Counter-radicalisation case management interventions: Findings from a Campbell systematic review

This article sets out the findings of a Campbell systematic review examining the effectiveness and implementation of case management tools and approaches used to counter radicalisation to violence. This review found that the effectiveness of these tools and approaches remains poorly understood owing to the continued absence of robust impact evaluations. However, by breaking the case management process down into its constituent parts, from client identification to client assessment; case planning, implementation and delivery; monitoring and evaluation; through to exit and transition, this review was able to uncover a robust body of evidence relating to the implementation of different stages of the case management process, and programs as-a-whole. Based on an analysis of 47 studies, the systematic review identified a range of factors that support the effective implementation of case management interventions. These include the availability of relevant tools; strong multi-agency working arrangements; intervention teams holding relevant knowledge and expertise; and adequate resourcing. In contrast, the absence of these factors can inhibit implementation, as can reliance on overly risk-oriented logics; public and political pressure; and the features of the legislative context within which programs are delivered. The paper concludes by outlining the implications of the review, and discusses avenues for future research. • This review examines both whether and how case management tools and approaches work to counter radicalisation to violence. • The effectiveness of these tools and approaches remains poorly understood. • Through an innovative application of a case management framework, the review identifies factors that facilitate and inhibit the implementation of tools and approaches. • Interventions should be underpinned by well-conceived and resourced systems that connect different stages of the case management process. • Less tangible factors, including trust and expertise, and relational processes within intervention and multi-agency teams, are important.