MULTIFACETED APPROACH TO ENSURE CONTINUOUS
SUPPORT AND SERVICES FOR REHABILITATION AND
REINTEGRATION OF OFFENDERSMaria Cristina Mattei *I. INTRODUCTION
Hedayah, the International Center of Excellence for Countering Violent Extremism(CVE) based in Abu Dhabi, developed an innovative technological tool for Monitoring,
Measurement & Evaluation (MM&E) of rehabilitation and reintegration programmes forviolent offenders. MASAR is a desktop and smartphone application that assists users indeveloping a step-by-step framework to evaluate and assess the results and project the longterm impact of CVE programmes, 1 including rehabilitation and reintegration programmes.
MASAR specifically focuses on impact-evaluation and not on other types of evaluation(e.g. performance evaluation/process evaluation), it includes an indicators’ generator, alibrary of existing case studies gathered worldwide and a section on lexicon andterminology related to MM&E. This app can support better design and impact-evaluationof rehabilitation and reintegration programmes for offenders and is available for free in iOSand Android.
II. PRESENTATION
Hedayah is an international, apolitical and independent hub created in 2012 and basedin Abu Dhabi (UAE), reporting to a steering board of 12 Governments. The organization
was launched by the Global Counter Terrorism Forum (GCTF) 2 which is a governmental
platform focused on developing solutions and identifying good practices to counter
terrorism and counter violent extremism. 3 As part of its mission, Hedayah is mandated todevelop tools for governments and practitioners, implement capacity-building programmes
and gathers global good practices in the field of countering violent extremism, including
on rehabilitation and reintegration of violent extremist offenders. Most of these practices
are also relevant for rehabilitation and reintegration of mainstream criminal offenders.
As mentioned, one of the key tools developed by Hedayah is MASAR. Indeed, MM&E
is a pressing challenge in rehabilitation and reintegration, for a number of reasons:•There is a challenge in defining “success” and the vision of programmes, acrosspractitioners and governments;•Outcomes and impact require a long time, and immediate change is not always
visible;Program Manager, Hedayah, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.
<https://www.hedayahcenter.org/resources/interactive_cve_apps/masar/>.
2<https://www.thegctf.org/>.
3<https://www.hedayahcenter.org/about/our-story/>.
*1- 221 - 221 -•In general there is a lack of specific resources dedicated to MM&E acrossgovernments and organizations. 4

At the same time, effective MM&E practices are crucial to link overarching goals andobjectives to the visible results of recipients (i.e. criminal offenders). MM&E is also thebest mechanism to inform future practices and therefore should be prioritized, despite thechallenges.
MASAR proposes a simple, yet comprehensive, framework inclusive of steps to guide
governments and practitioners in developing effective impact-evaluation plans for a varietyof programmes, including rehabilitation and reintegration. The steps include:1) Evaluation of the context2) Development of a Theory of Change3) Identification of goals and activities
4) Key indicators and indicators’ generator5) Collection methods
6) Resources and limitations
7) Capturing results8) Displaying results
These steps are included in a user-friendly interface that proposes examples, casestudies and definitions to help the development of tailored evaluation plans. One of the key
principles in MASAR is that MM&E needs to be embedded at the outset of programmingand not as the final step of rehabilitation and reintegration. A proactive approach indesigning the MM&E log-frame would ensure that evaluation could be run throughout all
the phases of rehabilitation and reintegration, and not as a last step. Indeed, limiting
evaluation at the end of a programme seriously affects the quality and feasibility ofcapturing results.
To showcase the applicability of MASAR, Hedayah proposed a case study on the Dutch
Probation Service, based on information contained in a publicly available evaluation study(Der Heide & Schuurmann, 2018). 5The Dutch Probation Service is an independent organization focused on criminal justicein the Netherlands. Among its activities, it plays an advisory and supervisory role during
court sessions and detention of convicted terrorists as well as individuals suspected ofterrorism. Team TER (Terrorism, Extremism and Radicalization) is a unit embedded in theDutch Probation Service and is mandated with supporting the rehabilitation andreintegration process of terrorist offenders; providing plans for after-care, upon offenders’release and; gather evidence-based practices to inform future programmes. Its statedoverarching goal, according to the study, is reducing likelihood of recidivism to Terrorism.
Team TER was established based on a number of assumptions:-It was deemed as the best entity to focus on effective rehabilitation and reintegration.

