By Maximilian Campos Ruf (Violence Prevention Network)

This article was first published in German in: Interventionen – Zeitschrift für Verantwortungspädagogik Nr. 20, 2026

Violence Prevention Network began its anti-violence work over two decades ago with politically motivated, far-right violent offenders and criminals. This was soon followed by measures outside the prison context, such as secondary prevention support for young people and young adults at risk of radicalisation or who had already been radicalised, as well as their families. The aim of this work has always been to support ideologically vulnerable individuals and extremist-motivated violent offenders through disengagement work, helping them to change their behaviour, lead independent lives and (re)integrate into democratic society, thereby preventing extremism of any kind. From the outset, this work has been accompanied and evaluated by external academic experts; this has been complemented by internal processes for monitoring, evaluation and learning. More than 20 years later, the question arises: what results have these evaluations yielded? And what does good evaluation practice require to better prepare future extremism prevention for new challenges, political changes and hybridised phenomena?

The relationship between practice and evaluation

The evaluation of individualised social interventions, such as those commonly used in exit and disengagement support, is a notoriously complex field of action. In the past, both counsellors and evaluators have at times expressed frustration at the limitations of evaluation in this area. However, even though previous evaluation experiences have not always been straightforward for all parties involved in the evaluation triangle – namely practitioners, evaluators and funders – the blanket assumption that practitioners are opposed to evaluation projects falls far short of the mark.

Surveys conducted as part of the BMI-funded collaborative projects PrEval – Evaluation Designs for Prevention Measures (2020-2022) and the subsequent collaborative project PrEval – Future Workshops (2022-2025) clearly show that there is indeed considerable interest in good evaluation on the part of practitioners (Koynova et al. 2022, 21). For instance, 59% of the practitioners surveyed considered the current number and scope of evaluation processes to be appropriate, 33% even considered them to be too few, and only 8% found the effort involved to be rather or too high (ibid.). Admittedly, the specific needs and wishes of funders and practitioners naturally differ. However, it seems entirely understandable that practitioners generally tend to prioritise evaluations that offer direct, practical benefits for their work (ibid.), whilst funders, in line with the legitimising and monitoring function of evaluations, have a greater interest in examining “achieved[r] effects of the funded projects and their sustainability” (GBMI 2019, 803).

Evaluations at Violence Prevention Network over time

The first evaluation at Violence Prevention Network was carried out in 2006, almost exactly 20 years ago. This project examined the then-pilot project ‘preventive work with young people with right-wing extremist leanings in prisons in the state of Brandenburg’. The study reached very positive conclusions regarding the direct impact on clients and participants (Lukas/Lukas 2007, 60). The (entirely male) participants rated the experience positively and were empowered by the training to engage critically with themselves, their criminal acts and acts of violence; afterwards, they were able to view critical situations with others not as an attack, to listen and to question themselves (ibid.). Furthermore, they were, among other things, encouraged to recognise and express their feelings and to express themselves more articulately (ibid.). Even with regard to ideological and scene-related distancing, successes were already being reported at that time:

“It can be noted that far-right political positions were relativised and/or abandoned. This was evident, for example, from outward signs such as a change in appearance – for instance, growing one’s hair, discarding scene clothing, or removing far-right symbols from their living spaces. There was also a verbal distancing from opinion leaders or specific requests for help in leaving the far-right scene.” (ibid., 61).

Initial experiences in the aftercare of participants released from detention also allowed for positive conclusions regarding their ability to apply what they had learnt outside the training context (ibid.).

However, even then, a key challenge regarding the evaluation of prevention measures became apparent: one-off surveys at specific points in time may indeed allow interesting conclusions to be drawn about immediate results and perceptions. Under certain circumstances, they may also be suitable for providing indications of specific challenges in implementation and possible improvement measures and can thus have a formative influence on a project – which still corresponds to the wishes of practitioners today.

However, in order to develop an even deeper understanding of how extremism prevention interventions work in the long term, larger-scale studies with multiple data collection points over a significantly longer period are necessary. Such projects require time and the political will not to present supposedly concrete results within 6-12 months, the actual significance of which is, however, limited. Instead, such evaluations must engage more intensively, over the long term and in a more nuanced manner with the practice of preventing extremism, not least to further strengthen its evidence base and prepare it for future challenges.

