This month marks the 25th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, driving thoughtful reflection about how the world has evolved and what lessons have been learned. During the first decade after the attacks, counterterrorism techniques evolved, with coordinated efforts by law enforcement, domestic and foreign intelligence services, and military forces globally. Although great progress was made in building integrated and redundant systems to “connect the dots” and to proactively thwart terrorist plots, varied threats persisted or were emerging. These included the enduring threat of al Qaeda, the rise of the Islamic State (also known as ISIS or Daesh), and myriad other individuals and groups that encouraged radicalization and, in some cases, violent extremism.
During the second decade after the 9/11 attacks, substantial attention focused on how community engagement by varied actors in society and community policing could be adapted to address the origins of violent extremism and to help reduce the risk of violence.
Recall that community policing attracted substantial attention in the decade before and after 9/11, as the concept appeared to reduce the incidence of crime in some settings in the United States. Researcher Dr. Roberta Signori and her colleagues conducted a literature review and offered this definition: “Community policing is a philosophy and strategy that prioritizes building positive relationships between police officers and members of local communities.” They noted that community policing embodies several characteristics, including active engagement with the public, a visible police presence, a prevention orientation, and a police agenda driven by the local context.1
Just as multiple definitions of community policing exist, attempting to forge universally applicable definitions of radicalization and violent extremism can also be a complicated endeavor, given differences in legal frameworks, policing cultures, societal roles, and historical understandings around the world. When is an act legal or illegal? When and how are acts defined as terrorism? What is protected free speech? This article will leverage two concise, practical definitions published by the Government of Australia:
Radicalization is when a person’s beliefs move from being relatively conventional to being radical, and they want a drastic change in society. It becomes concerning if the person begins to justify, advocate, promote, or use violence to achieve a political, religious, or ideological goal.
Violent extremism is acts of or support for violence to achieve social, political, or legal outcomes or in response to specific political or social grievances.2
These definitions, including the specific nexus with violence, provide a common basis for reflection, analysis, and recommendations. Although other definitions of radicalization and violent extremism certainly exist and may be appropriate in certain contexts, these appear clear and seem applicable to law enforcement across diverse settings globally.
The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), in concert with many other entities, has consistently facilitated dialogue and reflection on how law enforcement might support what came to be known as countering violent extremism (CVE) efforts. For example, in 2012, the IACP Committee on Terrorism facilitated the publication of the Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) Working Group Community Outreach and Engagement Principles. This publication provided recommendations for a community-centered approached related to CVE, noting,
Historically, law enforcement approaches to community engagement can be characterized in one of two ways. Tailored Engagement is when police proactively engage a specific community because of a known or emerging trend. Broad-based Engagement is often done continuously by the law enforcement organization of jurisdiction and may be considered a general part of standard community policing initiatives.3
The publication provided detailed recommendations and provided criteria to help law enforcement leaders assess their departments’ efforts:
Level 1: No established relationship between community and law enforcement exists. There is little or no mutual knowledge between the community and law enforcement.
Level 2: Potential contacts within the community have been identified. Relationship with law enforcement may be conflicted.
Level 3: Initial contact has been established with a community, opening doors for law enforcement and opening channels of communication. Coverage of critical spheres of influence remains limited, however.
Level 4: Mutual understanding and shared education is developing. Community understands an issue exists and accepts the role of law enforcement. Recurring dialogue is present and critical “spheres of influence” are addressed.
Level 5: Comprehensive network of meaningful relationships established between a community, law enforcement and partners. High levels of trust, open and transparent dialogue, deep understanding of issues, needs, expectations and collaboration. Community is developing ownership of issue.4
This publication, which referred to community engagement as a means to support CVE efforts, was followed by other works focused more specifically on community policing. For example, in 2014, the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, in cooperation with the IACP and other partners, published, Community Policing to Counter Violent Extremism: 5 Key Principles for Law Enforcement. This work is representative of thought leadership from that era and is worth reviewing at length:
Key Principle 1: Foster and Enhance Trusting Partnerships with the Community
Trusting partnerships are the cornerstone of community policing. When based on trust, transparency, respect, and mutual understanding, partnerships can foster a common purpose of keeping communities safe from all types of violent extremism.
Key Principle 2: Engage All Residents to Address Public Safety Matters
Engaging individuals on a broad array of public safety and quality-of-life issues allows individuals and groups to address their concerns. Various subsets of the community may have different priorities. Providing each group with a forum to address their specific grievances, which may also be underlying causes of radicalization to violence, can help community members feel more involved. Engaging residents can be a valuable force multiplier for law enforcement.
Key Principle 3: Leverage Public and Private Stakeholders
Leveraging the strengths of public and private stakeholders allows law enforcement to utilize resources from the entire community, share valuable information across the entire spectrum of services, and increase public recognition and visibility of countering violent extremism initiatives. These stakeholders can also serve as liaisons between law enforcement and their communities.
