Measuring Change in Terrorist Engagement: Challenges and Future Directions

The majority of individuals detained as a result of engagement in terrorism will be released into the community. To ensure resources are targeted where they are required most to manage this risk, we need to establish which individuals are disengaging, reducing the need for intensive risk management. This article considers how we measure the progress individuals make towards disengagement and how this can be sustained long-term. Measuring these changes also contributes to evaluation of the effectiveness of interventions for terrorist offending.

Why is measuring change important?

Whilst there have been individuals who have reoffended on release, there are many more success stories; the majority of people successfully disengage from terrorism and reintegrate into society. Yet, their risk assessments often remain high. Assessments of risk typically combine the likelihood of the outcome with the potential severity. In relation to terrorist offending, the outcome is so unacceptable that even where the likelihood is low, risk judgements remain high to reflect the potential severity. This creates a challenge for decision makers being asked to consider release when risk judgments are not reflective of the changes an individual has made.

Measuring change enables us to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions and case management approaches in supporting successful reintegration.

Evidencing and communicating these changes is essential to avoid inflated risk assessments, and to reinforce change. Measuring change enables us to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions and case management approaches in supporting successful reintegration, and to identify those individuals requiring more intensive support.

What are the challenges with measuring change?

Challenges exist with how we measure change for individuals convicted of all types of offences. The most common approach is to evidence change through assessment of reoffending risk; repurposing these risk assessments as measures of change. However, outcomes such as reoffending are rare, and very few risk assessment frameworks have demonstrated responsiveness to change in research (Ryland, Cook, Yukhnenko, Fitzpatrick, & Fazel, 2021).

In the risk averse field of counterterrorism, there are high levels of controls and restrictions on individuals. These hinder demonstrations of change or may misrepresent them as adaptations to the current environment rather than as results of internal shifts. Therefore, measures of change should be built into our risk assessments and account for context.

What does change look like?

Structured professional judgement protocols focus on identifying evidence of risk factors, deploying a positive test strategy. This leads risk assessors to seek information to confirm the presence of risk factors rather than disconfirm, potentially neglecting evidence of change. To counteract this, practitioners in HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) are guided to actively seek counter-evidence or evidence of change through examples provided within risk assessment frameworks as to what change might look like. This encourages a more balanced assessment of risk.

Practitioners are also guided to assess the individual’s strengths by recording evidence of protective or risk mitigating factors. Protective factors are not simply the opposite of risk factors. Broad composite factors identified from the literature guide practitioners as to what may be protective or risk mitigating, acknowledging these will be individualised. Whilst there is limited empirical evidence for specific protective factors within the current literature, there is evidence that taking into account protective factors can improve the accuracy of overall risk assessments (Jones, Brown & Frey, 2014).

Protective factors can distinguish non-offending individuals from those who commit terrorist offences, even under similar stressors (Clemmow, Schumann, Salmon, & Gill, 2020). Indeed, it is often the loss of protective factors that enables extremist risk to manifest as terrorism. Increasing protective factors through interventions correlates with reduced recidivism over sustained periods (de Vries Robbé & de Vogel, 2012). Therefore, building on strengths is a focus within HMPPS interventions for the terrorist cohort. Marsden and Lee (2022) set out how strengths-based models can be applied with terrorist cases to support them in meeting their needs in pro-social ways. This can then be reflected in the risk assessment.

Risk assessments generally conclude with hypotheses as to potential risk scenarios, emphasising worst-case outcomes. However, this can obscure the more common scenario of disengagement. HMPPS risk assessments for the terrorist cohort therefore also consider disengagement scenarios, hypothesising how protective factors, key hooks for change, and new skills may mitigate risk in the presence of potential destabilisers in the community. This scenario planning will highlight contextual changes needed to support sustained disengagement and provide a clear picture of what change looks like for an individual based on their strengths and values.

What is sufficient change?

Determining how much change is “enough” to prevent reoffending is highly context-dependent. Any decision to reduce external controls must consider the impact on others, such as the public, the individual, victims, and professionals working with them. Thresholds for change will vary by situation. However, it is important to take into account the trajectory the individual is on over time. For some, there are few risk factors present from the outset, therefore this is not indicative of change. For others, reductions in a number of risk factors alongside increases in protective factors suggests meaningful progress. This emphasises the need to establish a baseline and assess change over time, rather than relying on cross-sectional assessments.

Determining how much change is “enough” to prevent reoffending is highly context-dependent.

Regular updates to risk assessments will communicate the trajectory of change. This is rarely linear and may include lapses along the way as changes are embedded. Where lapses occur, this is not necessarily because change was not genuine. An individual may lapse when faced with high levels of restrictions, social stigma, and destabilisers on release, therefore contextual factors may impact the sustainability of change. Sufficient change will be sustainable across time and context.

Authenticity and sustainability of changes

Conforming to social expectations helps people adapt to different contexts. However, within the criminal justice system this can be perceived as impression management, whether deliberate or not. Adapting to the prison environment may include presenting in a way that is conducive to release. Assessing whether changes are situationally adaptive or reflective of genuine, sustained change is challenging. Whilst deliberate deception remains a concern, it is not prevalent based on current evidence. Focusing on consistency and generalisability of behaviour informs assessments of authentic change and decisions to reduce controls.

Approaches to measure change

The approaches outlined focus on improving how we measure change within terrorist risk assessment in HMPPS. This includes:

• Capturing baseline levels of risk and protective factors
• Seeking evidence of change in risk and protective factors
• Examining the trajectory of change over time
• Hypothesising what disengagement may look like

These approaches require research and evaluation to establish how responsive to change risk assessments are. Research will need to identify a broader set of outcomes beyond reoffending alone to assess change.

Additional approaches to measuring change within wider case management should also be considered. This may include shorter-term measures of engagement with supervision, or individualised collaborative behaviour monitoring. These can be tailored to ensure agreed goals are feasible within the constraints of the individual’s current environment.

Approaches to maintaining change

Maintaining change on release is a challenge. Individuals convicted of terrorist offences must navigate high levels of restrictions and stigma in the community. Cherney and Koehler (2023) suggest sustainable desistance is underpinned by changes in identity and cognitive reasoning which whilst necessary, are not sufficient. They add that the availability of viable options in the community and external support will determine whether these changes will be sustainable. The evidence regarding psychological interventions in custody indicates that those with follow up support in the community achieve the greatest reduction in reoffending rates (Beaudry, Yu, Perry, & Fazel, 2021).

His Majesty’s Inspectorate found better outcomes for individuals on Probation when practitioners support them to build on their strengths (Research and Analysis Bulletin, 2023/04). Following changes made through interventions in custody, professional and community support will be required to overcome the barriers the individual faces to reintegration, and allow them to continue to build on their strengths to protect against future risk.

Conclusions

Identifying those individuals who are on a trajectory of desistance and those who are not, allows professionals to support this change and allocate risk management resources appropriately. Controls can be reduced, allowing the individual opportunities to demonstrate their own internal risk management strategies. The success of interventions may be measured through the development of strengths and protective factors which mitigate risk of reoffending and support successful reintegration.

The views expressed are those of the authors, and not necessarily those of HMPPS.