IRS Individual Radicalisation Screening
Individual level
An individual screening tool that aims to assess inmates risk of radicalisation, following a process view of radicalisation that goes from individual vulnerabilities that can be present at the pre-radicalisation stage to the more extreme involvement (militancy) with radical groups.
The IRS Individual Radicalisation Screening follows a structured professional judgement (SPJ) approach. Therefore, it is key to understand that it represents a structured way to assess individual, inter-individual/group and organisational factors that may contribute to the radicalisation of inmates.
Moreover, this instrument needs to be considered in confluence with other existing data on dimensions (e.g., personal factors related to the inmate’s history, behaviours and vulnerabilities) that can be relevant to radicalisation). Questions focus on 39 items in 9 dimensions (emotional uncertainty, self-esteem, radicalism, distance and societal disconnection, need to belong, legitimisation of terrorism, perceived in-group superiority, identity fusion and identification, and activism). All answers must be supported by evidence. Each dimension is scored on a scale which is divided into three categories: low, moderate and high vulnerability. Analysis of the different dimensions reveals whether inmates are likely to be experiencing certain stages of the radicalisation process.
The IRS Individual Radicalisation Screening follows a structured professional judgement (SPJ) approach. Therefore, it is key to understand that it represents a structured way to assess individual, inter-individual/group and organisational factors that may contribute to the radicalisation of inmates.
Moreover, this instrument needs to be considered in confluence with other existing data on dimensions (e.g., personal factors related to the inmate’s history, behaviours and vulnerabilities) that can be relevant to radicalisation). Questions focus on 39 items in 9 dimensions (emotional uncertainty, self-esteem, radicalism, distance and societal disconnection, need to belong, legitimisation of terrorism, perceived in-group superiority, identity fusion and identification, and activism). All answers must be supported by evidence. Each dimension is scored on a scale which is divided into three categories: low, moderate and high vulnerability. Analysis of the different dimensions reveals whether inmates are likely to be experiencing certain stages of the radicalisation process.
Filling the instrument and answering to its items is an iterative process that may require interviewing the inmate, collecting and analysing observation reports, interaction with other professionals (e.g., frontline staff), and the check of available information (from other assessment tools from the psychiatric and psychological domains, to the prison records available that provide behavioural information about the inmate being assessed).
Originally, a 3-point type scale was considered, in accordance with VERA’s scale. However, considering the latitude of human behaviour, the authors considered that a 3-point scale will be too restrictive to accurately represent the range of possible behaviours, since it will not consider intermediate points between “never” and “sometimes”, as well as between “sometimes” and “always”, letting more reflective respondents to possibly fall on the middle answer.
Therefore, the response scale considers a 5-point Likert-type scale, from “Never” to “Always”. Reversed items are marked with an asterisk (*) in the coding and conversion sheet. Moreover, the respondent, that is, an element from technical staff, will be trained and will have access to a coding and conversion sheet (see “RRAP - Coding and Conversion Sheet”) that will help him/her with the process of converting the (qualitative) answer to a number. Therefore, items are scored from 1 (Never) to 5 (Always) with a 6th option “I don’t have this information”. Additionally, a column and a row were added to each item. The column asks if the item is protective. This option was taken because some items (that are not inverted) can be protective, instead of putting the inmate at a higher vulnerability (e.g., items associated with the need to belong dimension). The row asks for evidence or comments. This option was added to collect evidence and comments that help the technical staff justify the provided score. At the end, the average score for each dimension should be calculated and the results are then converted considering the following scale.
Originally, a 3-point type scale was considered, in accordance with VERA’s scale. However, considering the latitude of human behaviour, the authors considered that a 3-point scale will be too restrictive to accurately represent the range of possible behaviours, since it will not consider intermediate points between “never” and “sometimes”, as well as between “sometimes” and “always”, letting more reflective respondents to possibly fall on the middle answer.
Therefore, the response scale considers a 5-point Likert-type scale, from “Never” to “Always”. Reversed items are marked with an asterisk (*) in the coding and conversion sheet. Moreover, the respondent, that is, an element from technical staff, will be trained and will have access to a coding and conversion sheet (see “RRAP - Coding and Conversion Sheet”) that will help him/her with the process of converting the (qualitative) answer to a number. Therefore, items are scored from 1 (Never) to 5 (Always) with a 6th option “I don’t have this information”. Additionally, a column and a row were added to each item. The column asks if the item is protective. This option was taken because some items (that are not inverted) can be protective, instead of putting the inmate at a higher vulnerability (e.g., items associated with the need to belong dimension). The row asks for evidence or comments. This option was added to collect evidence and comments that help the technical staff justify the provided score. At the end, the average score for each dimension should be calculated and the results are then converted considering the following scale.
Results will be automatically calculated with an excel sheet, and the scores will pop up for each domain that is being assessed, as well as a global score for each individual, considering the pre-radicalisation, self-identification, indoctrination and militancy phases.
The scores give equal weightings to the different factors, since by now we don’t have empirical data to justify the allocation of different weighting to the risk factors. This option, against only an overall risk score represents an advantage because some dimensions can put the inmate at risk, while others don’t. Particularly, it is very useful for prison professionals and decision makers that can further draw intervention plans based on the identified risk dimensions and not based on an uninformative global risk measure. |
However, dimensions were divided – in the coding and conversion phase - into two different subsets:
- First, we can find four personal dimensions that are related to radicalisation, but that define a pre-radicalisation phase, according to Sinai's (2014) model. These dimensions are the need to belong, activism, emotional uncertainty and self-esteem, which are considered to be at a pre-stage of radicalisation, creating the necessary (but not enough) conditions for radicalisation to occur. Therefore, it sets the ground for radicalisation, considering that the most vulnerable inmates can proceed to the next phases if the environmental conditions are favourable.
- Then, the second subset of dimensions encompass the distance and societal disconnection, identity fusion and identification, radicalism, perceived in-group superiority and legitimisation of terrorism. These individual variables relate to a radical belief system that is characterised by the self-identification, indoctrination and militancy. Therefore, at these different stages, inmates can start to explore extremist ideologies, reinforcing their radical beliefs and adopting extremist ideologies, accepting violent terrorism as a mean to achieve political and/or religious goals.
Filling the instrument and answering to its items is an iterative process that could require interviewing the inmate, observation, interaction with other professionals (e.g, frontline staff), and the check of available information (from other assessment tools from the psychiatric and psychological domains, to the prison records available that provide behavioural information about the inmate being assessed. The professional should avoid the “I don’t have this information” option and search for available information.
To support their work, certified professionals will have access to:
- the R2PRIS methodological framework;
- Training session materials (facilitator’s kit with training templates, manuals, and presentations);
- R2PRIS tools (includes the user’s manual of each tool, response forms and results’ report sheets);
- Online resources and the complete R2PRIS online training course.
The R2PRIS project is co-financed by ERASMUS + programme ( KA2 - Strategic partnerships for adult education). ERASMUS + is the new EU programme for Education, Training, Youth, and Sports (2014-2020).
This website has been accomplished during the project “Radicalisation Prevention in Prisons” - 2015-1-PT01-KA204-013062 (R2PRIS), implemented with the financial support of the European Commission through the Erasmus + Programme. This publication reflects the views only of the author, The Portuguese National Agency ERASMUS+ Education and Training and the European Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein. © Developed by IPS_Innovative Prison Systems
|