Understanding extremism in Scotland: public sector practitioner perceptions and views

7. Delivering the Prevent duty

7.1. Introduction

This section will address the following research questions:

• Do public sector practitioners consider Prevent as part of their day-to-day work? What processes are in place for this in their workplace?
• What aspects of extremism do public sector practitioners feel more and less confident in understanding or tackling?
• How well equipped and supported do public sector practitioners feel in their ability to recognise and respond to extremism?

In both the qualitative and the quantitative research, after familiarity with Prevent had been established, participants were asked whether they had any experience with Prevent. In qualitative discussions, the researcher then probed to understand details of any experiences reported. Subsequently, participants in qualitative discussions and the survey were asked to what extent they feel well-equipped to identify those who may be vulnerable to being drawn into extremism or terrorism (i.e., deliver the Prevent duty).

In the survey, respondents were initially asked about their levels of confidence that they know:

• How to identify someone at risk of being drawn into extremism
• What to do if you come across someone at risk of being drawn into extremism in your line of work

Later in the survey, after being shown a description of the Prevent duty, respondents were asked ‘What experience, if any, have you had with Prevent?’ and told that their answer ‘could include making a Prevent referral, receiving or delivering training’. This instruction was designed to make the survey easier to complete, rather than to dictate how respondents described their experience with Prevent; no further prompting was given, such that there was an opportunity to hear participants’ initial responses.

This section will firstly examine reported experiences of Prevent, including a breakdown by job sector, before turning to a comparison between reported experiences of extremism and Prevent. The section will then explore public sector practitioners’ self-reported confidence in identifying extremism, self-reported confidence in what to do if they identify extremism, and a final examination of practitioner confidence in delivering the Prevent duty. Subsequently, conclusions will be drawn from the section.

7.2. Experiences of Prevent

Over four fifths of respondents (83%) in the survey reported that they were familiar with Prevent to some extent. Half (51%) of those who were familiar, and therefore just over two fifths (42%) of all respondents, reported an experience with the Prevent duty.

Approximately three fifths of public sector practitioners who reported experiences with Prevent (61%) referred to receiving training. Over a fifth (22%) referred to the practitioner having an active role in carrying out Prevent in their job, such as delivering training or managing referrals, while 15% involved the practitioner making a referral themselves. This indicates that most public sector practitioners gain experience of Prevent through job-related activities, such as training and/or managing referrals, rather than making a referral, which requires a practitioner to identify and follow up on potential extremist behaviours.

Q11. What experience, if any, have you had with Prevent?

Base: All respondents with experiences of Prevent in their job, n=208.

“I have received training in Prevent, but have never had to make a referral.”

(Practitioner with a Prevent managerial role, Local authority, Survey)

“I have attended training courses and am updated by the local officer on any incidents.”

(Practitioner with a Prevent non-managerial role, Local authority, Survey)

As shown in Figure 16, public sector practitioners working in education were most likely to have had experience with Prevent (56% of all respondents). This was followed by practitioners working in local authority or social work roles (53%), then prisons (41%), while police and health and social care practitioners were least likely to report an experience with Prevent (35% and 30% respectively).

Q11. What experience, if any, have you had with Prevent?

Base: All respondents, n=492; Police Scotland, n=74; Scottish Prisons Service, n=85; Local authorities and social work, n=99; Education, n=93; Health and social care, n=141.

“I am familiar with Prevent... I have been involved in two referrals under Prevent and am aware of the pressure it can bring to employees dealing with such issues.”

(Practitioner with a Prevent non-managerial role, Further / Higher education, Survey)

“[I] received training and sit on other delivery sessions as part of a wider training package we deliver in Perth and Kinross.”

(Practitioner with a Prevent managerial role, Local authority, Survey)

Public sector practitioners in Prevent managerial roles were significantly more likely to report an experience with Prevent than those in Prevent non-managerial roles (62% compared with 46%). This reflects the qualitative findings, where few public sector practitioners without a role which involved overseeing Prevent had experience of it.

“I wouldn’t be able to define Prevent. I know roughly what they’re responsible for and where and who they are, so I could contact them for advice if needed.”

(Practitioner without a Prevent-related role, Police Scotland, Mini focus group)

7.3. Experiences of extremism and Prevent compared

Overall, the proportion of respondents who had experienced extremism at work (39%) is very close to that of respondents who had an experience with Prevent (42%). However, there was variation between these two figures when broken down by job sector.

Q9. What experience, if any, have you had with extremism as part of your work?

Q11. What experience, if any, have you had with Prevent?

Base: All respondents, n=492; Police Scotland, n=74; Scottish Prisons Service, n=85; Local authorities and social work, n=99; Education, n=93; Health and social care, n=141.

