VERA-2R & Violent Extremism Risk Assesment

The British Journal of Forensic Practice, 14 (4), 237-25

Abstract: The purpose of this paper is to outline the process of risk assessment for terrorists and violent political extremists and to present an example of such an approach. The approach proposed is referred to as the VERA 2 or violent extremism risk assessment protocol (Consultative Version 2). A review of the knowledge base relating to risk assessment and risk assessment methodology was undertaken with a focus on relevance to individual terrorists and violent extremists. The need for a specific approach for the risk assessment of terrorists that differs from approaches used for ordinary violent criminals was identified. A model that could be used for the risk assessment of terrorists was identified with pertinent risk indicators. This was structured into a protocol referred to as the VERA (Consultative Version 2). The approach is intended to be applied to different types of violent extremists, terrorists and unlawful violent offenders motivated by religious, political or social ideologies. First, risk assessments of adjudicated terrorists and violent extremists should be undertaken with risk indicators that are relevant to ideological motivated violence. Indicators used for ordinary common violence differ in substantive ways from those relevant to terrorists and therefore may have questionable relevance for the assessment of risk in terrorists. Second, it is possible to construct an evidence based risk assessment approach for the range of violent extremists and terrorists using a structured professional judgment approach with pertinent risk indicators. The VERA 2 is an example of this type of risk assessment protocol for terrorists and unlawful violent extremists. Risk assessment tools that have been developed for ordinary violent criminals and members of organised criminal gangs should be used with caution with terrorists, violent extremists and other perpetrators of ideologically motivated unlawful violence. Specific risk assessment approaches for terrorists with relevant indicators should be used. At this time, terrorist oriented approaches such as the VERA 2 are to be considered consultative and used as an add on to other established approaches. There are few transparent, structured risk assessment approaches that use indicators specifically relevant to violent political extremists and terrorists. One new approach, the VERA 2 is outlined in the paper using risk indicators that differ in substantive ways from those used for other ordinary violent criminals.

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 18(2), 167–205

Abstract: I attempt to identify the central conceptual and methodological challenges that must be overcome if the risk assessment of terrorism is to make the same progress that in recent years has distinguished the risk assessment of other forms of violence. Four principal conclusions are offered. First, clarity from the outset on what is being assessed-the risk of terrorism in the aggregate, or of specific types of terrorism, or of specific phases in the process of becoming a terrorist, or of specific roles in terrorist activity-is a prerequisite to progress in research. Second, one current approach to the risk assessment of more common violence (e.g., assault)-the approach known as structured professional judgment-usefully may be applied to the risk assessment of terrorism. However, given that many known risk factors for common violence are in fact not risk factors for violent terrorism, the substantive content of any instrument to assess the risk of terrorism will be very different from the substantive content of current instruments that address common violence. Third, since there is little existing evidence supporting the nontrivial validity of any individual risk factors for terrorism, the highest priority for research should be the identification of robust individual risk factors. Promising candidates include ideologies, affiliations, grievances, and "moral" emotions. Finally, it is highly unlikely that an instrument to assess the risk of terrorism can be validated prospectively. An infrastructure for facilitating access to known groups of terrorists and non-terrorists from the same populations may be crucial for conducting a program of scientifically rigorous and operationally relevant research on the individual risk assessment of terrorism.

The Handbook of the Criminology of Terrorism (pp. 520–534). Wiley

Abstract: This chapter synthesizes the existing evidence base on the individual risk assessment of terrorism, focusing critical attention on recent developments in the identification of valid risk factors. The most promising candidates for such risk factors identified here include ideologies, affiliations, grievances, moral emotions, and identities. Risk factors for lone-actor terrorism may diverge significantly from those for group-based terrorism. The chapter also reflects on what must happen if research on the risk assessment of terrorism is to yield knowledge that is actionable in the context of national security, i.e., the use of case-control, known-groups research designs.

American Psychologist, 72(3), 278–288

Abstract: This article considers the challenges associated with completing risk assessments in countering violent extremism. In particular, it is concerned with risk assessment of those who come to the attention of government and nongovernment organizations as being potentially on a trajectory toward terrorism and where there is an obligation to consider the potential future risk that they may pose. Risk assessment in this context is fraught with difficulty, primarily due to the variable nature of terrorism, the low base-rate problem, and the dearth of strong evidence on relevant risk and resilience factors. Statistically, this will lead to poor predictive value. Ethically, it can lead to the labeling of an individual who is not on a trajectory toward violence as being “at risk” of engaging in terrorism and the imposing of unnecessary risk management actions. The article argues that actuarial approaches to risk assessment in this context cannot work. However, it further argues that approaches that help assessors to process and synthesize information in a structured way are of value and are in line with good practice in the broader field of violence risk assessment.

