AUGUST 2011

EMPOW ER ING LOCA L 

PARTNERS TO PR EV ENT 

V IOLENT EX TR EMISM 

IN THE UNITED STATES



★ 1 ★

Empowering Local Partners to Prevent 

Violent Extremism in the United States

“Several recent incidences of violent extremists in the United States who are committed to 

fighting here and abroad have underscored the threat to the United States and our interests 

posed by individuals radicalized at home. Our best defenses against this threat are well informed 

and equipped families, local communities, and institutions. The Federal Government will invest 

in intelligence to understand this threat and expand community engagement and development 

programs to empower local communities. And the Federal Government, drawing on the 

expertise and resources from all relevant agencies, will clearly communicate our policies and 

intentions, listening to local concerns, tailoring policies to address regional concerns, and making 

clear that our diversity is part of our strength—not a source of division or insecurity.”

—National Security Strategy, May 2010

A. THE CHALLENGE

The seal of the United States of America is inscribed with the Latin dictum E Pluribus Unum—out of 

many, one. It is our great strength that the American social fabric continues to weave together waves 

of immigrants to the United States and people from all backgrounds and walks of life as part of an 

indivisible community. We are a pluralistic Nation and a society that does not just accept diversity; we 

embrace it, and we are stronger as a result. We surmount the many challenges that we face by remaining 

committed to the American ideals of freedom, equality, and democracy, which transcend differences of 

religion, ethnicity, and place of birth. Since America’s founding, our country and our ideals have been 

assailed by forces of hate and division, yet we remain strong, unified, and resilient.

Throughout history, violent extremists—individuals who support or commit ideologically-motivated 

violence to further political goals—have promoted messages of divisiveness and justified the killing 

of innocents. The United States Constitution recognizes freedom of expression, even for individuals 

who espouse unpopular or even hateful views. But when individuals or groups choose to further their 

grievances or ideologies through violence, by engaging in violence themselves or by recruiting and 

encouraging others to do so, it becomes the collective responsibility of the U.S. Government and the 

American people to take a stand. In recent history, our country has faced plots by neo-Nazis and other 

anti-Semitic hate groups, racial supremacists, and international and domestic terrorist groups; and 

since the September 11 attacks, we have faced an expanded range of plots and attacks in the United 

States inspired or directed by al-Qa’ida and its affiliates and adherents as well as other violent extremists. Supporters of these groups and their associated ideologies come from different socioeconomic 

backgrounds, ethnic and religious communities, and areas of the country, making it difficult to predict 

where violent extremist narratives will resonate. And as history has shown, the prevalence of particular 

violent extremist ideologies changes over time, and new threats will undoubtedly arise in the future. 
Empowering Local Partners to Prevent Violent Extrem ism in the United S tates

★ 2 ★

We rely on our local, state, and Federal law enforcement to deter individuals from using violence and 

to protect communities from harm. But we also must ensure that the right tools are applied at the 

right time to the right situation. Countering radicalization to violence is frequently best achieved by 

engaging and empowering individuals and groups at the local level to build resilience against violent 

extremism. Law enforcement plays an essential role in keeping us safe, but so too does engagement 

and partnership with communities.

While we can and must prioritize our efforts, our approach should be enduring and flexible enough to 

address a variety of current and possible future threats. Individuals from a broad array of communities 

and walks of life in the United States have been radicalized to support or commit acts of ideologicallyinspired violence. Any solution that focuses on a single, current form of violent extremism, without 

regard to other threats, will fail to secure our country and communities. Our threat environment is 

constantly evolving, which is why we must consistently revisit our priorities and ensure our domestic 

approach can address multiple types of violent extremism. 

Today, as detailed in the National Security Strategy and the National Strategy for Counterterrorism, al-Qa’ida 

and its affiliates and adherents represent the preeminent terrorist threat to our country. We know that 

these groups are actively seeking to recruit or inspire Americans to carry out attacks against the United 

States, particularly as they are facing greater pressure in their safe-havens abroad. The past several years 

have seen increased numbers of American citizens or residents inspired by al-Qa’ida’s ideology and 

involved in terrorism. Some have traveled overseas to train or fight, while others have been involved in 

supporting, financing, or plotting attacks in the homeland. The number of individuals remains limited, 

but the fact that al-Qa’ida and its affiliates and adherents are openly and specifically inciting Americans 

to support or commit acts of violence—through videos, magazines, and online forums—poses an 

ongoing and real threat. 

