New international dimensions in community reporting of terrorist involvement

The first people to suspect or know about someone becoming involved in radicalising to violence will often be those closest to them: their family, partners, close friends, or workmates. We’ve termed these ‘social intimates’ or ‘intimate bystanders’. Until recently, little has been known about what the blocks or barriers towards reporting their concerns to the authorities might be for intimate bystanders, or what information, guidance and support might enable such reporting.

Our 2017 CREST research study built on Grossman’s ground-breaking Australian research  to identify that intimate bystanders would be motivated to make the momentous decision to report an intimate out of care and concern for both the person radicalising and the broader community, but would also face significant barriers or dilemmas in reporting.

Our data showed such barriers may include a lack of awareness about where they could find information and guidance on what they may be noticing, fear of backlash from others, concern for their own safety and confidentiality, and a lack of knowledge or confidence about what would happen after making a report. These CREST research findings directly informed the development of the ‘ACT Early' campaign and web-resource led by the UK’s National Counter-Terrorism Police (NCTPHQ), which has gone from strength to strength since its launch in 2020.

North American research studies

Our Community Reporting Thresholds research has subsequently been replicated in the USA (funded by the US National Institute of Justice) and in Canada (funded by Public Safety Canada), using the same methodology with even larger respondent samples. Both these North American studies have reproduced and confirmed the core, consistent findings from the Australian and UK studies. These consistent findings across a four-country study series include the intimate bystander determination to report based on care and concern, the desire for education and information sources which the intimate bystander would want to first research, the likelihood of using a ’staged process’ of seeking guidance and support from own family/friends and from ‘community insiders’ before formally reporting, and substantial concerns about safety (both for self and the intimate) and confidentiality. 

These CREST research findings directly informed the development of the ‘ACT Early’ campaign and web-resource led by the UK’s NCTPHQ.

The US and Canadian studies, did, however, also produce distinct, contextual findings. For example, the American study contrasted significantly with the UK study (where the largely Muslim-background respondent sample were willing to report directly to police and preferred to do it through face-to-face mode) in the reluctance of many US respondents to report directly to law enforcement, reflecting significant national concerns there around police violence and racism, and how law enforcement would therefore respond to a report concerning a non-White intimate. 

The Canadian study found respondents also willing to report their concerns but being greatly worried about whether reporting would expose themselves to legal risk and so wanting their own source of legal advice and support.

There were also national differences in relation to preferences for reporting mode: while Australian and UK respondents overwhelmingly preferred face to face reporting, either directly to law enforcement or through community-based intermediaries, US and Canadian study participants were more comfortable with telephone and (in the US) digital reporting channels.

New research on policy and practice

These research findings have now led to a new synthesis study, funded by the US Department of Homeland Security, that seeks to inform the creation of nationally appropriate community reporting frameworks, resources and mechanisms in the US and Canada. This new study - ‘Addressing the Know-Do Gap in Community Reporting for Terrorism and Targeted Violence Prevention’ - brings together the principal investigators from the four previous national Community Reporting Thresholds studies (Michele Grossman (Australia), Paul Thomas (UK), David Eisenman and Stevan Weine (USA) and Sara Thompson (Canada) with Professor John Horgan (USA)). 

This two-year, three-stage project involves in-depth analysis of the four previous national Community Reporting Thresholds research studies in Stage 1 to identify congruence of key themes and the nature of divergences within the key findings. Stage 2 will see qualitative investigation of seven diverse national case study programmes, all of which involve encouragement to intimate bystanders to report concerns around someone close involved in violent extremism to the authorities.

This set of case studies involves two established initiatives directly informed by the Community Reporting Thresholds research – Act Early in the UK, and Step Together in New South Wales, Australia, alongside five other initiatives in Sweden, Denmark, The Netherlands, the US, and Canada. These case study programmes vary considerably - some are national, some are at state or regional level, some are owned and/or led by government or policing authorities and others by non-governmental organisations.

Analysis and findings from these first two stages will inform Stage 3, a process of in-depth engagement with key policy stakeholders in the US and Canada to devise, develop and design systems and mechanisms to enhance community reporting of possible involvements in terrorism and targeted violence.