Other studies from that period also reach positive conclusions and provide supporting evidence for something that was to become the unique selling point of the German model of extremism prevention: the division of labour between state institutions and civil society prevention organisations. Particularly in the context of the prison system, the author emphasises:

“The trainers must enter the prisons as external staff so that they can operate relatively free from the usual hierarchy and the constraints of everyday prison life. Under this condition, they offer the participants a working partnership which they can choose to join voluntarily, but which then commits them to binding, regular and active participation.” (Lukas 2006, 73-74).

A further decade and a half later, this cornerstone of the German prevention landscape is highlighted as particularly beneficial in a report by the European Commission’s Radicalisation Awareness Network:

“[CSOs] can bridge knowledge and capacity gaps that government actors lack and can provide support to target audiences that otherwise may not receive help. They have accumulated knowledge, expertise and skills in working with violent extremist clients and concerned individuals. CSOs provide exit services both within the criminal justice system and in society, using diverse approaches and methods. Their independence from government enhances their credibility and legitimacy in the eyes of their target audiences and promotes trust among affected communities. Due to their smaller organisational structure, CSOs have a great deal of operational flexibility and a wide window of availability, allowing for the provision of intensive care during sensitive periods. Many CSO-led interventions are designed to provide long-term, continuous support.” (RAN 2022, 33; emphasis added by the author)

In 2008, the next evaluations of Violence Prevention Network’s disengagement programmes in the prison system followed, alongside further research into programmes addressing right-wing extremism in the state of Brandenburg (Lukas 2008a) – this time also for adult participants from diverse backgrounds, including those with Muslim migration backgrounds, in Hamburg, Lower Saxony and Berlin (Lukas 2008b). Although some challenges were noted, particularly regarding the adaptation of the original concept to other target groups, the measures implemented were rated very positively (Lukas 2008a, 58-59; Lukas 2008b, 85-86). Although the positive assessments of the measures were important, it was once again the specific references to challenges and opportunities for further development that proved to be particularly guiding for the expansion of the organisation’s practice. These first four evaluations formed the foundation for the further work and practice development of Violence Prevention Network in the years and decades that followed.

Probation as a criterion for success?

Although the evaluation of disengagement programmes involves the analysis of complex, multi-level interventions, the question is often raised, particularly in the context of the prison system: what is the situation regarding the re-incarceration of (former) clients? Admittedly, studies on recidivism rates should be treated with caution, as the underlying criteria, definitions and study samples often vary considerably and direct comparability is frequently lacking. Nevertheless, a study funded by the German Forum for Crime Prevention in 2012 examined the question of the probationary status of participants in Violence Prevention Network’s deradicalisation training programme within the prison system. To this end, the author compared the recidivism data of 188 training participants imprisoned for violent offences within four years of their release with comparable recidivism data from other studies and concluded:

“The high proportion of non-recidivist violent offenders and the significantly lower re-incarceration rate among VPN training course participants during the recidivism period suggest that participation in the training course has a clearly positive effect in terms of post-release behaviour and the most severe subsequent sanctions.” (Lukas 2012, 21-22).

Compared with recidivism data for young offenders for the reference offence in 1994, the recidivism rate among training course participants was 61% lower (ibid., 22). Even when compared with young violent offenders during the recidivism period 1995-1998, the re-incarceration rate among participants is 58% lower (ibid.). As already described, such comparisons should not be taken as absolute truth. The author himself notes that the lower proportion of custodial sentences without probation may partly result from changes in judicial sentencing practices since the 1990s (ibid.). Nevertheless, a positive trend can be inferred with regard to the pioneering work carried out by Violence Prevention Network at that time.

Changing evaluation practices

Following these initial attempts at evaluation in the context of extremism prevention, a shift in evaluation practice has been evident since 2013: a greater number of evaluation and accompanying research projects were commissioned and required by funding bodies. This now also applied to projects outside the prison context, which addressed primarily and secondarily preventive objectives. In 2013, for instance, the project to strengthen intercultural and inter-religious dialogue, ‘MAXIME Wedding – Model Project for the Prevention of Islamist Extremism in Berlin’s Wedding District’, was supported by the IBI – Institute for Education in the Information Society e. V. and received consistently positive feedback from participants (Hayes 2013, 21-22). In particular, the process-oriented nature of the support provided valuable insights for the organisation’s further development, including with regard to diversity aspects, and for the future implementation of similar projects. The results were indispensable for the organisation’s continued work in school contexts.

