Evaluation of prison de-radicalization practices and risk assessment tools and European guidelines

Abstract

Based on extensive empirical research across several European countries, this evaluation critically examines how prison staff, administrators, and external experts perceive and handle radicalization on the ground. The report highlights a significant gap between public or political anxiety and the day-to-day realities of penal facilities. It delves into the operational challenges of identifying “radicalized” prisoners, the skepticism surrounding standardized risk assessment instruments, the complex role played by religious figures such as imams, and the ongoing tension between punitive security measures and genuine rehabilitation efforts.

Key data / Highlights

Conceptual ambiguity in daily practice: The term “radicalization” is applied loosely and inconsistently in prisons, often blending genuine security threats with standard religious conversion or non-violent political dissent.
Perception gap between politics and practice: Frontline prison workers generally perceive radicalization as a minor, manageable issue, contrasting sharply with intense political and media alarm.
Practitioner skepticism toward formal risk tools: Staff express widespread doubt regarding rigid risk assessment grids, often preferring intuitive observation and informal communication to evaluate inmate risk.
Overriding dominance of security priorities: Security and surveillance measures consistently take precedence over rehabilitative programs, undermining long-term disengagement and social reintegration goals.