Key Principle 4: Utilize All Partnerships to Counter Violent Extremism
Serving in a supporting role as educators, facilitators, and representatives of local government, law enforcement agencies can empower all of their partners—community members, public stakeholders, and private companies—to create counter-narratives, build resilience, and counter violent extremism.
Key Principle 5: Train All Members of the Department
Training that complements the fundamental principles and tactics of community policing is necessary to facilitate the successful implementation of community policing. Training should be up to date and unbiased, stress the differences between countering violent extremism and counterterrorism, and be mandatory for all members of the department.5
These five principles appeared to be a logical extension of the community policing construct embraced in certain settings around the world. While the publication did not present quantitative evidence to prove a causal link between community policing and successful efforts to counter violent extremism, it did highlight specific examples of how tips from communities to law enforcement resulted in actions that thwarted planned violence.6 These descriptive levels of engagement and key principles are representative of recommendations made to law enforcement leaders of that era as they considered how and whether to have their departments actively participate in emerging CVE efforts.
In parallel with such efforts in the English-speaking world, related concepts to address radicalization and violent extremism were being explored around the globe. Take, for example, the work of FRANCOPOL, which is a network of police forces in French-speaking countries that shares research, best-practices, and training concepts.7 In 2016, FRANCOPOL published, Les pratiques policières inspirantes en matière de lutte contre la radicalisation (Inspiring Police Practices in Matters of the Fight Against Radicalization). This publication highlighted various examples from across the French-speaking world.8
André Duvillard of the Swiss Security Network wrote a section of the report that focused on Switzerland and its CVE efforts. The article considered the roles of a range of key actors in Switzerland, including schools, police, social services, civil society, psychiatric services, and others. The example noted the connection between these actors and pilot projects, studies, and the sharing of insights with law enforcement and intelligence agencies. These efforts in turn informed specific initiatives, including training, interreligious dialogue, “helpline” services, and other targeted prevention measures. Duvillard concluded the article with a focused discussion of the concept of “police de proximité” which, although not a direct analogue to community policing in an English-speaking context, shares some traits. He suggested that a more structured approach to “police de proximité” across Switzerland might increase the effectiveness of CVE efforts.9
Such community engagement efforts conducted by a range of societal actors, as well as community policing activities explicitly aligned to CVE initiatives, were implemented in various configurations around the globe during the second decade following 9/11. In parallel, active law enforcement, intelligence, and military operations sought to reduce the flow of radicalized individuals to the geographic space controlled by the Islamic State, while also disrupting and neutralizing violent extremist plots. By 2019, the Islamic State had lost control of most of its territory following integrated operations by an international coalition.
The diminishment of the Islamic State as an entity dominating a geographic space and associated headlines arguably lessened some global focus on CVE. Although there may have been a perceived reduction in the immediacy of some violent extremist threats, various articles, books, and other works have been published recently that consider the evolution of radicalization and violent extremism, as well as the efficacy of various initiatives, including community engagement and community policing CVE efforts.
Before specifically considering observations focused on radicalization and violent extremism, it may be worth noting the edited volume, Crime, Insecurity and Community Policing: Experiments on Building Trust. This compelling work acknowledged the apparent effectiveness and popularity of community policing in various jurisdictions across the United States. The work then methodically studied the implementation of community policing techniques in six countries in the “Global South.” The authors observed, “The community policing interventions did not generate greater trust between citizens and the police or reduce crime.” The authors examined a wide variety of issues and factors and stated,
We identified three structural constraints that may have undermined the efficacy of community policing practices: (1) a lack of prioritization of community policing by police leadership, (2) the rotation of community policing officers and the police leadership championing the reform, and (3) limited resources to follow up on concerns identified by citizens.10
Although this work considered the application of community policing techniques in its broadest sense in varied settings globally, its insights appear relevant to current law enforcement leaders in certain locations who might wish to consider future applicability of community policing techniques in support of CVE efforts.
A separate work by Australian social scientists Wesam Charkawi, Kevin Dunn, and Ana-Maria Bliuc sought to comprehensively review studies of CVE efforts in varied settings globally, and summarized,
Only 32% of the studies deemed the intervention successful, 55% described limited success, and 8% deemed the program had failed. Many of the programs evaluated failed to reach their objectives; some generated negative outcomes such as community disdain and an increase in the likelihood of alienation and stigma.[11]
The authors sought to identify what worked.
An important aim of this systematic review was to identify what makes an effective and successful countering violent extremism program. The key findings indicate that enhancing belonging, identity, trust and community engagement, acknowledging perceptions of injustice, religious mentoring, and the promotion of critical thinking/self-reflection are associated with successful programs. The findings press upon policymakers, funders, and researchers the need to consider and support high-quality evaluations of programs.12
Although this work was not specifically focused on community policing efforts in support of CVE, its findings help to frame the opportunities and limits to date of CVE initiatives.