As the organisation’s approaches were extended to other federal states, the combination of critical reflection, assessment of the suitability of measures in relation to the challenge at hand, and process-accompanying and formative elements proved to be a helpful approach to scientific support and evaluation in this field of action. Against this background, the evaluation report on the Hessen Advice Centre – Religious Tolerance Instead of Extremism was published in 2018 (Möller, Neuscheler 2018). This was based on a “mix of methods that, in a participatory manner, envisaged a process-accompanying, reconstructive-qualitative design of formative, i.e. design-oriented, evaluation” (ibid., 15). The evaluation focused primarily on whether the conceptually envisaged objectives could be achieved, to what extent, and on any possible unintended effects (ibid., 190). Overall, it reached the following conclusion:

“In summary, the work of the Hessen Advice Centre can be said to achieve a quality of results that not only meets the intended objectives but also produces outcomes which, particularly in work with radicalised individuals, extend to an improvement in living conditions and social status (Output III) (see also Beywl/Niestroj 2009 and Chapter 3 of this report).” (ibid., 2018)

With explicit reference to distancing oneself from extremism, the evaluation of the advice centre states:

“The dismantling of extremist attitudes can be described as the most challenging objective in this field of work (see also the assessment by academic experts: e.g. Noricks 2009; Neumann 2013; Schmid 2013). Nevertheless, depending on the duration of the support and the individual progress made in reflection, staff are able to build on existing doubts and encourage clients to engage in critical reflection, so that extremist narratives and the interpretations and courses of action they offer — which are strongly oriented towards the transcendent — can be reflected upon and dismantled. This can, among other things, ensure that clients no longer pursue efforts against the free democratic basic order or regard the active use of violence to achieve their goals as legitimate.” (ibid., 223)

In the spirit of realistic expectation management, however, the authors also note that “a complete and consistent reduction of facets of ideological representations across all individuals receiving support appears rather unlikely” (ibid., 223), a relevant limitation regarding the possibilities and boundaries of working with a clientele that is, in some cases, highly radicalised. At the same time, they write:

“On the other hand, with reference to the achievement of objectives to date, it is also realistic that the previously existing orientations lose their coherence and that, at most, isolated remnants of problematic attitudes remain, but that these no longer exert an influence on behaviour.” (ibid., 223)

The evaluation of the Berlin Advice Centre KOMPASS, whose report was published in 2019 (Schroer-Hippel 2019), follows a similar line of reasoning. It too concludes that, despite considerable hurdles, the part of the work examined in the evaluation has, in the majority of cases, achieved success in terms of its objectives:

“The evaluation shows that the counsellors are reaching the relevant target group and that the majority of them succeed in establishing counselling processes with clients who are often highly sceptical. Making initial contact and building a working relationship with clients is, in practical terms, the bottleneck for the actual deradicalisation work. In the majority of cases (64%), such a working relationship is successfully established. Where a working relationship has been established, it is found in the majority of cases (57%) – effectively as an interim assessment of the counselling work – that there is no longer a risk or that there is a clear willingness to disengage (8 out of 14 cases). In two (ongoing) cases, the level of risk had already decreased; however, the clients were still considered at risk, albeit below the threshold for security relevance. Four further cases were still considered to require further education. Deradicalisation in the ideal-typical sense, as assessed using the indicator model, can be observed in the majority of cases – again as an interim result of the counselling – provided the hurdle of establishing a working relationship with the clients has been overcome (42%).” (ibid., 69)

These results suggest that, in the case of the majority of clients who are generally difficult to reach, the counsellors succeed in “minimising risks or initiating processes of deradicalisation” (ibid., 69). However, the evaluator also concludes that longer observation periods would be necessary for a conclusive assessment (ibid., 69).