Deutsche Übersetzung. Kriminalistik, 5, 316-323

Abstract: Extremistisch motivierte Anschläge und andere Gewaltstraftaten extremistisch motivierter Personen beschäftigen die Sicherheitsbehörden und Gesellschaft in den letzten Jahren zunehmend intensiv. Dabei steht vor allem die Frage im Vordergrund, wie sich jene extremistisch motivierten Personen identifizieren lassen, die tatsächlich bereit sind Gewalt auszuüben. Mit dem Violent Extremism Risk Assessment Version 2 Revised (VERA-2R) ist ein Risk-Assessment Instrument verfügbar, dass eine systematische und strukturierte Beurteilung dieser Personen hinsichtlich ihres Gewaltrisikos ermöglicht. Das Instrument wurde auf Basis der Methode des Strukturierten Professionellen Urteils entwickelt, die individuelle Merkmale eines Falles berücksichtigt und abschliessend erlaubt, verschiedene mögliche Verläufe des Falls in die Planung von Massnahmen einzubeziehen. Nachfolgend wird die durch die Autoren vorgenommene Übersetzung der Items von VERA-2R ins Deutsche vorgestellt.

[From VERA to VERA-2R: New advances in assessing the risk of violent political extremism]

Les Cahiers de la Sécurité et de la Justice, 46, 57 – 71

Abstract: Le présent article décrit les avancées et l’utilisation de l’approche de jugement professionnel structuré de l’évaluation du risque d’extrémisme violent (VERA - Violent Extremism Risk Assessment), en mettant l’accent sur la version révisée VERA-2R. VERA-2R permet d’analyser et d’évaluer le risque que présente un individu d’agir violemment au nom d’une idéologie. Cette approche a été conçue pour les personnes prônant toute idéologie extrémiste violente et en conformité avec les garanties pour les droits de l’Homme et avec l’État de droit. Les indicateurs de risque pertinents servent de lignes directrices aux professionnels dans leur analyse et leur évaluation du risque individuel, dans la gestion des risques et dans l’élaboration de programmes d’intervention personnalisés. L’outil d’évaluation VERA-2R est utilisé sur quatre continents par des analystes de la sécurité nationale, des analystes de l’application des lois, des personnels pénitentiaires et de services de probation, des experts judiciaires, des psychologues, des psychiatres ainsi que par des spécialistes en sciences du comportement en ce qui concerne la santé mentale et la justice des mineurs. Cet outil s’appuie sur des données de validité et de fiabilité inter-évaluateurs et bénéficie de l’appui d’experts médico-légaux. L’approche VERA est utilisée dans un cadre professionnel depuis plus de dix ans. De nos jours, elle est employée en Amérique du Nord, en Europe, en Asie et en Australie.

Legal and Criminology Psychology, 24: 141-161

Abstract: Purpose: The task of assessing and managing risk of violence has evolved considerably in the last 25 years, and the field of violent extremism has the potential to stand on the shoulders of the giants of this time. Therefore, the objective of this study was to identify good practice in the risk field and to apply that to the specific area of risk in relation to violent extremism – in order that developments here accord to highest standards of practice achieved so far elsewhere.
Method and Results: We begin by addressing the essential requirement to define the task of assessing and managing the risk of violent extremism – What is its purpose and parameters, who are its practitioners, in what contexts is this activity delivered, and how might any such context both facilitate and hinder the objectives of the task? Next, we map the terrain – What guidance is already available to assist practitioners in their work of understanding and managing the risk of violent extremism, and by what standards may we judge the quality of this and future guidance in the contexts in which is it applied? Finally, we explore options for the development of the field in terms of the empirical basis upon which the risks presented by individuals and the organizations to which they may affiliate are assessed, understood, and managed.
Conclusions: Recommendations are proposed in relation to each of these three areas of concern with a view to supporting the rapid and credible advancement of this growing and vital area of endeavour.

The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology

Abstract: This paper introduces a special issue of the Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology dedicated to violent extremism and mental health. We address three challenges faced by mental health practitioners who work with people whose harm potential may be ideologically motived. First, how can practitioners engage in good practice in risk assessment and management when the evidence base for such practice in the violent extremism field is limited? Second, how can a mental health practitioner establish and understand the role of an extremist ideology in a client in their care and differentiate it from motivational drivers that may result in broadly similar kinds of actual, attempted or threatened violence? Third, how can practitioners and their services respond to the risks posed in ways that recognise and balance the needs of both the client and those multiple other agencies dedicated to public protection? Following the examination of these challenges, and a brief comment about the relevance of coronavirus to risk of violent extremism, each paper in the special issue will be introduced and their contribution to the work of practitioners who carry such responsibility summarised. The paper concludes with key points and recommendations linked to the three challenges addressed.