As displayed in Figure 17, the proportion of local authority public sector practitioners and/or social workers who reported coming across extremism in their jobs (57%) was broadly in line with the proportion who reported an experience with Prevent (53%). However, public sector practitioners from the prison and police sectors were considerably more likely to say they had had experiences of extremism at work (52% and 43% respectively) compared with having experience with Prevent (41% and 35% respectively). Conversely, education practitioners were much more likely to say that they had experience with Prevent than to report an experience of extremism (56% compared with 35%, respectively).

One of the primary reasons for these disparities between sectors was the extent to which practitioners in different sectors had received Prevent training. For example, a much higher proportion of education, and health and social care practitioners mentioned training in their reported experience with Prevent (69% and 67% respectively) than police practitioners (35%).

Additional context from the qualitative research suggests that the police and prisons sectors held a higher benchmark for what is considered ‘extreme’ enough to warrant a Prevent referral. This is because extreme and/or violent behaviour was commonly witnessed in their jobs, and as such there were internal processes in place to deal with problematic behaviour before a Prevent referral would be deemed necessary:

“[For Prevent referrals] we look out for guys with a more forceful personality who could influence others. But the three we have at the moment don’t have a forceful personality. For example, we’ve got [someone] who is actually more intimidated by other prisoners and that’s a good thing in a way because they won’t be passing on what they believe.”

(Practitioner with a Prevent-related role, Scottish Prisons Service, In-depth interview)

Conversely, the education and health and social care sectors saw a relatively high proportion of public sector practitioners with experience of Prevent (56% and 30% respectively) compared with experience of extremism in their job (35% and 21% respectively).

“Yes, I’m reasonably familiar with the Prevent role and the duties. We’re not asking questions to draw it out, but if you come across something of concern then we try to assess exactly what that is, preferably with a second opinion. This is pre-criminality, but if they have engaged with criminal activity, then that becomes a police action.”

(Practitioner with a Prevent-related role, Health and social care, In-depth interview)

Lastly, public sector practitioners who were familiar with Prevent as part of their role (44%) were significantly more likely to report an experience with extremism than those who were not familiar with Prevent as part of their role (20%), with over one in ten (11%) experiences mentioning either delivery of the Prevent duty (6%) or other anti-terror protocols (5%). This may be because this group are able to more effectively and confidently label behaviour as extremist due to a better understanding of extremism.

“I’m not really familiar with Prevent... Day-to-day, it’s probably not really part of my role… We’ve not had training on that, that’s maybe bad... I’m quite oblivious to it, so I should be more aware of it. I would just try and notice the vulnerable people.”

(Practitioner without a Prevent-related role, Scottish Prisons Service, In-depth interview)

7.4. Confidence in identifying signs of extremism

Although two thirds (67%) of public sector practitioners felt confident that they could identify someone at risk of being drawn into extremism, only one in ten (11%) felt ‘very confident’. Due to the overconfidence effect (Fischhoff, Slovic, Lichtenstein, 1977), ‘very confident’ was used as the benchmark measure of confidence. Confidence was higher amongst individuals in Prevent managerial roles (i.e., responsible for managing Prevent concerns) than in Prevent non-managerial roles (21% compared with 7% saying ‘very confident’). Furthermore, it was more common for practitioners to be confident in identifying signs of extremism, compared with defining it.

practitioners’ level of confidence in identifying someone at risk of being drawn into extremism. 68% of all respondents were either ‘very’ confident (11%) or ‘fairly’ confident (57%), while 26% were ‘not very confident’ and 5% ‘not all confident’. 82% of practitioners who manage Prevent concerns were either ‘very’ confident (21%) or ‘fairly’ confident (61%), while 16% were ‘not very confident’ and 1% ‘not all confident’. 62% of practitioners who do not manage Prevent concerns were either ‘very’ confident (7%) or ‘fairly’ confident (55%), while 30% were ‘not very confident’ and 7% ‘not all confident’.

Q4. How confident, if at all, are you that you know the following? ‘How to identify someone at risk of being drawn into extremism.’

Base: All respondents, n=492, Practitioners with Prevent managerial roles, n=142; Practitioners with Prevent non-managerial roles, n=350.

When asked to explain the signs of extremism they would look for during qualitative discussions, many found this very difficult to articulate, and often talked of ‘gut instinct’ or ‘just knowing’, which may suggest a lower ability to spot signs of extremism in practice. Some also appeared to lean on more serious examples of behaviours, particularly public sector practitioners without Prevent-related roles, such as going abroad to join Islamic State, rather than less clear-cut signs and symbols of extremist behaviour or beliefs.

