By Colin Murphy 

SUMMARY The growth in accessibility of online spaces and digital channels has been remarkable in recent years, providing citizens with many benefits, including enhanced communication, greater learning opportunities and easier access to private and public services. However, this growth has seen a commensurate increase in the associated risks and harms. Cyberbullying, cyber-violence and sexual extortion are just some of the dangers to which people, particularly vulnerable people, are exposed in the digital environment. In our 'always-on'world, issues such as cyberbullying can be a relentless experience and can leave victims with a constant sense of being under attack. Like the digital space itself, these dangers know no borders, which can make the problem a global issue. The solutions therefore are not 'one size fits all', but a combination of regional, national and transnational actions. The examples outlined here at regional level, while varying in size and scope, all have a common thread, which is the recognition of the risks to people and the desire to make a positive change. The approaches taken often involve a coordinated or cooperative style, with the involvement of students, teachers and parents. The message is consistent on the importance of recognising the dangers of the internet. It is important for victims to be able to quickly identify cyberbullying, cyberviolence and sexual extortion,and know how to deal with it and whom to turn to, in order to prevent risks from turning into harm.  

Brussels:  EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service, 2025. 9p.

By Ghayda Hassan 1 Sébastien Brouillette-Alarie 1 Sarah Ousman 1 Deniz Kilinc 1 Éléa Laetitia Savard 1 Wynnpaul Varela 1 Lysiane Lavoie 1 Arber Fetiu 1

  Over the past two decades, planned and executed attacks attributed to extremist movements or “lone actors” have intensified and spread throughout many parts of the world, amplifying the fears of local populations and prompting a number of governments to invest significant sums of money into preventing violent radicalization and extremism  Despite these investments, current knowledge regarding best practices for prevention remains disparate, and the effectiveness of current practices has not yet been clearly established. This means that trillions of dollars are currently being spent funding programs whose effectiveness and potential side effects are unknown. Considering the above, the Canadian Practitioners Network for Prevention of Radicalization and Extremist Violence (CPNPREV; https://cpnprev.ca/) has conducted a systematic review on the effectiveness of primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention programs in the field of preventing violent extremism (PVE). The goals of this review were threefold: 1) to determine if primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention programs are able to counter violent radicalization; 2) to identify specific program modalities associated with a higher chance of success or failure for the targeted populations; and 3) to assess the quality of the literature in order to identify less reliable evidence, knowledge gaps, and studies which should be given more weight in the interpretation of results The review integrated evidence on the following: a) religiously-inspired (e.g., Islamist), right-wing, extreme-left, and “singleissue” (e.g., misogyny) violent radicalization; b) outcomes classified by prevention levels; and c) benefits/harms, costs, transferability, and community-related implementation issues when mentioned by the authors. We used systematic review methods developed by the Campbell and Cochrane collaborations. The logic model driving the review is grounded in an ecosystemic public health model, dividing programs into primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention levels. Because the outcomes of primary/secondary PVE programs and those of tertiary prevention programs were very disparate, we decided to treat results of primary/secondary prevention programs separately from those of tertiary prevention programs. However, we used a common method for both reviews. Of the 11,836 studies generated from the searches undertaken (up to June 2019), only 56 were found to be eligible for this review (i.e., they included an empirical—quantitative or qualitative—evaluation of a primary or secondary prevention initiative using primary data). Among these, 23 were found to be of insufficient methodological quality (score of 3/10 or less on the Quality of Study Assessment tool) and were therefore excluded The final set of studies comprised 33 evaluations of primary or secondary prevention programs. They reached a total sample of 6,520 individuals from 15 countries, with sample sizes ranging from 5 to 1,446 participants (M = 210.32, SD = 396.0). Most of the identified studies (k = 24) evaluated programs targeting violent Islamist radicalization. Nine studies assessed the outcomes of “general” prevention programs, that is, programs that do not target a specific type of violent radicalization but rather aim to improve openness towards others, respect, civic education, etc., within both “vulnerable” individuals and the general population. Only one study assessed programs targeting violent far-right radicalization, and none targeted far-left or single-issue violent radicalization. Among the 33 program evaluation studies, 18 reported mostly positive outcomes, seven reported mixed outcomes (both positive and negative), and eight reported mostly negative outcomes. Of note, all negative assessments were related to initiatives under Prevent, the UK’s national PVE strategy. On average, primary and secondary prevention programs seemed more effective than targeted primary prevention programs. However, this result is inevitably linked to the multiple negative assessments of Prevent, a strategy encompassing multiple targeted primary prevention programs.  

Montreal::Canadian Practitioners Network for the Prevention of Radicalization and Extremist Violence., 

2021. 152p.