violent extremism. Various initiatives aim to introduce evaluation to this policy area where robust and rigorous evaluations have not yet become the norm.This report aims to illustrate how exploration of evaluations from established academic fields can be used to inform the development of evaluation practice in relatively novel research areas. Specifically, this report highlights a lack of empirical evidence about effective interventions to counter violent radicalisation and argues that there are relevant lessons on evaluation that can be drawn from studies of gangs. Through a targeted literature review and a comparative analysis of evaluations of gang interventions, this report examines the transferable and applicable lessons for conducting evaluations of CVE interventions.

A wide range of evaluation methods are used in gang literature, with experimental and quasi-experimental designs accounting for almost half of all evaluations. Impact evaluations are the most commonly used type of evaluation for gang desistence interventions. Evaluations of gang interventions were rated as being of higher quality than evaluations of CVE interventions, and almost all gang evaluations reviewed were either applicable and/or transferable to CVE.The results illustrate the value of comparative research in developing evaluation approaches in the field of CVE by borrowing from gang-related interventions. It also demonstrates that in some areas, CVE research might offer useful insights to future gang evaluations.

Key Findings

  • Evaluations of gang interventions were rated as being of higher quality than evaluations of CVE interventions.
  • Experimental and quasi-experimental designs account for almost half of all gang evaluations.
  • A wide range of evaluation methods are used in gang literature.
  • Impact evaluations are the most commonly used type of evaluations for gang desistence interventions.
  • The majority of evaluations are conducted independently.
  • Almost all gangs evaluations reviewed are applicable and/or transferable to CVE.

Topics

Document Details

Citation

RAND Style Manual
Davies, Matthew, Richard Warnes, and Joanna Hofman, Exploring the transferability and applicability of gang evaluation methodologies to counter-violent radicalisation, RAND Corporation, RR-2120-EC, 2017. As of September 11, 2024: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2120.html
Chicago Manual of Style
Davies, Matthew, Richard Warnes, and Joanna Hofman, Exploring the transferability and applicability of gang evaluation methodologies to counter-violent radicalisation. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2017. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2120.html.
BibTeX RIS

Research conducted by

The research described in this report was conducted by RAND Europe.

This publication is part of the RAND research report series. Research reports present research findings and objective analysis that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND research reports undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity.

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.

RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.