7.5. Confidence in what to do if you come across someone at risk of being drawn into extremism

One fifth (20%) of public sector practitioners had a high level of confidence in knowing what to do if they came across someone at risk of being drawn into extremism, although confidence levels were significantly higher than for identifying signs of extremism (11% very confident). Over a third (35%) did not feel confident, including 7% who felt ‘not at all’ confident. This may reflect the uncertainty surrounding the Prevent referral process when prompted, as explored in section 6.5.

practitioners’ level of confidence in what to do if they come across someone at risk of being drawn into extremism. 64% of all respondents were either ‘very’ confident (20%) or ‘fairly’ confident (44%), while 28% were ‘not very confident’ and 7% ‘not all confident’. 84% of practitioners who manage Prevent concerns were either ‘very’ confident (41%) or ‘fairly’ confident (43%), while 14% were ‘not very confident’ and 2% ‘not all confident’. 56% of practitioners who do not manage Prevent concerns were either ‘very’ confident (12%) or ‘fairly’ confident (44%), while 34% were ‘not very confident’ and 8% ‘not all confident’.

Q4. How confident, if at all, are you that you know the following? ‘What to do if you come across someone at risk of being drawn into extremism in your line of work.’

Base: All respondents, n=492, Practitioners with Prevent managerial roles, n=142; Practitioners with Prevent non-managerial roles, n=350.

Those in Prevent managerial roles had higher confidence levels (41% answering ‘very confident’), compared with those in Prevent non-managerial roles (12% answering ‘very confident’). However, as shown in Figure 20, this difference is far more pronounced than when it comes to confidence in how to identify someone at risk of being drawn into extremism, where the gap between those in Prevent managerial roles saying they were very confident (21%) and those in Prevent non-managerial roles (7%) was smaller.

Q4. How confident, if at all, are you that you know the following? ‘How to identify someone at risk of being drawn into extremism’

Base: All respondents, n=492, Practitioners with Prevent managerial roles, n=142; Practitioners with Prevent non-managerial roles, n=350.

Among those in Prevent non-managerial and non-Prevent related roles, several potential reasons for lower levels of confidence in knowing what to do if they came across someone at risk of being drawn into extremism were raised or discussed.

One was a lack of experience. In the survey, over half (54%) of public sector practitioners in Prevent non-managerial roles had no experience with Prevent. In qualitative discussions, public sector practitioners without experience of Prevent or extremism as part of their roles did not have a clear sense of what signs to look out for, and discussed not wanting to base a referral on a ‘hunch’. As explored in section 6.5, many without Prevent-related roles felt they would seek guidance from those with specialist Prevent knowledge, or even just more experienced staff, before referring someone.

“I’ve had limited Prevent training and done bits and pieces. But because you don’t use it very often, you have it in the background. But you can email or phone somebody who knows more than I do.”

(Practitioner without a Prevent related role, Police)

Another was a lack of training. Those who spoke of having Prevent training often mentioned a ‘one-off’ session, or an online training module. This may contribute to Prevent not feeling ‘front of mind’ for many public sector practitioners, and may present a barrier to acting when potentially concerning behaviours are encountered.

“We do have mandatory training and what we need to report. In terms of confidence, we have a good public protection unit we can go to and I would feel confident doing that but I don’t know the actual document and Prevent policy as well as I should for sure.”

(Practitioner without a Prevent-related role, Health and social care, Mini focus group)

“Even as a local authority social worker who deals with Prevent, I don’t think I’m trained enough to look out for the risk factors. We use common sense and judgement, but actually how to support them and work with young people – I don’t think the training is good enough.”

(Practitioner without a Prevent-related role, Local authority, Mini focus group)

Another factor was a sense from some that Prevent processes might not be the most appropriate way to provide help and support, or that it was not the practitioners’ place to do so. Public sector practitioners without Prevent-related roles were more confident in talking about potential extremism risks through the lens of their safeguarding and child protection duties, which they were much more familiar with, and indicated that they would deal with a potential risk through safeguarding channels other than Prevent. For example, police officers talked about calling social workers or someone with a designated Prevent-related role at the school for guidance if a young person exhibited troubling behaviours rather than jumping straight to a Prevent referral, as they felt there were other departments that would have more information on the individual and be better equipped to deal with the case.

“I’ve definitely had to work with young people with mental health problems that are vulnerable. I would say it’s probably a mixture of healthcare and social care that’s helped some of those people […] I’m concerned post-COVID we’re being contacted a lot more with vulnerable young people.”

(Practitioner without a Prevent-related role, Health and social care, Mini focus group)

Finally, some were concerned about making a mistake. Public sector practitioners had worries around the potential of making a mistake in referring someone, and not wanting to appear prejudiced against any viewpoints. It is possible that, amongst those who feel their role sits particularly within safeguarding, there is a reluctance to use the official Prevent processes to raise a concern, due to the stigma that they feel this may place onto the vulnerable individual, particularly children.

