Developed by Violence Prevention Network
By Annika von Berg
1. History
Violence Prevention Network has been working in the field of prevention and deradicalisation in the areas of right-wing extremism, Islamist extremism and new forms of extremism for more than 20 years. The basis of the counselling work is the anti-violence and competence training (AKT®), which all of the organisation’s counsellors undergo. Despite these years of experience and standardised training, individual counsellor personalities have developed over the years, each with their own specific working methods and methodological approaches. This diversity, experience and flexibility are among the central strengths of the different Violence Prevention Network teams.
When Violence Prevention Network started developing standards of conduct for advising the social environment of (potentially) radicalised Islamist individuals in cooperation with the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) in 2021[i], the question arose as to how cases could be presented and analysed in a uniform way in order to enable standardisation of case understanding and professionalisation of the advisory work. This was an issue that Violence Prevention Network had been dealing with internally for some time in the context of quality management and professionalisation of deradicalisation work. The diversity described above also posed a challenge: how can the findings, successes and experiences be combined without overly reducing or regulating the necessary individuality and relationship work of pedagogical practice?
In the context of this question, various methods and approaches that had already been developed or were in development were tested. However, it quickly became clear that previous approaches did not do justice to the complexity of disengagement processes and the working logic of disengagement work by practitioners. As a result, work remained in the realm of so-called ‘professional gut feeling’ and experience-based assistance and intervention planning, blind spots continued to exist, and the desired professionalisation and standardisation of disengagement work still showed potential for development.
The logical consequence of the experiences to date was to develop a tool that, on the one hand, met scientific standards, i. e. included empirical findings on radicalisation and distancing processes, and followed a stringent logic and established methods in its development. On the other hand, and far more important, the challenge was to develop a tool that was oriented towards the everyday work of practitioners, considered their experiential knowledge, and also included the methods and approaches of disengagement work. Complex data collection and evaluation procedures, developed exclusively based on scientific knowledge, are methodically and empirically flawless, but they are not accepted or applied in practice, precisely because they do not take into account the working logic and everyday processes of deradicalisation workers or even counteract them.
The challenge was to bring together high scientific standards and working logic with the everyday processes of deradicalisation work. The solution could only be a joint process. Counsellors and colleagues from various fields – from science, psychotherapy and digitalisation to international cooperation – worked together to find a solution that does justice to both the diversity and the systematics and working reality of deradicalisation workers: GRIDD PRO – Social Diagnostics.
GRIDD PRO – Social Diagnostics is a methodical approach that systematically captures and makes understandable the individual life realities of clients. The procedure enables counsellors to take a differentiated look at social contexts, relationships and personal experiences and to identify resources and opportunities for change together with the clients. In confidential discussions and through structured observations, both strengths and challenges become visible. The aim is not to categorise clients, but to take a holistic view of their social integration and their individual development paths and scope for action. This creates a multi-layered picture that can be used for sustainable guidance and individual support. The aim of social diagnostics is to professionalise counselling and to strengthen clients in their change process. It supports counsellors in recognising patterns in the biographies of their clients, relationships and social dynamics that play a role in their personal development. Particularly in the field of counter-extremism, it provides a valuable basis for understanding individual radicalisation and disengagement processes and for providing targeted support. By identifying resources and challenges, tailored support services can be developed.
2. Methodology and empirical basis of the development
GRIDD PRO – Social Diagnostics as a social diagnostic procedure does not reinvent the wheel, but rather it is the essence of more than 20 years of experience in counter-extremism work and established approaches and instruments of social work. Social diagnostics is not new either. It has been used in other areas of social work for decades and is now part of the basis of professional action. In concrete terms, this means for GRIDD PRO – Social Diagnostics that the social diagnostic approaches are linked and supplemented in such a way that they consider all areas that, according to scientific findings and the practical knowledge of practitioners, are relevant to achieve a holistic understanding of a radicalisation and disengagement process, to plan help and interventions, and to observe changes and developments.
GRIDD PRO – Social Diagnostics was developed in several steps. In 2019, the content and measures of the counselling work were systematised. The work on the above-mentioned standardised handout provided the first important starting points. This was linked to methods and instruments used in disengagement work, some of which originate from social work. At the same time, these were compared with findings from radicalisation, disengagement and deradicalisation research to prevent possible blind spots in the methodology of practical work with scientific findings. The result was a comprehensive ‘diagnostic folder’ that considered the following question:
Which biographical, social, needs-, attitude- and inclusion-specific experiences have caused radicalisation and are causing the distancing process?
Since deradicalisation work by practitioners – like social diagnosis in social work itself – also includes intervention and assistance planning, established social work procedures and instruments dedicated to this topic were also used here. Since there are high, external expectations of impact, particularly around disengagement work, and there is also a regular reporting requirement here, e.g. in the form of development reports, the diagnostic procedure was supplemented by an impact measurement component. This part of the social diagnostics process was further developed in the following years based on practical experience and pilot projects.
