Five lessons for a more integrated PVCE approach

Across the world, governments, civil society organisations, researchers, and community leaders continue to search for effective ways to prevent and counter violent extremism (PVCE). While contexts differ, one challenge remains remarkably consistent: violent extremism cannot be addressed through security measures alone.

Over the past years, we have worked together with researchers, policymakers, religious leaders, women’s groups, and youth organisations across Africa, Asia, and the Middle East to better understand what makes communities resilient to violent extremism. Through research, policy dialogue, and practical experience, several important lessons have emerged.

These lessons do not offer a blueprint. Every context is different. They do, however, point towards the foundations of a more integrated and effective PVCE approach.

1. Violent extremism is a symptom as much as a security threat

Violent extremist groups often use ideological or religious narratives to recruit followers. Yet research in Kenya and Nigeria shows that these narratives rarely operate in isolation.

People become vulnerable to extremist recruitment when grievances remain unaddressed. Experiences of exclusion, discrimination, injustice, marginalisation, unemployment, trauma, and weak trust in institutions can all create fertile ground for extremist actors to exploit.

This does not mean ideology is irrelevant. It means that ideology often gains traction because it connects to existing frustrations and unmet needs. An integrated PVCE approach therefore looks beyond the immediate security threat and addresses the underlying conditions that enable violent extremism to grow.

2. Prevention starts where people live their daily lives

Many of the earliest signs of vulnerability to violent extremism emerge long before security actors become involved. They appear in families struggling with conflict, in communities experiencing growing tensions, in schools where young people feel disconnected, and in places of worship where difficult questions about identity, belonging, and faith are discussed.

Research consistently shows that local actors are often the first to notice these developments and the first to respond. Religious leaders, teachers, parents, women’s groups, youth organisations, and community networks frequently play a critical role in preventing tensions from escalating. Effective PVCE therefore requires investment in community resilience, trust, and local capacity. Prevention cannot be built solely from the top down.

3. Religious actors are indispensable partners

Religion is often discussed in relation to violent extremism because extremist groups misuse religious language to justify violence. This can obscure another reality: religious actors are among the most important contributors to prevention efforts.

Across multiple contexts, religious leaders help communities navigate tensions, challenge harmful narratives, mediate conflicts, and promote peaceful coexistence. They often possess a level of trust, legitimacy, and local knowledge that external actors cannot easily replicate.

Research conducted through JISRA highlights that religious leaders are not merely messengers for prevention programmes. They are actors with their own knowledge, networks, and influence who can contribute meaningfully to policy and practice.
A more integrated PVCE approach recognises religion as part of the solution as well as part of the conversation.

4. Women and young people strengthen prevention efforts

For many years, women and youth have been included in PVCE discussions primarily as target groups or beneficiaries. Research and practical experience suggest a different approach is needed. Women religious actors in Kenya, for example, play vital roles in identifying early warning signs, mentoring young people, mediating disputes, and strengthening social cohesion. Youth-led initiatives across several countries have demonstrated how young people can actively challenge harmful narratives, build bridges across divides, and create positive alternatives for their peers.

The lesson is clear: women and young people should not only be included in implementation. Their perspectives and leadership should help shape prevention strategies from the outset. Integrated PVCE is stronger when it draws on the knowledge and experience of those closest to the challenges.

5. International cooperation works best when it strengthens local leadership

Violent extremism is a global challenge, but prevention is always local. Over recent years, exchanges between policymakers, practitioners, researchers, and community leaders from different countries have demonstrated the value of international learning. Countries facing different manifestations of violent extremism often encounter similar questions around trust, inclusion, governance, religion, and community resilience.

These exchanges generate valuable insights, but they also reinforce an important lesson: there is no universal model for prevention. Successful international cooperation does not export ready-made solutions. It creates opportunities to share experiences, learn from different approaches, and support local actors in adapting lessons to their own realities.

The most sustainable PVCE approaches combine global learning with local ownership.

Looking ahead

The conversations surrounding violent extremism continue to evolve. Increasingly, research and practice point in the same direction: effective prevention requires collaboration across sectors, disciplines, and communities.

Security measures remain important. At the same time, long-term prevention depends on inclusion, trust, dialogue, community resilience, and local leadership.

An integrated PVCE approach brings these elements together. It recognises that preventing violent extremism is not the responsibility of a single institution or sector. It is a shared effort involving governments, civil society, religious leaders, women, youth, researchers, and communities themselves.

The challenge for policymakers and practitioners is no longer whether these actors should be involved. The challenge is how to ensure they can work together effectively to build societies that are more resilient to violence, exclusion, and division.