“I wouldn’t feel confident approaching a person. I’d be mindful I was making an awful mistake […] I’ll just do my job and someone else can deal with this because I don’t want to be accused of whatever.”

(Practitioner without a Prevent-related role, Further / Higher education)

Confidence levels in what to do if you come across someone vulnerable to extremism also varied by sector. As shown in Figure 21, education practitioners were the most confident (80% overall, with 28% feeling ‘very confident’), followed by prison workers (71% overall, with 22% ‘very confident’). Confidence amongst police was more mixed, with only 64% confident overall, but a relatively high proportion ‘very confident’ (27%). Confidence was lowest amongst health and social care workers (50% confident, with only 11% feeling ‘very confident’).

Q4. How confident, if at all, are you that you know the following? ‘What to do if you come across someone at risk of being drawn into extremism in your line of work.’

Base: All respondents, n=492; Police Scotland, n=74; Scottish Prisons Service, n=85; Local authorities and social work, n=99; Education, n=93; Health and social care, n=141.

Reflecting high levels of public sector practitioners responding ‘fairly confident’ as opposed to ‘very confident’, most participants in the qualitative research felt they could deliver the Prevent duty if required, even the frontline public sector practitioners with no direct experience. Participants explained that they would expect to use their common sense, experience or judgement to identify those at risk of being drawn into extremism and felt fairly confident in their ability to do so. However, when asked, they found it difficult to clearly articulate what actions they would take if they did identify concerning behaviour. Ability to articulate the steps involved varied across participants, and may reflect the level of training they have received. In particular, practitioners with Prevent-related roles, who were more likely to have had in-depth Prevent training or even to have delivered it, were much more confident in explaining the referral process they would follow.

“I would highlight it to management and go down the safeguarding route, but I’m not exactly sure of the pathway, but I’m sure there is one in place.”

(Practitioner without a Prevent-related role, Health and social care, Mini focus group)

“I found out fairly recently because of the Prevent training day. There’s a referral form we can fill in to refer someone to the Prevent group. First point of call would be my sergeant, who would escalate to the inspector. I would fill in a form and list my concerns.”

(Practitioner without a Prevent-related role, Police Scotland, In-depth interview)

“We’ve got a Prevent concerns email at [Council], but it also goes straight to the Prevent Delivery Unit at Police Scotland. And they immediately start assessment and deconfliction work. I can guarantee that social work, for example, have already started looking at that referral and saying, ‘Is this going to PMAP or not?’ […] Usually, it comes to the experts at PMAP. We get all the information on the family, there’s NHS there, psychiatric manager, housing, etc. […] And then as a panel, we make the decision whether there is that counter-terrorism risk.”

(Practitioner with a Prevent-related role, Local authority, Mini focus group)

7.6. Conclusions

In the survey, over half (51%) of public sector practitioners who had heard of Prevent reported an experience with the Prevent duty, with most of these people citing training as their experience. In contrast, only 15% had made a Prevent referral.

The self-reported data suggest that a minority are highly confident in their ability to identify vulnerability to extremism and knowing what to do. While large proportions are ‘fairly confident’, as outlined in section 3.3, ‘very confident’ is likely to be a more accurate measure of self-assessed knowledge or ability, adjusting for the overconfidence effect.

The qualitative data supported this, indicating that many public sector practitioners, including those in Prevent-related roles, struggled to clearly articulate the signs of extremism they would look out for, and instead often relied on ‘gut instinct’. There was more variation between practitioners on their ability to describe what to do in the event of identifying someone vulnerable to extremism, with practitioners in Prevent-related roles far more likely to be able to describe the process they would follow than practitioners without Prevent-related roles. For those without Prevent-related roles, the first port of call tended to be reaching out to more experienced or specialised colleagues.

Public sector practitioners were more likely to feel confident in their ability to know what to do if they came across someone at risk of being drawn into extremism (20% saying very confident) than to identify such a person (11% saying very confident). Moreover, the difference between practitioners in Prevent managerial and Prevent non-managerial roles was far more pronounced in terms of confidence about what to do if they came across someone at risk of extremism (41% in Prevent managerial roles saying very confident compared with 12% in Prevent non-managerial roles) than how to identify an at-risk person (21% in Prevent managerial roles saying very confident compared with 7% in Prevent non-managerial roles).

These findings suggest that the increased training on and experience of extremism and Prevent that those in Prevent managerial roles were likely to have had was more successful in building confidence in knowing what to do when faced with a risk than in how to identify that risk.

This indicates that while both identifying an at-risk person and knowing what to do are important areas to address in terms of increasing practitioner confidence, building practitioners’ confidence in how to identify an at-risk person may be a particular priority, including with practitioners who are broadly more confident and knowledgeable about Prevent.