Robert Wyckoff, an experienced U.S. police officer, wrote an insightful thesis in 2020, Terrorism Prevention Through Community Policing, that systematically examined the opportunities and limits of community policing techniques as a mechanism to counter violent extremism. He methodically assessed the challenges and opportunities associated with such efforts and offered clear and specific suggestions. He summarized:
Recommendations include abandoning the phrase “countering violent extremism”; creating an all-inclusive, whole-community approach; empowering all front-line police officers to be problem solvers; cultivating citizen involvement in the design and structure of violence prevention programs; educating police officers on hate crimes, violent extremism, and the radicalization process; separating all community-focused violence programming from intelligence collection and criminal investigation teams; and gaining endorsements of such programs from executive-level law enforcement managers.13
Such thoughtful study and reflection by law enforcement, scholars, and other stakeholders highlight both the potential opportunities, and the apparent limitations, associated with community engagement efforts in support of CVE, as efforts to explicitly implement or extend community policing activities as a means to deter and detect violent extremism. The “key principles” and the “descriptive levels” noted at the start of the article appear to have enduring relevance as tools for current and future law enforcement leaders. The referenced analysis, coupled with other efforts to consider lessons learned in the quarter century since 9/11, suggest that certain caveats should be integrated into planning for activities by law enforcement to support CVE in the future. These include the following:
• Community policing can be effective in certain settings but should not be assumed to be universally efficacious around the globe.
• CVE efforts may be most effective when carefully designed, forged with community input, and not explicitly labeled as such.
• Community policing efforts that seek to specifically counter violent extremism may help deter and detect violent extremism, but great care must be taken to maintain community trust and to avoid any impression that such efforts are designed to alter the community as such or to serve solely as a means to collect intelligence leading to enforcement actions.
Law enforcement leaders who seek additional information to inform planning by their agencies may wish to consider two online resources that offer a wealth of material on these and related matters. The first is the “European Union Knowledge Hub on the Prevention of Radicalisation hosted by the European Commission.”14 The second is the IACP’s “The Role of Community in Policing in Homeland Security and Preventing Radicalization to Violence.”15 Additional support from IACP can also be obtained by emailing CPE@theiacp.org. d
Notes:
1Roberta Signori et al., “Relational Continuity in Community Policing: Insights from a Human-Centred Design Perspective,” Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice 17 (2023): 1-2, paad038.
2Australian Government, Counter‑Terrorism and Violent Extremism in Australia: Fact Sheet (2025).
3International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), IACP Committee on Terrorism, Community Outreach and Engagement Principles (2012), 2.
4IACP, IACP Committee on Terrorism, Community Outreach and Engagement Principles, 5–9.
5IACP, Using Community Policing to Counter Violent Extremism: Five Key Principles for Law Enforcement (Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 2014), vii-viii.
6IACP, Using Community Policing to Counter Violent Extremism.
7FRANCOPOL – Réseau international francophone de formation policière, “À propos.”
8FRANCOPOL, Les pratiques policières inspirantes en matière de lutte contre la radicalisation (FRANCOPOL, 2016).
9André Duvillard, “Prévention de la Radicalisation Vue de la Perspective de la Suisse” in Les pratiques policières inspirantes en matière de lutte contre la radicalisation (FRANCOPOL, 2016), 23–26.
10Graeme Blair, Fotini Christia, and Jeremy M. Weinstein, “Introduction” in Crime, Insecurity, and Community Policing: Experiments on Building Trust, ed. Graeme Blair, Fotini Christia, and Jeremy M. Weinstein (Cambridge University Press, 2024), 11–13, Kindle.
11Wesam Charkawi, Kevin Dunn, and Ana-Maria Bliuc, “Evaluations of Countering Violent Extremism Programs: Linking Success to Content, Approach, Setting, and Participants,” International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice 77 (2024): 1–29, 100674.
12Charkawi, Dunn, and Bliucc, “Evaluations of Countering Violent Extremism Programs.”
13Robert Wyckoff, “Terrorism Prevention Through Community Policing” (master’s thesis, Naval Postgraduate School, Center for Homeland Defense and Security, March 2020), Abstract.
14European Commission, Directorate‑General for Migration and Home Affairs, “EU Knowledge Hub on the Prevention of Radicalisation.”
15IACP, “The Role of Community in Policing in Homeland Security and Preventing Radicalization to Violence.”
Please cite as
Jude Sunderbruch, “The Front Line of Prevention: Community Policing to Deter and Detect Violent Extremism” Police Chief Online, September 23, 2026.
