How to evaluate a program working with terrorists? Understanding Australia’s countering violent extremism early intervention program

ABSTRACT

The following outlines the emergence of countering violent extremism (CVE) policy and practice in a Western context, before examining how evaluation has (or has not) thus far assisted in the development of CVE initiatives. A subsequent analysis finds that to date, many Australian CVE programs have struggled to clearly articulate what they specifically aim to achieve, contributing to the development of a number of extremely broad and ultimately unfocused programs. The study then outlines the emergence of the Australian Countering Violent Extremism Early Intervention Program (CVE EIP), before engaging with key policymakers and practitioners to identify and articulate what success should look like for the program. A thematic analysis of 18 semi-structured interviews with policymakers and practitioners involved in the program finds the overarching goal to be articulated quite differently by stakeholders implementing the initiative, compared to those responsible for national policy formulation. By providing the first open source analysis of the CVE EIP, this applied research aims to make a modest contribution towards the effective implementation of the Australian CVE strategy.

KEYWORDS:

• Countering violent extremism
• Australia
• intervention
• counter terrorism
• disengagement

Acknowledgement

The author would like to thank Julian Droogan for his guidance and supervision when undertaking this study, and to also thank the interviewees for their time and input.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 Violent extremism involves using unlawful violence, or supporting the use of unlawful violence by others, to promote a political, ideological or religious goal. While violent extremism does incorporate acts of terrorism (the precise definition of which has been a source of endless debate for decades), it also encompasses a wider range of politically motivated violence.

2 Since 2017 this work has been undertaken by the Department of Home Affairs.

3 CVE initiatives have also been funded at the state level in Australia, with two significant programs launched in New South Wales and Victoria. In 2015 the NSW Government allocated $47 million for CVE work. This funding established the COMPACT Program (run by Multicultural NSW), which coordinates locally based projects designed to address the impacts of violent extremism on community resilience and social cohesion (Multicultural NSW, 2019). In 2015 the Victorian government also announced $25 million in funding for a ‘Social Cohesion and Community Resilience Ministerial Taskforce’. This taskforce established a Research Institute on Social Cohesion (RIOSC), and released a series of grants focused on resilience, racism, discrimination and young people (Victorian Government, 2017, pp. 27–28).

4 The Minster also claimed that the study was ‘commissioned under the Coalition government to evaluate countering violent extremism projects’. However, while the theoretical foundations of the study may have emerged (at least to some degree) from research commissioned by the Attorney General’s Department, the study was not organised by the Coalition government (who only came to power after the research was completed).

5 While internal evaluation studies of CVE programs may have been undertaken, the author is unaware of their existence, and any findings do not appear to have been publicly released.

6 The dates that the interviews were undertaken, along with any further information regarding interviewees, have not been included to further protect the identity of those who participated.

7 A significant number of individuals currently involved with the program did express concern that some of the ‘nationally consistent’ aspects had begun to degrade.

8 This theme has been adopted (at least in part) by the Victorian government, who recently stated that ‘one of the main objectives of that states CVE efforts is to counter the aggregation and escalation of risk’ (Victorian Government, 2017, p. 26).