After the first version of GRIDD PRO – Social Diagnostics, still under the name ‘Social Diagnostics’, was presented and tested in all Violence Prevention Network advice centres, the content and graphics were adapted. Thematic duplications were removed, the user-friendliness of the diagnostic folder was improved, and new topics were added. This second version, developed in 2021, was also tested in practice over a period of one year. In 2022, a working group of practitioners and scientists from the fields of Islamist extremism and right-wing extremism was finally created to revise the second version. Here, all previous findings from the practical testing of social diagnostics, meanwhile known as the ‘FAIR procedure’ (FAIR stood for case analysis, intervention and (re-)integration), were critically scrutinised. One focus of this revision was the further development of the evaluation part of the diagnostic process. In this process, the interventions and their objectives and indicators of target achievement were extracted from the practical work. At the end of this process, the third version of the diagnostic folder was finally available in 2023. This was again tested in practice and transferred to the user interface, which is now known as the GRIDD PRO – Social Diagnostics app.
GRIDD PRO – Social Diagnostics is the result of years of experience in distancing work, the input of dedicated and experienced consultants from the various fields of expertise, the effective, appreciative and respectful collaboration of science and practice, and the integration of established approaches and tools from related disciplines such as social work.
3. Differences and similarities with risk assessment
With disengagement work, we are in a field of work in which security authorities also operate, using their risk assessment procedures to make their own assessments of radicalised individuals and extremist offenders. Social diagnostics or GRIDD PRO – Social Diagnostics is the social work counterpart to this, tailored to the principles of social work practice.
However, this does not mean that GRIDD PRO – Social Diagnostics and security risk assessment are fundamentally different. Rather, there are overlaps and ultimately a common goal of reducing the danger posed to society by extremist individuals. However, different perspectives, approaches and information are used as a basis and the respective processes are based on different mandates and risk assessments.
While risk assessment incorporates the perspective of the security authorities and thus considers the risk of an individual committing (another) extremism-related offence, and thus considers the risk to society, GRIDD PRO – Social Diagnostics takes a social work perspective, i. e. the risk and, above all, the opportunities for the disengagement process are considered, which ultimately also has an impact on the risk to society. If a disengagement process has been successful and sustainable, it is likely that the individual will no longer commit an extremism-related offence, which has a positive effect on reducing the risk to society. Even though GRIDD PRO – Social Diagnostics considers the risk of a disengagement process failing, GRIDD PRO – Social Diagnostics focuses on identifying and activating resources and thus, in the language of risk assessment, on protective factors, because social work case planning works with resources. This is the first important difference, but also a synergy effect. While risk assessment focuses on risk factors, GRIDD PRO – Social Diagnostics focuses on protective factors. If both methods are used in parallel in the appropriate cooperative relationships, important synergies can arise in holistic case understanding.
Another difference, which should not be underestimated, is the information base on which users arrive at an understanding of the case. While risk assessment processes are based on information from security authorities, GRIDD PRO – Social Diagnostics is based on the information provided to the respective organisation/consultant (whether by clients, network partners, security authorities or other professional helpers). Thus, both methods are fundamentally dependent on the quality of the available information. While risk assessment works primarily with objective information, GRIDD PRO – Social Diagnostics offers insights into the subjective interpretations, attitudes and experiences of radicalised individuals and extremist offenders through its direct connection to the counselling work, which can lead to a limited perspective on the case if no other perspectives are included in the case understanding. GRIDD PRO – Social Diagnostics prevents this from happening by including procedural steps for case reflection. The working logic of Violence Prevention Network always includes the exchange with cooperation partners who are also working on the case. On the other hand, the proximity to the individual and the inevitable examination of their inner life offers insights that cannot be guaranteed in all risk assessment processes.
The process of case understanding is always accompanied by the processes of case management. While risk assessment is followed by risk management, social work case understanding is followed by help and intervention planning. While risk management largely consists of police measures, help and intervention planning includes all possible forms of measures. These measures primarily relate to the strengthening and (re)activation of resources that prevent (re)radicalisation or a relapse into extremist crimes by means of understanding processes and offering an alternative for a fulfilled life away from extremism. It should be noted here that cooperation with Violence Prevention Network can be part of police risk management in the context of a deradicalisation measure.
Overall, positive synergies can be achieved in the field of deradicalisation when social workers/civil society actors and security authorities work together, provided that both procedures are recognised and used in their raison d’être. Ultimately, this not only contributes to a multi-perspective, holistic understanding of the case, but also to professional, effective cooperation between different actors on an equal footing. In this context, security risk assessment and GRIDD PRO – Social diagnostics are to be seen as procedures that fit the respective mandates and working logics. Under no circumstances should they be understood as competing approaches to case understanding.
[i] https://www.bamf.de/SharedDocs/Anlagen/DE/Forschung/deradikalisierung-standardhandreichung-2020.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=8, last viewed on 7 April 2025
INTERVENTIONEN 