A Guide For Cities: Preventing Hate, Extremism & Polarisation

Last updated:

12/04/2025

Publication Date:

12/09/2023

Content Type:

Tools & Guides

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Strong Cities Network A Guide For Cities

Chapter 6: Tertiary Prevention

Tertiary

Programmes and other measures designed to support hate and extremist motivated violent offenders in their efforts to leave their milieus, disengage from violence, deciminalise and reintegrate into society. These programmes can take place within or outside of custodial setting.

Tertiary prevention programming typically targets individuals who have radicalised to violence (including but not limited to terrorist offenders) and possibly their families, as well as those who, for various reasons, have not entered the prison system but who may demonstrate some level of support for hate-or extremist-motivated violence. This includes returning foreign terrorist fighters (FTFs) who, for one reason or another are not prosecuted, and their family members.

This type of prevention work, which generally focuses on enabling the rehabilitation and reintegration (R&R) of the individual into their community, often occurs in a prison or probation setting or directly in the community. Although secondary and tertiary prevention programmes have different targets and goals, they share a number of common elements, e.g., religious, psychosocial, family counselling, sports and culture, job training and placement, housing and mentoring interventions, and thus can involve the same types of professionals and practitioners.

As in secondary prevention, the intended beneficiaries of tertiary prevention measures are likely to have a diversity of needs and vulnerabilities; as such, a single practitioner or institution is unlikely to be able to address them all. Thus, as with secondary prevention, a coordinated, multi-stakeholder approach is required, albeit one where the practitioners and organisations involved will likely need specialised training needed to work with a cohort that is more likely to pose a security risk or has suffered from trauma more than that those with whom they typically work.

Yet, despite these similarities, examples of city-led tertiary prevention efforts are few and far between. Instead, national law enforcement and other security actors have generally been the primary actors in this sphere.

This is due to a number of factors including: 1) the heightened security risks that are typically associated with the targets of this type of prevention work; 2) the limited access local governments and local service providers generally have to this population, which in turn leaves them with limited experience in engaging with them and thus little added-value to show; and 3) because of the heightened national security sensitivities surrounding these individuals, central governments are more likely to view tertiary prevention (as opposed to primary and secondary prevention) as their exclusive responsibility. As such, the instances where local governments are either provided with or see themselves as having a mandate in this area are more limited than with other levels of prevention.

The Role of Cities in Tertiary Prevention

However, this is gradually changing as many countries are dealing with the return of citizens who had travelled to the conflict-stricken regions of Syria and Iraq to join the so-called Islamic State. While some can be prosecuted, the majority – some of whom may have been radicalised to violence and many of whom will have suffered significant trauma as a result of their experience, will return to the communities from which they originated. Their successful reintegration is now viewed as both a security and humanitarian imperative. It is one where local governments, for many of the same comparative advantages they offer in the secondary prevention space, are increasingly, seen as having an important role to play in the rehabilitation and reintegration of those returnees who do not end up in prison or those who are released after serving what are typically short sentences.

For their part, national governments increasingly realise the need for local actors to become more involved in supporting the returnee process and are creating opportunities for them to contribute.

As the practice of a number of cities demonstrates, local governments, if properly mandated, resourced and capacitated, can take on a range of responsibilities in a field where multiple stakeholders are involved; and enabling and sustaining coordination and cooperation among them is likely to be essential. For example, it can:

Serve as a point of contact for all relevant stakeholders (e.g., family members, service providers, members of the community, law enforcement, local government agencies);
Coordinate and/or contribute to a comprehensive assessment of the risks, needs and vulnerabilities of each targeted individual;
Establish and manage a network consisting of the varied stakeholders involved in the reintegration process, which can enable an efficient exchange of information and good practices among them, as well as the public;
Engage with local businesses, schools and families to mitigate the stigma that a returnee is likely to face as they try to reintegrate;
Provide essential information and support to service providers involved in the process;
Develop guidelines, drawing on international good practices, to inform the work of the different professionals and practitioners who are likely to be involved in supporting the individual targets of tertiary prevention interventions; and overall;
Bridge the gaps in mindsets between security actors and psychosocial providers, child protection workers, etc;
Enable a cohesive multi-stakeholder approach by navigating between the relevant national and local frameworks; and
Create a robust support structure that aids the reintegration and rehabilitation of returnees back into the city, balancing their individual needs with the broader requirements of national security.

Special Considerations for Cities Looking to Engage in Tertiary Prevention:

Rehabilitation and reintegration brings unique challenges and sensitives. To anticipate and manage these, a city should reflect on the following considerations:

Heightened trauma: The beneficiaries are more likely to be suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or other forms of trauma as a result of their exposure to violence and are typically further along the path to radicalisation to hate- or extremist-motivated violence. As a result, those involved in tertiary prevention programmes may require more specialised training and engagement on psychological, ideological, and theological issues than those working in prevention more broadly.

Intensive/sustained support: Tertiary prevention targets returning to their communities (e.g., after serving time in prison or returning from a conflict zone) often will need more intensive and sustained support on a range of practical issues (e.g., housing, job, education) to facilitate their re-entry into society than those who are the targets of secondary prevention efforts.

Increased stigma: Cities will need to be prepared to confront and mitigate the stigma these individuals may receive from the wider community and the potential for this not only to undermine reintegration efforts but encourage recidivism. As well as working with the communities receiving such individuals, cities can also do important work to engage local businesses, schools and the media in an effort to minimise stigmatisation and allow individuals not to be defined by their past behaviour. Unless mitigated, stigma has been shown to complicate efforts to enable individuals to access critical psychosocial, education, housing, financial and vocational support.

Coordination with National Security Actors: Unlike in secondary prevention, some level of two-way information sharing or other coordination with national security actors is likely to be needed given the nature of the individuals targeted by tertiary prevention efforts. Thus, cities will need to navigate the general reluctance among the security services and the police to share what they view as sensitive information with the local government about the targets of tertiary prevention efforts. However, the inability to access such information could undermine the city’s ability to understand and thus address the needs and vulnerabilities of the targeted individual.

City-Led R&R Efforts

The Hague (Netherlands) works closely with a range of national agencies and civil society organisations on this topic has developed a ‘Returnee Manual’, a confidential document for all city-level and national stakeholders involved in managing returnees to the city. The document describes the municipal policy as well as actions that can be taken with regard to returnees. It focuses on the role of local actors but also places this within the national framework and the need for this work to be done in consultation with national stakeholders.

This approach highlights the importance of national and local actors, including the city, having a common understanding of the overall approach to managing returnees and the roles and responsibilities of the relevant stakeholders involved. As such, it clarifies that the role of the city here is focused on overseeing the care for former violent extremism prisoners and the adults and minors who return to the city from Syria and Iraq but do not land in prison.

Berlin (Germany) developed an R&R strategy which is based on a comprehensive whole-of-society approach and is overseen by a single point of contact embedded within the local government, who coordinates multiple actors – social workers, community-based organisations, police and others – to ensure the appropriate support is provided to returnees upon their arrival in Berlin. The strategy offers a long-term vision for R&R, recognising that the R&R process may take several years per individual.

Cërrik (Albania) is the first city to pilot an R&R programme in its country, a few years before the initial national government-led repatriation. The local government worked closely with CSOs with experience in psychosocial support as well as the national government in coordinating R&R services. It approved individual plans for structured support based on the needs of families that returned to Cërrik. Additionally, the city provided safe spaces and facilitated additional in-kind support for the programming delivered by civil society and community-based organisations.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10