Safeguarding in Countering Violent Extremism: Examining Unmet Mental Health Needs

• In Event: Understanding Political Violence and Public Safety: Insights from Protest Crimes, Hate Crimes, Radicalization, and Counterterrorism

Abstract

Safeguarding is an explicit strategy within many countering violent extremism (CVE) programmes, and clinical practitioner experience implies high levels of unmet mental health needs in radicalisation. In the UK policy space, safeguarding’s role in CVE is questioned regarding its genuine implementation in the benefit of individuals referred, and its relevance to preventing terrorism. Nevertheless, empirical research is lacking. This study uses data (N=565) from a UK CVE mental health hub to analyse mental illness, previous contact with services, and two measures of unmet needs. We ask whether 1) the hub identifies referrals with (unmet) mental health needs, 2) these present as more risky in their behaviour or complex for case management, and 3) how these cases are processed through the service. Results show 13-18% displayed unmet needs, affecting many different disorders. There is a higher (unmet) mental health need among those who have crossed the line into criminal activity, implying they may be riskier and worthy of mental health treatment to prevent violence. Cases involving mental illness, prior services contact, and both unmet needs forms are also disproportionately complex and/or time-consuming for case management. Finally, referrals with (unmet) mental health needs are disproportionately directed to mental health treatment.

Author

• Amber Seaward, University College London