1. Ph.D. Candidate, Cornell University
The Implementation of Community-led Security Initiatives: The Case of CVE
Caitlin Ambrozik
Ph.D. Candidate, Cornell University
This research was supported by the Office of University Programs Science and Technology Directorate of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security through the Center for the Study of Terrorism and Behavior (CSTAB – Center Lead) Grant made to the START Consortium (Grant # 2012-ST-61-CS0001). The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, or START.

2. Research Question
Why do only some communities implement collaborative CVE programs?

3. Why centralization?
MAIN ARGUMENT: Informal forms of centralized decision-making are most likely to lead to implementation
- uncertainty around CVE
-lack of guidance from the Federal Government
-lack of prior experience operating within the security policy realm
-conflicting interests amongst agents at the local level

4. Research Design Case selection: most similar systems research design
Research methods: semi-structured interviews with individuals involved in the implementation
process & primary and secondary source material
Some interviews are anonymous based on interviewee preference
Montgomery County (6)
Los Angeles (10)
Boston (5)

5. Research Design Montgomery County Model (MCM) or BRAVE:
The MCM is based on four core components that prevent violent extremism through engagement, building connections, education, and targeted interventions.
Two main features of model: Faith Community Working Group (FCWG) and Crossroads Program
Outcome:
The MCM has served more than 4274 county residents
More than 300 faith-based institutions have participated in the MCM
FCWG events include the annual interfaith picnic and educational events about topics such as public safety and extremism
The model is also currently being replicated in two areas, Prince George’s County in Maryland and Denver, Colorado.

6. Research Design Los Angeles CVE Action Plan: Prevention Intervention
Interdiction
Outcome:
Continued community engagement efforts by law enforcement
Continued interdiction efforts by law enforcement
No operational intervention program

7. Research Design Boston CVE Framework:
7 listed problem areas and proposed solutions
Prevention
Intervention
Outcome:
No collaborative CVE programs
Ad-hoc individual CVE programs (3)
Collapse of the Boston Regional Collaborative

8. Research Design Explanation Boston Los Angeles Montgomery County
Access to Funding
Yes
Selection of Agents
Monitoring and Evaluation
Policy Complexity
Intervention & Prevention
Intervention & Prevention & Interdiction
Prior Institutional Linkages
Centralization No

9. Findings-Montgomery County
What happened?
As stated by County Executive Ike Leggett, “the implementation process went smoothly with little difficulties.”
Centralization was key to the success of the implementation of the MCM model
WORDE as the backburner organization ensured implementation moved forward
As Michael Williams, an academic who evaluated the MCM, stated, “WORDE orchestrates the spider web that connects everybody.”
MCM did face other problems during the implementation process including opposition

10. Findings- Los Angeles What happened?
Decentralization hindered the prospects for implementation
Decision stalemate within ICG over the intervention component:
As Sgt. Mike Abdeen stated, “we [ICG] talked to the Assistant Director in Charge of LA's FBI division, and he viewed the model as an FBI HQ initiative and stated that the LA division of the FBI was not involved. However, other community members did not buy-in. At this time, we are trying to come up with an alternative and incorporate the community, because the community should determine this, not the government.”
Other points of disagreement including, the future direction of CVE in LA, conflicting missions amongst individual agencies that prevented the group from reaching a consensus, and disagreements over how to name and brand the CVE efforts
Another primary obstacle for CVE efforts in LA was the mobilized opposition of CVE by advocacy groups

11. Findings- Boston What happened?
Decentralization hindered implementation efforts in Boston
Collaborative members disagreed on key details
The collaborative component of the Framework lacked buy-in from members involved in the Collaborative
The requirements of implementation stretched beyond the capabilities of the members involved in the Collaborative
Boston lacked a coordinating body to implement the Framework
Another primary obstacle for CVE efforts in Boston was the mobilized opposition of CVE by advocacy groups

12. Conclusion
Centralized administrative decision-making structure is key for the successful implementation of collaborative CVE programs
WORDE’S ability to be the center of expertise and coordinating body launched the successful implementation of the Montgomery County Model
Boston and Los Angeles lacked a centralizing mechanism that could be used to overcome decision stalemates and disagreements amongst agents involved in the planning and implementation process
External opposition to CVE also hindered implementation efforts in all three cases

13. Policy implications Centralization is key
The centralization decision-making mechanism can be used as a mechanism of last resort
Communities need more training regarding CVE
Additional research is needed to decrease uncertainty around CVE
Relatedly, knowledge of CVE needs to be dispersed to community actors in a transparent manner