It’s Who You Know — and What They Do: Peer Networks, Violent Radicalization Risk, and the Role of School Social Workers on Behavioral Threat Assessment Teams

Background and Purpose

Youth violent radicalization is a growing concern in the United States, and adolescents aged 15 to 21 represent a particularly vulnerable population. Exposure to radicalized family members and peers is among the most consequential yet underexamined pathways to violent extremism, and school social workers are increasingly expected to assess this risk within behavioral threat assessment teams. U.S.-based quantitative evidence to guide that work remains scarce. Guided by adolescent development, social learning, and ecological systems theories, this study examined whether exposure to radicalized family members and peers predicted violent radicalization among U.S. adolescents. Three hypotheses were proposed. H₁ proposed that radicalized family exposure would be associated with higher odds of violent radicalization. H₂ proposed that radicalized peer exposure would be similarly associated. H₃ proposed that combined family and peer exposure would show the strongest association with violent radicalization.

Methods

This quantitative, cross-sectional study used secondary data from the Profiles of Individual Radicalization in the United States (PIRUS) dataset, maintained by START at the University of Maryland, and received IRB-exempt determination. The analytic sample comprised 516 individuals aged 15 to 21, drawn from 3,528 total PIRUS V5 cases. Radicalized peer and family exposure served as the primary independent variables, coded across four levels of extremist involvement. The dependent variable distinguished violent from nonviolent extremist activity. Chi-square and binary logistic regression were conducted in IBM SPSS Statistics Version 31.

Results

Bivariate analyses supported H₁ and H₂, with radicalized peer exposure (χ² = 50.777, p < .001) and family exposure (χ² = 21.116, p < .001) each significantly associated with violent radicalization. In binary logistic regression, only peer exposure remained significant (Wald = 21.67, p < .001). Exposure to peers engaged in nonviolent illegal activities was associated with 88% lower odds of violent radicalization (OR = 0.12, 95% CI [0.05, 0.31]). Family exposure did not predict violent outcomes (Wald = 1.95, p = .583), and H₃ could not be formally tested due to insufficient cell sizes.

Conclusions and Implications

The type of peer radicalization matters, not simply its presence. Behavioral threat assessment teams should move beyond yes-or-no determinations of radicalized peer contact and assess what behaviors are being modeled within a student’s peer network, distinguishing ideological exposure, nonviolent illegal activity, and overtly violent behavior, as these carry meaningfully different risk profiles. Peer and family dynamics must be situated within broader developmental and ecological contexts. School social workers, who serve on behavioral threat assessment teams, are uniquely positioned to lead these efforts given their ecological and relationship-centered training. In practice, this means mapping peer and family networks, engaging families in prevention, and integrating radicalization awareness into screening. Digital literacy programming should be incorporated, given the prominent role of online platforms in radicalization pathways. Associations between violent radicalization and race and religion underscore the need for equity-centered practice. Social work curricula should better prepare emerging practitioners to recognize and respond to radicalization risk. Future research should test these findings with larger samples and explore how school-based protective factors may reduce radicalization risk.