Title

The Government's revamped Prevent strategy actually strengthens the role and responsibility of local authorities in tackling extremism, say Ewan King and Robin Tuddenham. At long last, we have a new Prevent Strategy, and the Government once again has an overall framework for stopping people becoming terrorists or supporting extremism. You could be forgiven for questioning whether it was wise to delay such a nationally important strategy this long (some four months), but considering how mired the previous strategy was in controversy it was probably sensible for ministers and civil servants to take their time. Now it's here, what are its strengths and weaknesses, and more importantly: what are the issues local authorities are likely to face in implementing its objectives? The document is a thoughtful and reflective piece of work, seeking to learn from the issues that dogged the first Prevent strategy. These include the claim that it inadvertently stigmatised the whole Muslim community, misdirected funds towards cohesion rather than countering violent extremism, and that monitoring of impact was weak. These issues have all been robustly addressed, but what is also striking is the tone of evolution rather than revolution, even if the media headlines implied something more radical. In a policy environment where the role of local government is being challenged or reduced this strategy actually strengthens the role and responsibility of local authorities in tackling extremism. For example, the perception that Prevent was managed from the centre without regard for local issues has been acknowledged, with the coalition promising not to ‘micro-manage' local delivery. Whether this is likely in an environment of low tolerance to risk is another matter, of course, especially in light of the security concerns which will be at the forefront of the minds of key partners such as the police. The central role local authorities play in identifying and supporting people who are vulnerable to radicalisation also remains. For those of us delivering this work at a local level, the recognition of the need for better communication of the Government's security agenda is particularly welcome, as is the acceptance that foreign policy plays a role in radicalisation. The strategy recognises that much positive work was done on challenging ideology (whatever the tabloid journalists might say), but that at the same time more work needs to be done in local Prevent partnerships to develop convincing narratives to counter extremist views that can be appealing to some. This is not to pretend that the strategy doesn't have its detractors. Some have already questioned whether it's wise for the Government not to talk to or fund those with extremist (although non-violent) views, suggesting this may simply serve to push them further underground. Also, significant players in the Prevent world, and particularly those with experience of de-radicalisation, are set to loose their funding. Would we have seen the peace agenda in Northern Ireland move as far forward as it has, without talking to those we strongly disagree with? There are also areas where a greater degree of clarity is needed, for instance, in determining how local authorities best respond to the issue of right-wing extremism, and the rise of the English Defence League, which is causing significant pressures and tensions within many areas. We would argue that while this group poses a significant threat to cohesion, it is very different animal from Al Qa'ida and needs a different response. Anyone who engaged with this agenda the first time round will know that delivering the objectives of Prevent is far from straightforward. If its work is to be targeted at ‘the few people who are most susceptible to terrorist propaganda' then finding the right civil society organisations to lead this work will be difficult. This is not an area of work that is easy to locate within the localist prism of the Big Society. Reaching the most vulnerable requires having good and established links in the community, and many of the organisations that have these grass roots links are small informal outfits with no governance structures, poor financial management and few monitoring procedures or accountability structures in place. Every review we have conducted on the delivery of Prevent in local areas has highlighted the struggle community organisations face in becoming ‘delivery ready' within the timescales and requirements of the commissioner. These organisations will need considerable support if they are to play a role in supporting vulnerable people. Those local authorities who have had greatest success have implemented a phased and collaborative approach between providers, creating safe spaces for dialogue and encouraging learning. With much less funding, and potentially even greater expectations, this ethos now becomes a necessity. Ring-fenced grant funding will be directed at 25 priority areas, and local authority led Prevent partnerships will continue to be encouraged more widely. Councils will have a role in assessing local risks and vulnerabilities and in galvanising civil society and partners to enter ‘ungoverned spaces' where extremism can flourish undetected. The notion of reaching into ‘ungoverned spaces' is a fascinating one, and clearly there is a need to understand how extremism can develop in youth clubs or hostels, for example. On the other hand, though, some environments which are ‘heavily governed' – such as schools, for example – present their own challenges. What right do local councils have to peer into and monitor such places? The importance of robust monitoring and evaluation of impact is signalled strongly in the strategy. The strategy states that if you can't prove that you are changing behaviours and attitudes, then you won't receive the funding. This renewed emphasis on data and evidence is important but it is unclear what evidence will be regarded as appropriate. Measuring impact is also more complex in areas like Calderdale that have a wide range of risk factors and challenges in relation to extremism which will have to be addressed within existing resources. Experts in counter-radicalisation are concerned about the lack of people with a systematic, evidence-based approach to intervention work. The London Borough of Newham – a priority area - saw this problem on the horizon, and has developed and trained its own in-house capability to help vulnerable people, removing the difficult decision about who to commission to do this work. In the world of probation and prisons, youth work, and civil society, there are people who have the potential to do this work, and that with additional training, could become reliable sources of expertise for counter-radicalisation work. The strategy is clear that Prevent funding will not be used to supplement other interventions that promote cohesion and integration. And yet the strategy is explicit about the links between more integrated societies and reduced risks of extremism. We await further information on a National Integration Strategy, but it will be very hard in the meantime for local authorities to resist building Prevent into a wider approach for enhancing cohesion. To avoid this occurring, councils should invest in carefully mapping out how the three Prevent objectives can be realised, before drawing out the wider links that exist with cohesion and integration. In the end, good Prevent work will have knock on effects on community cohesion, and the stark demarcation between the two feels more resonant in a policy world than in the daily reality of local practice. But the starting point must be on the Prevent objectives, and not on how this money could enhance wider social integration. Strong leadership and direction from elected members will also be crucial. The risk based rather than demographic approach to funding makes sense, but in our current austere times it will require strong political and officer leadership to avoid Prevent being diluted into broader partnership work or being seen as the reserve of the police in many localities. While Government would not want this to happen, the emphasis on Al Qa'ida related extremism affirms some of the previous challenges in championing Prevent at a local level, particularly when so many areas are immersed in tackling the community tensions arising from far right activity Ultimately, the new strategy provides a framework which rightly seeks to support Prevent activity which is both proportionate and focused. Local government is the only agency who can meaningfully connect its aspirations, and secure the reach into communities which will enable resilience to future terrorist attacks. It is an expectation we must and should respond to. Ewan King is director of research at the Office for Public Management and Robin Tuddenham is director of safer and stronger communities at Calderdale MBC

Title

On the frontline

SUBSCRIBE TO CONTINUE READING