Mattei & Zeiger, Evaluate your CVE Results: Projecting your impact (2018). Available at<https://www.hedayahcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/File-16720189339.pdf>.
5
Der Heide & Schuurman: Reintegrating Terrorists in the Netherlands, Evaluating the Dutch Approach(2018)
4- 222 - 222 --De-radicalization (narrative approach) was considered the best approach to reach abehavioural change (disengagement), in recipients.

-The programmes were based on an approach of incentives and prohibitions andfocused on a variety of topics to include theological counselling and vocationaltraining.

The study highlights that out of 189 clients between 2012 and 2018, only 8 returnedback to terrorism. This corresponds to 4.2 per cent terrorism recidivism compared to thegeneral Dutch rate of 45.3 per cent for mainstream inmates (2013). 6 However, noinformation is available on whether the individuals graduating from the programme were
fully reinserted and reintegrated into society or were still at the fringes of society. The lackof this information raises a question on whether the programme could be still considered
fully successful. In addition, the study highlights that competition with other entities andmunicipalities was also a serious challenge, especially at the beginning of Team TER’sactivities. Lack of information-sharing protocols and coordination was in fact one of theissues highlighted in the evaluation study. 7 This leads to questioning the initial assumption
set by Team TER of being the natural entity to be in charge of rehabilitation andreintegration in the first place.
By applying MASAR’s framework, the presentation aimed to demonstrate that it ispossible to proactively develop an effective system that anticipates challenges and needs indesigning and evaluating the programme. Notably, MASAR offers assistance topolicymakers and programme designers in developing an effective structure that isconducive to better evaluations and capturing of results.
For instance, MASAR’s STEP 1 (Evaluating the Context) provides a number of guiding
questions that help the app users to reflect about the nature of the programme and theexisting stakeholders involved in the same field. Through this step, it is possible todetermine whether there are other competing organizations working on the subject and tobetter define the nature of the programme. This is key to also define what “success” meansin the programme. As a matter of fact, several practitioners working in Team TERhighlighted that one shortcoming was the lack of consensus on what can be defined as
success. Was success defined as graduating the programme and being disengaged fromviolence or was success defined as full reinsertion and reintegration into society? 8
Furthermore this step also allows to better define and describe the recipients of theprogramme. Profiling recipients would have the advantage to see whether a narrative
approach (deradicalization) could actually be the relevant rehabilitative approach, as inseveral cases ideology was not the preeminent reason for individuals to join terrorist groups.
STEP 2 guides the users to develop a theory of change which links the underlying
assumptions gathered in STEP 1 and articulate them in a concise statement that maps thelogical flow of inputs, activities, outcomes and projected impact. In its simplest form, aToC Statement can be expressed through an “IF”…. “THEN”…. “BECAUSE” statement. 9Ibid.
Ibid.
8Ibid.
9Mattei & Zeiger, Evaluate your CVE Results: Projecting your impact (2018). Available at<https://www.hedayahcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/File-16720189339.pdf>.
67- 223 - 223 -This step is important as it helps the user to define the overarching vision of theprogramme and better determine what success means. It also includes the specificconditions that need to happen to ensure the programme is effective. The definitions ofthese conditions are crucial as these are often the externalities that impede the success ofprogrammes. For instance, one necessary condition to ensure effectiveness of a programmeis that clients need to be willing to participate and/or that staff is appropriately andadequately trained. Without these requirements/conditions satisfied, the programme would
not be successful. It is therefore important that the ToC is rooted in a robust understandingof the context, resources and potential externalities. In the case of Team TER, a basic ToC
could be defined as follows:
IF Coordination mechanisms are put in place to share information with Team TER
AND Practitioners are provided with adequate and continuous training andsupport to ensure full capacity
AND Approaches implemented are suited to the individual’s needs
AND Clients are willing to accept the intervention
AND Resources are allocated to ensure full monitoring upon release
THEN Clients will increase their capacity and opportunity to live a functional,
fulfilling pro-social life and resist joining terrorist groups
BECAUSE Clients will be equipped with, skills, tools and tailored alternatives tolive a pro-social life and resist recidivism;
In other words, MASAR guides the user to write the ToC statement and help users
