The beliefs driving today's domestic extremists are deeply rooted in American history and society. For this and several other reasons, shutting them down will prove far more difficult than combating homegrown jihadists.
Countries around the world are fighting a growing threat of violent extremism. Many have begun implementing countering violent extremism (CVE) interventions to prevent radicalization. Have these programs been effective?
Today's self-selecting solo terrorists answer only to their god, whether seeking to destroy all government, pursuing racial separation or genocidal goals, expressing sexual dissatisfaction, or simply wanting to leave their mark. Military operations are irrelevant. This is a deeper societal problem.
For decades, America's primary terrorist threat came from groups based abroad. Today, a new crop of terrorist actors is emerging from within our own borders. Although diverse and for the most part unconnected to each other, they share a common objective of disrupting society and in the process, overturning existing norms if not the entire political, social, and economic order.
The authors present the results of a text message–based randomized controlled trial designed to assess the impact of a countering violent extremism (CVE)–themed radio program broadcast in northern Nigeria in 2018–2019.
In the year since a gunman killed 11 worshippers in a Pittsburgh synagogue, the conversation about white supremacy has grown louder. But the United States still has a long way to go in dealing with this threat.
Continued economic stagnation and a high youth unemployment rate, exacerbated by the Muslim youth bulge, could lead to failed expectations and spur radicalization among disenchanted Gen Z Muslims. And this cohort's familiarity with the internet could foreshadow an adaptive, tech-savvy terrorist threat.
As countries around the world develop countering violent extremism (CVE) programs to prevent homegrown terrorism, there is a dearth of understanding about what types of such programs exist and which approaches are most effective. A new RAND Corporation report aims to help CVE program directors and policymakers in Australia place their efforts in context and identify promising approaches domestically and internationally.
As countries around the world develop CVE programs to prevent homegrown terrorism, there is a dearth of understanding about what types of such programs exist and which approaches are most effective. Mapping CVE programs against goals and activity types could facilitate information exchange across countries.
Gathering evidence in the area of counter violent extremism (CVE) is vital, given the increasing role for CVE interventions in the political and security environment. Evaluations of these interventions can play a role in growing this knowledge, by helping the CVE field itself to develop.
Efforts to counter violent extremism online have grown, but measuring their impact is complicated. An assessment of one such campaign finds that individuals searching for violent jihadist or far-right content clicked on ads that offered alternative narratives at a rate on par with industry standards.
This document provides an overview of data collection methods and evaluation designs suitable for evaluating interventions and programmes designed to prevent and counter violent extremism and radicalisation.
This report presents the results of a study investigating how evaluations of counterterrorism and preventing and countering violent extremism policies were designed and conducted over the last five years and what practical lessons can be drawn.
This report seeks lessons from the evidence-based healthcare movement, which has a track record of using evaluation to develop practice, to consider what it might take to develop evaluation capacity in the emerging field of counter-violent-extremism.
A series of brief videos introduces important elements of the RAND Program Evaluation Toolkit for Countering Violent Extremism (CVE). The toolkit helps community-based CVE programs design an evaluation that is appropriate for their program type, resources, and expertise.
American jihadists are made in the United States, not imported. Homegrown terrorists have accounted for most of the jihadist activity in the U.S. since 9/11, with most of those who carried out or plotted terrorist attacks either born in the U.S. or arriving as children.
It is highly probable that the world will witness more attacks on civilian-centric locations as groups like the Islamic State group try to prove their continued relevance. Governments need a more nuanced strategy aimed at helping communities counter the conditions that contribute to extremist violence.
Through a targeted literature review and comparative analysis, this report examines the transferable lessons that can be drawn from evaluations of gang interventions and applied to evaluation practice in the field of counter violent extremism.
In the past 50 years, Yemen has faced significant political instability, including multiple civil wars. Why might Yemenis reject political violence despite persistent conflict and unrest? And how can the United States and its partners undermine violent extremism?
Countering violent extremism (CVE) requires reducing the underlying factors that give rise to radicalization and recruitment. Using evaluations of past programs, researchers created a toolkit for CVE program administrators to use to measure their effectiveness.