Case management tools and approaches are widely used in countering radicalisation to violence programmes, but their effectiveness is unclear
Case management tools and approaches were found to support counter-radicalisation work when implemented appropriately. No eligible evaluations of effectiveness were identified. Research on tools and approaches used to counter non-terrorism related violence is more developed, however robust evaluations of effectiveness are largely absent.
What is this review about?
This review has two parts. Part I is a systematic review of case management tools and approaches used in counter-radicalisation interventions and has three objectives: (1) assess the effectiveness of tools and approaches; (2a) examine whether they are implemented as intended; and (2b) identify factors that explain this implementation.
Part II is an overview of systematic reviews examining tools and approaches used to counter other forms of violence and has the following objectives: (3) examine the effectiveness of tools and approaches; (4a) assess their implementation; (4b) identify factors that explain their implementation; and (5) analyse whether these tools and approaches are transferable to counter-radicalisation work.
What studies are included?
Part I – Countering radicalisation to violence
No eligible studies spoke to Objective 1.
Forty-seven studies related to Objective 2. Research on Objective 2a (n = 7 studies) focused on approaches. Research on Objective 2b focused on implementation factors pertaining to stages of the case management process (n = 43); and implementation factors (n = 41) and moderators (n = 28) relevant to the full process.
Part II – Countering other forms of violence
Eight reviews were included. Five examined the effectiveness of case management approaches (n = 2) and tools (n = 3) (Objective 3); two examined how tools were implemented (Objective 4a); and seven considered implementation factors and moderators (Objective 4b).
What are the findings of this review?
Are case management tools and approaches effective in countering radicalisation to violence?
It is not possible to draw conclusions about effectiveness as no eligible studies were identified.
Are case management tools and approaches implemented as intended?
Four studies concluded that the assumptions underpinning three interventions were sound and aligned with academic research. Four studies reported mixed results as to whether three interventions were implemented in line with their internal logic. Two studies highlighted weaknesses in programme logic, including misalignment between activities and intended outcomes.
What explains how tools and approaches are implemented?
Different stages of case management
Two studies examined the identification stage, highlighting how working arrangements with external partners can create challenges when engaging potential clients. Research on the client assessment stage (n = 26 studies) examined multi-agency assessment (n = 14); risk and needs assessment (RNA) tools (n = 12); and screening tools (n = 3). Themes included inconsistency in tool use; subjectivity in interpreting risk; differing opinions on the utility of tools; and the importance of expertise and experience, and organisational and operational support for assessors. Effective multi-agency collaboration was important.
Evidence on case planning was limited (n = 5), and it remains unclear whether case planning is informed by client identification and assessment or informs delivery. Research on the use of case planning tools and case conferences identified similar themes to that on client assessment.
Research on the delivery stage (n = 28) highlighted the benefits of tailoring support to client needs, and skilled and committed practitioners who were well matched to clients and able to build trust.
Monitoring and evaluation tools (n = 16) included client assessment tools (n = 9); case file and case note data (n = 7); case conferences (n = 5); and less structured qualitative data (n = 5). Assessment tools were considered able to monitor change, inform evaluations, and support delivery, but were used inconsistently. Case notes and files help capture relevant data, whilst case conferences enable plausibility checking. However, there is limited consensus over how to interpret client change.
Studies examining transition and exit (n = 10) highlighted the importance of inter-agency coordination and continuity in client support. Potential challenges included reticence to close cases; ending relationships smoothly; and difficulties monitoring clients post-exit.
Implementation factors and moderators affecting the case management process
Implementation factors and moderators relevant to the whole case management process included effective multi-agency working (n = 34), potential challenges to which included information sharing and relationships between partners. Staff expertise was a facilitator (n = 23), whilst an over emphasis on risk-oriented logics (n = 17); political and public pressure (n = 10); and resourcing challenges (n = 17) were identified as implementation barriers. Eight studies highlighted how broader counter-terrorism legislation might undermine rehabilitative aims.
The benefits of mandated versus voluntary interventions remain unclear (n = 11). Practitioners appear to prefer voluntary approaches, but discussed challenges engaging clients unwilling to participate voluntarily.
Moderators included features of the local context (n = 10) and the delivery context (n = 11); the distinction between standalone counter-radicalisation work and interventions or practitioners that deliver this alongside other work (n = 4); and the impact of broader challenges in a client’s life (n = 4).
Are case management tools and approaches effective at countering interpersonal and collective forms of violence?
The effectiveness of case management in countering other forms of violence remains unclear. Two reviews examining the effectiveness of interventions did not find conclusive evidence that they effectively countered violence. Three reviews on risk assessment tools (n = 2) and polygraphs (n = 1) reported mixed results. However, use of these tools alone would not be expected to directly reduce violence as any positive impact would be indirect.
How are case management tools and approaches implemented in the context of countering collective and interpersonal forms of violence?
Evidence focused almost entirely on risk assessment tools (n = 5). Two reviews found that risk management is not always directly informed by structured risk assessment. The extent to which practitioners use risk assessment tools to inform case planning is informed by their willingness to take risk assessments into account when making decisions, and their ability to offer services that can effectively target needs or risks. Feedback on the perceived utility of these tools was therefore found to be mixed. Whilst feedback on the use of polygraphs was positive, this feedback was drawn from a limited evidence base (n = 1).
Facilitators of risk assessment include the ability to adapt tools to local needs; training and guidance; opportunities to pilot tools; professional ownership; positive relationships with clients; and multi-disciplinary working. Barriers included uncertainty about the utility of tools; insufficient room for clinical judgement; the perceived complexity and resource intensity of assessment; lack of experience and perceived self-efficacy; subjective interpretations of risk; and uncertainty around translating assessments into practical action. Expertise, training, and time spent with clients facilitated the implementation of mentoring programmes.
Are case management tools and approaches used to counter other forms of violence transferable to counter-radicalisation work?
The research in Part II was considered transferable to counter-radicalisation interventions. Risk assessment tools and mentoring approaches are already widely used within counter-radicalisation interventions. The utility of using polygraphs has also been considered, however evidence for their effectiveness is insufficient to recommend their implementation. Evidence relating to the use of Multi-Systemic Therapy (MST) for countering radicalisation to violence was not identified in the literature included in Part I, however its adherence to socio-ecological models of violence prevention suggests it is potentially transferrable.
What do the findings of this review mean?
Limited evidence exists for the effectiveness of case management. A body of research (47 studies) has identified factors which can facilitate or generate barriers to the implementation of interventions. The quality of this evidence is uneven. The case management framework provides a useful means of organising research on the different tools. The field will now benefit from research to test the impact of these tools and underlying approaches, and the mechanisms by which they shape intervention outcomes. More detailed analysis of case management in other fields may also strengthen counter-radicalisation research and practice.
How up-to-date is this review?
Literature searches were completed in January 2023, and include studies first published between 2000 and 2023.