reflect on the different conditions and externalities that are required to happen to see change
in the recipients (i.e. violent extremist offenders). Some of these conditions can be managed
by programme designers and implementers, while others are externalities that may not bepredicted. Nonetheless, the latter are still important to be identified to ensure that mitigation
strategies and alternatives can be developed.
After defining the ToC statement, STEP 3 guides the user in unpacking the vision of
the programme into overarching goals, sub-goals and activities. MASAR also helps theuser to frame the goal in a positive manner. For example, Team TER’s initial objective“Reducing the likelihood of terrorism” could be redefined as “Increasing Clients’ capacityand opportunity to live a functional life and resist joining terrorist groups”. Reframing thegoal has the advantage to ensure a facilitated evaluation of the progress, as it is much easier
to measure progress towards an increase, rather than measuring reductions. It also
strengthens the definition of success, defining it as full reintegration into society. This
STEP also guides in breaking down ambitious and broad goals into sub-goals that are moremeasurable and manageable.
In MASAR, the broad goal can be in fact broken down into:
1) Clients’ increased openness towards the programme;
2) Clients’ progress towards pro-social ambitions and activities;3) Clients’ increased skills competencies to access alternatives in society.
Defining sub-goals has the potential to ensure a better monitoring of the violent
extremist offenders’ progress in the rehabilitation and reintegration programme. In turn,- 224 - 224 -these sub-objectives need to be mapped to specific activities (i.e. input) that can ensure
concrete rehabilitation and reintegration.
STEP 4 and STEP 5 help the user identify the relevant indicators mapped to each subgoal. Indicators are distinguished between qualitative indicators and quantitative indicators.
Qualitative indicators are meant to capture the qualitative change in attitudes andbehaviours, and quantitative indicators are meant to capture the output, meaning any
change that can be measured numerically. Both types of indicators need to be mapped tothe sub-goals. In other words, they need to be an expression of the progress towards thesub-goals and in turn, the overarching goal of the programme. MASAR also includes anindicators’ generator function that allows the user to browse different types of indicatorsdepending on the sub-goal. While this function does not automatically select the bestindicators, it still helps the user reflect and identify the best indicator to capture positivechanges and progress. This function can be very useful in those cases where evaluation
specialists are not available in organizations.
In the case of Team TER, some of the indicators suggested by MASAR included:
Sub-goal 1: Clients’ increased openness towards the programme• Indicator: Number of times the client proactively communicates, shows interest in
participating in the activities
Sub-goal 2: Clients’ progress towards pro-social ambitions and activities• Indicator: Existing/number of activities he/she participates in (personalcommitment)• Indicator: Existing/number of pro-social interests, ambitions identified andmobilized.
Sub-goal 3: Clients’ increased skills competencies to access alternatives in society.
• Indicator: Quality and Number of activities performed in the community• Indicator: Quality employment opportunities after release• Indicator: Quality and Number of pro-social activities after release.
As mentioned, STEP 5 helps the app user to select the appropriate collection methods
to capture the above-mentioned indicators. Direct observation, structured professional
judgment, needs assessment, information sharing protocols across agencies, interviews andquestionnaires are all valid collection methods that can help capture the relevant indicatorsof progress.
STEP 6 introduces a topic that is quite crucial for MM&E. This STEP is actually anunderlying principle encompassing the whole evaluation and guides the user to reflect
about the existing resources and limitations to carry out and complete the vision of theprogramme. In particular, the app helps the user reflect on:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Available funding
Existing staff
Available facilities
Technical capabilities and materials
Timelines- 225 - 225 -This STEP helps to bridge the gap between the reality of the programme
implementation and the overarching vision behind it. Notably, if programme implementersrecognize any challenges or gaps in any of the above-mentioned categories, the best courseof action would be to reframe the overarching goal or the sub-goals, as they may be too
ambitious, or select different indicators and collection methods.
STEP 7 AND STEP 8 helps the user to reflect on the collected indicators and distinguishthem into results. Notably:•Outputs are measurable products (usually quantitative) of a programme’s activities
or services. (e.g. number of clients “graduating” from the programme).