This type of violent extremism is a complicated challenge for the United States, not only because of 

the threat of attacks, but also because of its potential to divide us. Groups and individuals supporting 

al-Qa’ida’s vision are attempting to lure Americans to terrorism in order to create support networks and 

facilitate attack planning, but this also has potential to create a backlash against Muslim Americans. 

Such a backlash would feed al-Qa’ida’s propaganda that our country is anti-Muslim and at war against 

Islam, handing our enemies a strategic victory by turning our communities against one another; eroding 

our shared sense of identity as Americans; feeding terrorist recruitment abroad; and threatening our 

fundamental values of religious freedom and pluralism. Violent extremists prey on the disenchantment 

and alienation that discrimination creates, and they have a vested interest in anti-Muslim sentiment. It is 

for this reason that our security—preventing radicalization that leads to violence—is inextricably linked 

to our values: the protection of civil rights and civil liberties and the promotion of an inclusive society. 

B. A COMMUNITY-BASED APPROACH

The United States relies on a broad range of tools and capabilities that are essential to prevent violent 

extremism in the United States, emphasizing, in particular, the strength of communities as central to 

our approach. The best defenses against violent extremist ideologies are well-informed and equipped 

families, local communities, and local institutions. Their awareness of the threat and willingness to 
★ 3 ★

Empowering Local Partners to Prevent Violent Extrem ism in the United S tates

work with one another and government is part of our long history of community-based initiatives 

and partnerships dealing with a range of public safety challenges. Communities are best placed to 

recognize and confront the threat because violent extremists are targeting their children, families, and 

neighbors. Rather than blame particular communities, it is essential that we find ways to help them 

protect themselves. To do so, we must continue to ensure that all Americans understand that they are 

an essential part of our civic life and partners in our efforts to combat violent extremist ideologies and 

organizations that seek to weaken our society.

We are fortunate that our experience with community-based problem solving, local partnerships, and 

community-oriented policing provides a basis for addressing violent extremism as part of a broader 

mandate of community safety. We therefore are building our efforts to counter radicalization that leads 

to violence in the United States from existing structures, while creating capacity to fill gaps as we implement programs and initiatives. Rather than creating a new architecture of institutions and funding, we 

are utilizing successful models, increasing their scope and scale where appropriate. 

While communities must often lead this effort, the Federal Government has a significant responsibility. 

Our research and consultations with local stakeholders, communities, and foreign partners have underscored that the Federal Government’s most effective role in strengthening community partnerships 

and preventing violent extremism is as a facilitator, convener, and source of information. The Federal 

Government will often be ill-suited to intervene in the niches of society where radicalization to violence 

takes place, but it can foster partnerships to support communities through its connections to local 

government, law enforcement, Mayor’s offices, the private sector, local service providers, academia, and 

many others who can help prevent violent extremism. Federal departments and agencies have begun 

expanding support to local stakeholders and practitioners who are on the ground and positioned to 

develop grassroots partnerships with the communities they serve. 

C. GOAL AND AREAS OF PRIORITY ACTION 

Our central goal in this effort is to prevent violent extremists 

and their supporters from inspiring, radicalizing, financing, 

or recruiting individuals or groups in the United States to 

commit acts of violence. The U.S. Government will work 

tirelessly to counter support for violent extremism and to 

ensure that, as new violent groups and ideologies emerge, 

they fail to gain a foothold in our country. Achieving this aim 

requires that we all work together—government, communities, the private sector, the general public, and others—to 

develop effective programs and initiatives. 

To support a community-based approach, the Federal Government is working to strengthen partnerships and networks among local stakeholders. There is no single issue or grievance that pushes 

individuals toward supporting or committing violence, and the path to violent extremism can vary 

considerably. As a result, it is essential that we empower local partners, who can more readily identify 

problems as they emerge and customize responses so that they are appropriate and effective for 

“As extremists try to inspire acts of 

violence within our borders, we are 

responding with the strength of our 

communities, with the respect for the 

rule of law, and with the conviction 

that Muslim Americans are part of our 

American family.” 

—President Barack Obama, 

State of the Union, January 2011
Empowering Local Partners to Prevent Violent Extrem ism in the United S tates

★ 4 ★

Leveraging Existing Models

The United States has rich experience in supporting locally-based initiatives that connect communities and 

government to address community challenges through collaboration and the development of stakeholder 

networks. While recognizing that different challenges require the involvement of different stakeholders, 

we view community-based problem solving as an effective model of organizing communities and government to counter violent extremism in the homeland. The following provides three examples of this model 

in practice. 

