Mixing security and social care logics: Experiences from the Swedish support model to prevent violent extremism

In 2020, the Swedish Centre for Preventing Violent Extremism (CVE) started developing a support model to strengthen preventive work against violent extremism. This was a response to requests from first responders in the police, the social services and schools. They wanted to know what questions they could ask, how they could strengthen multi-agency collaboration and, most importantly, what risk and protective factors they should look out for. To understand this properly, we explored research and good practice in other countries.

We also carried out more than 50 interviews with practitioners from the social services, the police, schools, and the health service in different municipalities across Sweden. Before launching the support model in late autumn 2022, it was piloted in six municipalities. This provided important insights into the needs, experiences and existing frameworks of practitioners. I will focus on three in this article.

Two logics have been identified in relation to preventive work: societal security logics and social care logics.

Different institutional logics shape approaches to preventive work

The first insight we discovered was how practitioners are shaped by the institutions they belong to. Research on multi-agency collaboration in the Nordic countries has explored the significance of institutions and institutional logics in preventing violent extremism. Institutional logics are the structures, cultures, traditions, frameworks, and approaches that shape professional practices (Gøtzsche-Astrup et al, 2023). Two logics have been identified in relation to preventive work: societal security logics and social care logics. Whereas the former regards violent extremism as in need of more repressive preventive measures, the latter puts emphasis on social prevention measures (Solhjell et al, 2022). 

These logics were visible in the interviews we carried out and in the pilot. They brought about different demands on what practitioners wanted a support model to look like and what questions to include. They also showed different approaches to risk and protective factors. Whereas the police tended to start with risk factors in relation to criminality and violence, the social services and schools focused more on protective factors such as family, education, and mental health. In the individual interviews, practitioners also expressed frustration over other actors for not sharing enough information. They wanted a support model that made multi-agency work easier by providing information about the legal and institutional practices of other agencies. 

Multi-agency collaboration as hybrid spaces

However, institutional logics are not static. Studies have explored how multi-agency collaboration can become a form of ‘hybrid spaces’ where it is possible to develop a common language and understanding  (Sivenbring & Andersson Malmros, 2021). This was visible in the interviews and the pilot as well. Practitioners expressed how working together provided a holistic approach, where different agencies contributed with pieces to the puzzle. Some described it as developing a shared framework that made it easier for them to work together. However, some also expressed frustration over how fragile multi-agency work can be when people change jobs, and they must start over again (Wilchen Christensen et al, 2023).

Innovative thinking about prevention

Finally, the interviews and piloting provided opportunities for innovative thinking about what prevention is and could be. During the pilot, practitioners were able to express their different professional views on prevention. How early is too early for preventive work? What could they do to identify vulnerabilities and risk factors earlier than they do now? What protective factors could be strengthened? How can they work together? These discussions were particularly valuable for municipalities with little or no structured multi-agency collaboration in place and showed the need for practitioners to share experiences.

Do practitioners see individuals as being a risk or at risk?

Final thoughts

In the end, we developed a support model that consists of four parts: a conversation guide, recommendation on how to strengthen internal and external multi-agency collaboration, and what should be included in a concern report to the social services and in a police report.

While it is too early to determine how effective the support model will be in strengthening multi-agency collaboration, there are some important learning opportunities.

The first is the need to include practitioners in developing support models - not only to understand their needs and expectations but also the frameworks that shape their work.

The second is to understand different approaches to prevention. Risk and protective factors can be a way to explore this.

Do practitioners see individuals as being a risk or at risk? There needs to be room for discussion about these different perspectives.

Finally, context is important. There is not one way to prevent violent extremism. Piloting the support model provided insights into the different forms of multi-agency collaborations that exist in Swedish municipalities. Flexibility to adapt and think innovatively around prevention was critical to develop an accessible support model.