•

Outcomes are intended qualitative results of programme activities or services (e.g.
number of clients who enhanced their openness to different worldviews, showedinterest and commitment towards pro-social activities.)•

Impact refers to the overall vision of the programme which in this case is clients’increased capacity and opportunity to live a functional life and resist joining
terrorist groups. As actual impact is a long-term change in recipients, and oftentimes
difficult to capture in the scope of the programme implementation, MASAR
suggests that by successfully measuring intended outputs and outcomes, it can bepresumed that violent extremist offenders will be successfully reintegrated andrehabilitated, in the long-term. This is also linked with the ToC statement previouslydefined in STEP 2. Measuring “impact” of rehabilitation and reintegration
programmes can require time and additional resources that are not always available
and often outside the legal scope of the programme itself. MASAR can help project
the long-term impact by referring back to the ToC and to the requirements andconditions needed to occur, to ensure the vision is satisfied. By utilizing outcomes
and outputs as proxy indicators of impact, MASAR offers a contribution to thepressing challenging of measuring the long-term impact of rehabilitation andreintegration programmes.

In conclusion, MASAR is a technological resource that can facilitate the developmentof an MM&E framework and build the vision of the programme. By doing so, evaluation
is proactively embedded in programme design. MASAR has been developed by Hedayah,
the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) and 21Unicorns through the allocations of funds
provided by the Governments of Canada, Spain, the United Kingdom and Australia. In
Summer 2020, MASAR was updated with the inclusion of additional case studies, basic
features in the Arabic language and inclusion of an indicator’s generator. For more
information, please visit hedayahcenter.org.

- 226 - 226 -BIBLIOGRAPHY AND LIST OF REFERENCES
Bjørgo, T. (2009). Processes of disengagement from violent groups of the extreme right. InT. Bjørgo & J. Horgan (Eds.), Leaving terrorism behind: disengagement frompolitical violence (pp. 30-48). London / New York: Routledge.
Burke, L., & Collett, S. (2014). Delivering rehabilitation: the politics, governance andcontrol of probation. London: Routledge
Der Heide & Schuurman: Reintegrating Terrorists in the Netherlands, Evaluating the Dutch
Approach (2018)
Horgan, J. (2009). Walking away from terrorism: accounts of disengagement from radicaland extremist movements. New York: Routledge.
Koehler, D. (2017). How and why we should take deradicalization seriously. Nature
Human Behaviour, 1. 0095. doi:10.1038/s41562-017-0095
Mattei & Zeiger, Evaluate your CVE Results: Projecting your impact (2018). Available at<https://www.hedayahcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/File16720189339.pdf>.
Soufan, A., Fallon, M., Freedman, D., Borum, R., Horgan, J., Gelles, M., . . . McManus, B.
(2010). Risk reduction for countering violent extremism: explorative review by theinternational resource center for countering violent extremism. Retrieved from<http://www.soufangroup.com/risk-reduction-for-countering-violent-extremism>.
Silke, A., & Veldhuis, T. (2017). Countering violent extremism in prisons: a review of key
recent research and critical research gaps. Perspectives on Terrorism, 11(5), 2-11

- 227 - 227 -