Example One: Comprehensive Gang Model

The Department of Justice’s Comprehensive Gang Model is a flexible framework that communities can use 

to reduce or prevent gang activity, involving strategies of community mobilization, social intervention, 

opportunities for educational and vocational advancements, and organizational change. Local community 

organizations and government offices responsible for addressing gangs—police, schools, probation officers, youth agencies, grassroots organizations, government, and others—help identify causes, recommend 

appropriate responses, and select activities for local implementation, supported by integrated Federal, 

state, and local resources to incorporate state-of-the-art practices in gang prevention, intervention, and 

suppression. This multi-dimensional, community-led response to gangs—driven by local stakeholders and 

supported by the Federal Government—has reduced serious gang-related crimes in affected locations 

across the country.

Example Two: Building Communities of Trust Initiative 

The Departments of Justice and Homeland Security established the Building Communities of Trust (BCOT) 

Initiative to improve trust among police, fusion centers, and the communities they serve in order to address 

the challenges of crime and terrorism prevention. In support of BCOT, a National Planning Team comprised 

of representatives from Federal, state, and local governments; community organizations; and privacy and 

civil liberties groups convened and, in select locations, conducted roundtables to explore how to build and 

maintain relationships of trust. Lessons learned from these roundtables have resulted in official guidance 

highlighting the importance of meaningful information sharing, responding to community concerns, and 

distinguishing between innocent cultural behaviors and conduct that may legitimately reflect criminal 

activity or terrorism precursors.

Example Three: Safe Schools/Healthy Students Initiative

Responding to a series of lethal school shootings in the late 1990’s, which culminated with the tragedy at 

Columbine High School, the Departments of Education, Justice, and Health and Human Services launched 

the Safe Schools/Healthy Students (SS/HS) Initiative to create broader, more comprehensive local programs 

to prevent violence and substance abuse among our Nation’s youth, schools, and communities. In order to 

receive an SS/HS grant, school districts must partner with local mental health experts, juvenile justice officials, and law enforcement. Proposals must include programs that address violence and substance abuse 

prevention; social, emotional, and behavioral development; school and community-based mental health 

services; and early childhood development. According to an ongoing evaluation, the Initiative has resulted 

in fewer students experiencing or witnessing violence, increased school safety, and an overall decrease in 

violence in communities where the program is active.
Empowering Local Partners to Prevent Violent Extrem ism in the United S tates

★ 5 ★

particular individuals, groups, and locations. To that end, we have prioritized three broad areas of action 

where we believe the Federal Government can provide value to supporting partnerships at the local 

level and countering violent extremism. Our work will evolve over time as we enhance partnerships and 

further our understanding of what tools and methods are most effective. 

1. Enhancing Federal Engagement with and Support to Local Communities that May be 

Targeted by Violent Extremists

Communication and meaningful engagement with the American public is an essential part of the Federal 

Government’s work. Our open system of governance requires that we respond to inquiries; educate and 

share information on our programs, policies, and initiatives; and provide a platform for communities 

to air grievances and contribute their views on policy and government. We do this consistently in a 

variety of ways: we convene forums, develop brochures, respond to correspondence, post information 

on websites, and we make available for comment proposed regulations in the Federal Register. We also 

reach out to communities directly to answer questions and provide information and guidance, offering 

opportunities for communities to provide valuable suggestions about how government can be more 

effective and responsive in addressing their concerns. As such, engagement with local communities 

provides an opportunity for us to reexamine and improve how we perform our functions. For these 

reasons, we view effective community engagement as an essential part of good governance and an 

important end in itself. 

The vast majority of our engagement work relates to issues outside the national security arena, such 

as jobs, education, health, and civil rights. We must ensure that in our efforts to support communitybased partnerships to counter violent extremism, we remain engaged in the full range of community 

concerns and interests, and do not narrowly build relationships around national security issues alone. 

Where appropriate, we are relying on preexisting Federal Government engagement efforts to discuss 

violent extremism, ensuring that these forums continue to focus on a wide variety of issues. There are 

instances when the government needs to build new relationships to address security issues, but these 

must be predicated upon multifaceted engagement. Indeed, we refuse to limit our engagement to 

what we are against, because we need to support active engagement in civic and democratic life and 

help forge partnerships that advance what we are for, including opportunity and equal treatment for all. 