Programme evaluation

At a time when a wide range of different prevention and disengagement measures are being implemented nationwide by various stakeholders, the relevance of programme evaluations is also increasing. Rather than focusing on individual projects, these evaluations examine entire funding streams relating to specific topics and seek to assess their achievement of objectives and impact. One example of this is the scientific monitoring of the pilot projects in the thematic area of ‘Prevention and Deradicalisation in the Prison and Probation System’ within the federal programme ‘Demokratie leben!’ during the 2020-2024 funding phase (Jakob et al. 2024). A lower level of detail in the results regarding individual projects is inherent to programme evaluation. However, it was possible to draw broadly positive conclusions regarding the development of the field over time, which can be attributed to the successful work of the organisations active in the programme. Despite challenges such as the COVID-19 pandemic during the survey period, structural innovations were initiated in prisons, the number of individual case consultations increased steadily over the funding period, and new target groups were increasingly reached (ibid., 118-119). With regard to the successes and impacts on the clients themselves, the authors also draw a positive conclusion – taking into account the difficult conditions within the prison system:

“On the one hand, the [pilot projects] were able to conclude many individual counselling sessions with positive outcomes; on the other hand, they provided lasting impetus for substantive engagement through group sessions and offered approaches to behavioural change that were taken up by the participants. Among the two key factors identified are, on the one hand, the creation of a third space within the prison system where experiences of appreciation, equality and democratic coexistence are made possible. On the other hand, the joint establishment of voluntary participation is a necessary foundation for achieving personal engagement with the programme content and fostering individual motivation for change or stabilisation.” (ibid., 119–120)

The factors discussed here address two elements that were already identified in the initial evaluations of Violence Prevention Network’s early work in the prison system as key success factors.

Despite the cross-programme nature of the study, the authors were able to formulate practice-relevant recommendations (see ibid., 121-124). This is likely due to the fact that they have all been familiar with the field of practice for many years and are well acquainted with the circumstances of practical work. Nevertheless, such programme evaluations primarily serve a legitimising and monitoring function vis-à-vis administration, politics and society. The formative element therefore lies primarily in the potential impact on future funding periods and programme design – provided that the results are actually taken into account by the relevant decision-makers.

Conclusion

It would be going too far at this point to summarise and examine the findings of all other evaluation reports on the work of the organisation and comparable actors. One thing, however, becomes clear from this illustrative dive into the evaluation history of Violence Prevention Network: Even though the reports consistently issue positive overall assessments over time, it is above all the studies that engage with the respective projects in an in-depth and constructively critical manner, accompanying the process and providing formative feedback, that have been able to provide real impetus for the further development of practical approaches. These insights were particularly essential during the period when the organisation’s structures were established. Over time, needs change. Today, organisations are generally less concerned with determining whether their advisory approaches are fundamentally suitable and promising – this has, for the most part, been sufficiently demonstrated over the years and decades. Instead, it is necessary, for example, to examine new technical circumstances and their influence on how proven practices can continue to be implemented effectively and in a manner appropriate to the target group.

Particularly at a time when extremist and broader societal challenges are subject to ever-faster change, process-oriented and formative approaches are once again gaining in relevance. At the same time, there remains a need for the long-term studies that were mentioned right from the outset, as well as in some of the evaluations cited. Although the implementation of such evaluations could yield exciting results, certain conditions for success must be taken into account during planning and execution. Without these conditions, both shorter-term and longer-term evaluations run the risk of failing.

For instance, the practitioners being evaluated should be involved in methodological considerations from the outset in order to manage expectations realistically regarding the necessary timeframes and the development of access to empirical data. Building working relationships and trust is a critical bottleneck that can determine success or failure, and not just in the counselling work itself. It is also a crucial prerequisite for the successful implementation of evaluations. Furthermore, practitioners should be allowed to contribute their own questions to the process, which go beyond mere target achievement and ‘impact measurement’. The interest of practitioners in self-critical reflection on their own work and the possibilities for improving it should not be underestimated. And last but not least, commissioned evaluators should be well acquainted with the field of work under investigation and the practical realities of day-to-day activities. This not only helps to avoid frustration on both sides but also enables more efficient research processes to be implemented.

In summary: evaluation and academic support have the potential to exert a significant positive influence on practice, as well as on funding practices. However, this can only work if the manner in which evaluations are commissioned, and the types of evaluations commissioned, are adapted to societal challenges and the current state of practice. Otherwise, evaluations risk becoming a mere formality that, whilst costing money, brings no real benefit either in terms of monitoring or in terms of development.

Author:

Maximilian Campos Ruf is a scholar of Islamic and social sciences specialising in terrorism and security studies. He has been working for Violence Prevention Network since 2017, currently as Head of the Research Department and as Senior Adviser in International Activities.

Further insights into the evaluation of Violence Prevention Network’s work (only in German language) can be found at: https://violence-prevention-network.de/ueber-uns/publikationen/evaluationsberichte/

Bibliography

Federal Ministry of the Interior, Building and Community (BMI). 2019. Guidelines for the funding of projects promoting democracy, diversity and the prevention of extremism (funding guidelines “Demokratie leben!”). GMBl 40/2019: 801-803.

