A comparison of two structured professional judgment tools for violent extremism and their relevance in the French context
A comparison of two structured professional judgment tools for violent extremism and their relevance in the French context

Summary/Abstract: France has repeatedly been hit by terrorist attacks making the use of a structured professional judgement tool essential. Two such tools currently are used in Europe: VERA (Canada) and ERG 22+ (England and Wales). We compare these tools to assess which one would better suit the French context. We find that they have a lot in common in terms of their general content and intrinsic value. However, VERA’s main understanding of terrorism is ideology, whereas ERG’s perceives it as being essentially about identity. ERG was the first tool to introduce a measure for psychopathology; only VERA contains a list of protective factors. The two instruments were developed in similar ways with, for ERG, more emphasis on extremist offenders’ casework. Crucially, ERG 22+ has been developed on the basis of UK cases that are closer to the French extremist populations, with a legal threshold for what constitutes a terrorist or an assimilated terrorist offence, which is similarly low. Lastly, ERG’s structure is simpler and contains less items requiring access to classified data, a crucial factor in a jurisdiction with little interagency information sharing. Although the two tools are intrinsically comparable, ERG seems overall better suited to the French context. This exploratory conclusion ought to be confirmed with field comparisons.

• Details
• Contents