Evidence or Instinct? An Overview of International Exploration of the Impact Assessment Practices of Intervention Providers Supporting Leaving Extremism

Despite the increasing need for tertiary prevention programme interventions, knowledge is lacking on which methods used in programmes work and which do not. Through semi-structured interviews with twelve practitioners and combination of grounded theory and reflexive thematic analysis, this article e...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:  
Bibliographische Detailangaben
1. VerfasserIn: Maiberg, Heidi (Verfasst von)
Medienart: Elektronisch Aufsatz
Sprache:Englisch
Veröffentlicht: 2025
In: Journal for deradicalization
Jahr: 2025, Band: 42, Seiten: 36-86
Online-Zugang: Volltext (kostenfrei)
Verfügbarkeit prüfen: HBZ Gateway
Schlagwörter:

MARC

LEADER 00000naa a22000002c 4500
001 1920817506
003 DE-627
005 20250329054811.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 250329s2025 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
035 |a (DE-627)1920817506 
035 |a (DE-599)KXP1920817506 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rda 
041 |a eng 
084 |a 2,1  |2 ssgn 
100 1 |a Maiberg, Heidi  |e VerfasserIn  |4 aut 
245 1 0 |a Evidence or Instinct? An Overview of International Exploration of the Impact Assessment Practices of Intervention Providers Supporting Leaving Extremism 
264 1 |c 2025 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a Computermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
520 |a Despite the increasing need for tertiary prevention programme interventions, knowledge is lacking on which methods used in programmes work and which do not. Through semi-structured interviews with twelve practitioners and combination of grounded theory and reflexive thematic analysis, this article explores: how do tertiary prevention intervention providers measure the progress or regression of participants; how do tertiary prevention intervention providers measure the impact of programmes; and what is the reasoning for not practising impact assessment. The results show that 50% of the interviewed practitioners measure participant progress with standardised tools or set criteria. To measure participant progress, practitioners employ screening, needs assessment, indicators of change, and standardised tools. Programme development is tracked through monitoring or evaluation conducted by an outside evaluator or funder. Intervention providers prefer not to conduct impact assessment for various reasons, including their academic background that pushes them away from available instruments, feeling that currently available tools are not reliable or a tendency to work based on professional intuition. They hesitate to guarantee results due to fear of losing funding or credibility if a participant relapses and re-engages. Last, this article brings out practitioners’ perspectives that highlight not only current practices but also several gaps in the field that need further research. 
650 4 |a Evidence-based 
650 4 |a Evaluation 
650 4 |a Impact Assessment 
650 4 |a Exit 
650 4 |a Deradicalisation 
773 0 8 |i Enthalten in  |t Journal for deradicalization  |d Berlin : Modern Security Consulting Group, MOSECON, 2014  |g 42(2025), Seite 36-86  |h Online-Ressource  |w (DE-627)881149764  |w (DE-600)2886119-X  |w (DE-576)484582771  |x 2363-9849  |7 nnas 
773 1 8 |g volume:42  |g year:2025  |g pages:36-86 
856 4 0 |u https://journals.sfu.ca/jd/index.php/jd/article/view/1023  |x Verlag  |z kostenfrei  |3 Volltext 
935 |a mkri 
951 |a AR 
ELC |a 1 
LOK |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 
LOK |0 001 4695368242 
LOK |0 003 DE-627 
LOK |0 004 1920817506 
LOK |0 005 20250329043604 
LOK |0 008 250329||||||||||||||||ger||||||| 
LOK |0 035   |a (DE-2619)KrimDok#2025-03-28#12A191B0264CDBF3942616CA3E9782D30F90FE97 
LOK |0 040   |a DE-2619  |c DE-627  |d DE-2619 
LOK |0 092   |o n 
LOK |0 852   |a DE-2619 
LOK |0 852 1  |9 00 
LOK |0 935   |a zota 
OAS |a 1 
ORI |a SA-MARC-krimdoka001.raw