Hayes, Jenny. 2013. MAXIME Wedding – Pilot project for the prevention of Islamic extremism in the Berlin district of Wedding (Violence Prevention Network e. V.). Process documentation report. Berlin: IBI – Institute for Education in the Information Society e. V. URL: https://violence-prevention-network.de/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/evaluation-maxime-wedding.pdf (Last accessed: 07/04/2026).

Jakob, Maria, Diegmann, Daniel, Herding, Maruta, Frank, Anja. 2024. Innovations, Impacts, Transfer. Final report on the scientific monitoring of the pilot projects in the thematic area ‘Prevention and Deradicalisation in the Prison System and Probation Service’ within the federal programme ‘Demokratie leben!’ for the funding period 2020–2024. Halle an der Saale: German Youth Institute e. V. URL: https://violence-prevention-network.de/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Abschlussbericht-Modellprojekte-Strafvollzug_DJI-2020-2024.pdf (Last accessed: 07/04/2026).

Koynova, Svetla, Mönig, Alina, Quent, Matthias, Ohlenforst, Vivienne. 2022. Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning: Experiences and Needs of Practitioners in the Prevention of Right-wing Extremism and Islamism. PRIF Report 7/2022. Frankfurt am Main: Peace Research Institute Frankfurt. URL: https://www.prif.org/fileadmin/Daten/Publikationen/Prif_Reports/2022/prif2207_barrierefrei.pdf (Last accessed: 07/04/2026).

Lukas, Veronika, and Helmut Lukas. 2007. Evaluation of the pilot project ‘Preventive work with young people with right-wing extremist leanings in prisons in the state of Brandenburg’. Final report. Berlin: social.consult. URL: https://violence-prevention-network.de/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/evaluation_verantwortung_ubernehmen_-_abschied_von_hass_und_gewalt_teil_1.pdf (Last accessed: 07/04/2026).

Lukas, Veronika. 2006. Evaluation of the pilot project “Democratic and social action as a key competence for work, training and social integration. Development of a set of measures for social, socio-cultural and political education to address right-wing extremism, xenophobia and violence”. Final report. Berlin: social.consult. URL https://violence-prevention-network.de/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/evaluation_verantwortung_ubernehmen_-_abschied_von_hass_und_gewalt_teil_2.pdf (Last accessed: 07/04/2026).

Lukas, Veronika. 2008a. Evaluation of the pilot project “Preventive work with young people with right-wing extremist leanings in prisons in the state of Brandenburg”. Berlin: social.consult. URL: https://violence-prevention-network.de/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/bericht_2008_wriezen_cottbus.pdf (Last accessed: 07/04/2026).

Lukas, Veronika. 2008b. Evaluation of the pilot project “Preventive work with young people and young adults in prisons in the states of Berlin, Hamburg and Lower Saxony”. Interim report 2008. Berlin: social.consult. URL: https://violence-prevention-network.de/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/bericht_2008_hamburg_hameln_berlin.pdf (Last accessed: 07/04/2026).

Lukas, Helmut. 2012. Study on the legal probation of participants in VPN training courses in the youth prison system. Annotated summary. Berlin: social.consult. URL: https://violence-prevention-network.de/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/vpn-evaluation-lukas-2012.pdf (Last accessed: 07/04/2026).

Moeller, Kurt, and Florian Neuscheler. 2018. Final report on the evaluation of the Hessen Advice Centre – Religious tolerance instead of extremism. Esslingen. URL: https://violence-prevention-network.de/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Abschlussbericht-Evaluation-Beratungsstelle-Hessen.pdf (Last accessed: 07/04/2026).

Radicalisation Awareness Network (RAN). 2022. The Role of Civil Society Organisations in Exit Work. Brussels: European Commission. URL: https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2022-07/ran_paper_role_civil_society_organisations_exit_work_052022_en.pdf (Last accessed 07/04/2026).

Schroer-Hippel, Miriam. 2019. Tolerance instead of extremism. The KOMPASS counselling centre (VPN). An evaluation report. Berlin: Berlin State Commission Against Violence. URL: https://violence-prevention-network.de/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Evaluation-KOMPASS_BFG_66_Heft1.pdf (Last accessed: 07/04/2026).