Engagement is essential for supporting community-based efforts to prevent violent extremism because 

it allows government and communities to share information, concerns, and potential solutions. Our 

aims in engaging with communities to discuss violent extremism are to (1) share sound, meaningful, 

and timely information about the threat of radicalization to violence with a wide range of community 

groups and organizations, particularly those involved in public safety issues; (2) respond to community 

concerns about government policies and actions; and (3) better understand how we can effectively 

support community-based solutions. 

In addition to engaging communities on a wide range of issues, the Federal Government is using its 

convening power to help build a network of individuals, groups, civil society organizations, and private 

sector actors to support community-based efforts to counter violent extremism. Myriad groups with 

tools and capabilities to counter radicalization to violence often operate in separate spheres of activity and therefore do not know one another. The Federal Government, with its connections to diverse 
Empowering Local Partners to Prevent Violent Extrem ism in the United S tates

★ 6 ★

networks across the country, has a unique ability to draw together the constellation of previously unconnected efforts and programs to form a more cohesive enterprise against violent extremism. 

2. Building Government and Law Enforcement Expertise for Preventing Violent Extremism 

Although we have learned a great deal about radicalization that leads to violence, we can never assume 

that the dynamics will remain the same. We must be vigilant in identifying, predicting, and preempting new developments. This necessitates ongoing research and analysis, as well as exchanges with 

individuals, communities, and government officials who work on the frontlines to counter the threats 

we all face. In addition, we will continue to hold meetings with foreign partners to share experiences 

and best practices, recognizing that while not all lessons are transferable to the American context, this 

sharing can help us improve our approach and avoid common pitfalls.

Government and law enforcement at the local level have well-established relationships with communities, developed through years of consistent engagement, and therefore can effectively build partnerships and take action on the ground. To help facilitate local partnerships to prevent violent extremism, 

the Federal Government is building a robust training program with rigorous curriculum standards to 

ensure that the training that communities; local, state, and tribal governments; prison officials; and law 

enforcement receive is based on intelligence, research, and accurate information about how people are 

radicalized to accept violence, and what has worked to prevent violent extremism. Misinformation about 

the threat and dynamics of radicalization to violence can harm our security by sending local stakeholders in the wrong direction and unnecessarily creating tensions with potential community partners. We 

also are working to support and expand community-oriented policing efforts by our state, local, and 

tribal partners, and to assist them in enhancing cultural proficiency and other foundations for effective 

community engagement. 

3. Countering Violent Extremist Propaganda While Promoting Our Ideals 

Radicalization that leads to violent extremism includes the diffusion of ideologies and narratives that 

feed on grievances, assign blame, and legitimize the use of violence against those deemed responsible. 

We must actively and aggressively counter the range of ideologies violent extremists employ to radicalize 

and recruit individuals by challenging justifications for violence and by actively promoting the unifying 

and inclusive vision of our American ideals. 

Toward this end, we will continue to closely monitor the important role the internet and social networking sites play in advancing violent extremist narratives. We protect our communities from a variety of 

online threats, such as sexual predators, by educating them about safety on the internet, and we are 

using a similar approach to thwart violent extremists. We will work to empower families and communities to counter online violent extremist propaganda, which is increasingly in English and targeted at 

American audiences. 

For example, in the case of our current priority, we must counter al-Qa’ida’s propaganda that the United 

States is somehow at war with Islam. There is no single profile of an al-Qa’ida-inspired terrorist, but 

extensive investigations and research show that they all believe: (1) the United States is out to destroy 

Islam; and (2) this justifies violence against Americans. Al-Qa’ida and its supporters spread messages of 
Empowering Local Partners to Prevent Violent Extrem ism in the United S tates

★ 7 ★

hate, twist facts, and distort religious principles to weave together a false narrative that Muslims must 

attack Americans everywhere because the United States is waging a global war against Islam. While 

al-Qa’ida claims to be the vanguard of Islam, the overwhelming majority of its victims are Muslim.

