Violent Extremism Prevention: Exploring Social Workers Readiness

Background: Violent extremism has dramatically increased in recent years. This has included more targeted violence incidents, which are defined as “any premeditated act of violence directed at a specific individual, group, or location” (Department of Homeland Security [DHS], n.d.). Such violence includes both hate crimes and deliberate efforts to instill fear in communities, such as mass shootings in public areas. To mitigate these threats, the DHS – the federal organization designated to respond to such threats – has developed prevention frameworks that involve social workers across prevention stages (DHS, 2023). Primary prevention focuses on initiatives aimed at reducing racism, bigotry, and violence. Secondary prevention entails cooperation with law enforcement to identify individuals who may be planning targeted violence, as well as working with interdisciplinary threat assessment and management teams. Tertiary prevention involves therapeutic interventions for individuals radicalized toward violence, alongside support for their families. Additionally, social workers are often called upon to provide emergency assistance and psychosocial support in the aftermath of mass casualty events. While research in this area is limited (Hutson, 2021), some findings indicate that few social workers are adequately prepared for this type of work. This presentation will describe the results of the first US-based, mixed methods needs assessment of social workers for preventing violent extremism.

Methods: Participants were recruited for in-person focus groups and an online survey via emails to listservs and posts on social media targeting behavioral health professionals. All activities took place in one northeastern county that was the site of a major mass violence event.

Results: Three broad themes emerged from focus groups (N=10): difficulty defining violent extremism, ethical and safety concerns, and multi-faceted needs for training. For example, participants wondered if the therapeutic tools they already had could be translated to this population, while still harboring doubts about their own safety (especially among non-White participants), a lack of assessment tools, and concerns about malpractice insurance coverage if a client engaged in significant violence.

Survey results (n=143) showed mixed perspectives on readiness and willingness to collaborate with law enforcement. While 70% said they were somewhat or extremely prepared, only 48.7% felt that clinicians were responsible for violent extremism prevention. Almost half of participants had ethical concerns. 30% felt that clinicians should not collaborate with law enforcement due to structural or historical problems. Many participants expressed desire for trainings, including about radicalization (61.3%), leaving extremism (64.7%), and continuing education courses (59.3%).

Conclusions: As the first study to examine readiness to prevent targeted violence and terrorism among US practitioners, findings confirmed suspicions that there are significant gaps in knowledge, training, and willingness to collaborate with law enforcement to address growing violent extremism. Current practitioners’ perspectives should be incorporated into trainings on this issue in order to be responsive to identified needs and questions. With the growing prevalence of violent extremism and targeted attacks in the United States, it is crucial for behavioral health professionals to address this crisis to safeguard vulnerable communities, including LGBTQIA+ individuals and those from historically marginalized racial and ethnic backgrounds.