We will challenge this propaganda through our words and deeds, defined by the very ideals of who we 

are as Americans. As the President has stated repeatedly, the United States is not, and never will be, at 

war with Islam. Islam is part of America, a country that cherishes the active participation of all its citizens, 

regardless of background and belief. We live what al-Qa’ida violently rejects—religious freedom and 

pluralism. We have emphasized a paradigm of engagement with Muslim communities around the world, 

based on mutual respect and interest manifest in our new partnerships and programming to promote 

entrepreneurship, health, science and technology, educational exchanges, and opportunities for women. 

But we must remember that just as our words and deeds can either fuel or counter violent ideologies 

abroad, so too can they here at home. Actions and statements that cast suspicion toward entire communities, promote hatred and division, and send messages to certain Americans that they are somehow 

less American because of their faith or how they look, reinforce violent extremist propaganda and feed 

the sense of disenchantment and disenfranchisement that may spur violent extremist radicalization. 

The Federal Government will work to communicate clearly about al-Qa’ida’s destructive and bankrupt 

ideology, while dispelling myths and misperceptions that blame communities for the actions of a small 

number of violent extremists. 

D. GUIDING PRINCIPLES

How we define and discuss the challenge of radicalization to violence matters. Violent extremism, 

while of paramount importance given the potential for harm, is only one among a number of threats 

our Nation is facing. Communities face an array of challenges to their safety, including gang violence, 

school shootings, drugs, hate crimes, and many others. Just as we respond to community safety issues 

through partnerships and networks of government officials, Mayor’s offices, law enforcement, community organizations, and private sector actors, so must we address radicalization to violence and terrorist 

recruitment through similar relationships and by leveraging some of the same tools and solutions. In 

doing so, we are guided by the following principles:

We must continually enhance our understanding of the threat posed by violent extremism and the ways in 

which individuals or groups seek to radicalize Americans, adapting our approach as needed. As al-Qa’ida 

and its affiliates and adherents increasingly aim to inspire people within the United States to commit 

acts of terrorism, we must closely monitor and understand their tactics, both online and offline, remaining nimble in our response, increasing our understanding of the factors that lead individuals to turn to 

violence, and calibrating our efforts.

We must do everything in our power to protect the American people from violent extremism while protecting the civil rights and civil liberties of every American. Protecting our fundamental rights and liberties 

is an important end in itself, and also helps counter violent extremism by ensuring nonviolent means 

for addressing policy concerns; safeguarding equal and fair treatment; and making it more difficult for 

violent extremists to divide our communities. 
Empowering Local Partners to Prevent Violent Extrem ism in the United S tates

★ 8 ★

As the President said at the National Archives in May 2009, “We uphold our fundamental principles and 

values not just because we choose to, but because we swear to. Not because they feel good, but because 

they help keep us safe. They keep us true to who we are . . . So as Americans, we reject the false choice 

between our security and our ideals. We can and we must and we will protect both.” 

We must build partnerships and provide support to communities based on mutual trust, respect, and understanding. We must have honest dialogue between communities and government that is transparent 

and promotes community-based problem solving. 

We must use a wide range of good governance programs—including those that promote immigrant 

integration and civic engagement, protect civil rights, and provide social services—that may help prevent 

radicalization that leads to violence. This necessitates a whole-of-government approach, based on the 

expertise of our traditional national security departments and agencies, as well as other parts of the 

government, including those with experience in addressing community safety issues.

We must support local capabilities and programs to address problems of national concern. While the demographics of communities and the priorities of local government, communities, and law enforcement vary, 

our efforts to prevent radicalization to violence and terrorist recruitment must harness the knowledge, 

expertise, and relationships of local actors, both in and out of government. 

Government officials and the American public should not stigmatize or blame communities because of the 

actions of a handful of individuals. We must instead support communities as partners, recognizing that 

a particular ethnic, religious, or national background does not necessarily equate to special knowledge 

or expertise in addressing violent extremism. Where communities have been active in condemning 

terrorism and confronting violent extremism, we must recognize their efforts; help them build upon 

their work; and connect them with other communities and stakeholders in order to share best practices. 

Strong religious beliefs should never be confused with violent extremism. Freedom of religion is a fundamental American right and one of our most strongly held values. Since our founding, people of diverse 

and strongly held religious faiths have thrived in America. 

Though we will not tolerate illegal activities, opposition to government policy is neither illegal nor unpatriotic 

and does not make someone a violent extremist. It is a basic tenet of our democracy that citizens of good 

conscience can respectfully disagree with one another and resolve their differences through peaceful 

means. Our Nation is built upon the principles of debate, dialogue, and cooperation.