Understanding extremism in Scotland: public sector practitioner perceptions and views

8. Views on Prevent in Scotland

8.1. Introduction

This section will address the following research questions:

• How favourable are public sector practitioners’ opinions or impressions of Prevent?
• How effective do public sector practitioners consider the current approaches to reducing extremism in Scotland to be, and why?
• Do public sector practitioners working in different areas of Scotland or with different communities diverge in how they perceive the effectiveness of responses to current threats?

In qualitative discussions, participants were asked for their opinions of Prevent in Scotland, including their favourability towards it, the extent to which they feel it is effective in reducing extremism, and views on any potential improvements that could be made.

The improvements mentioned by public sector practitioners in the qualitative research were used to create a list of potential improvements to Prevent. Survey respondents were presented with these and asked to select the top two most effective options (with options for ‘Other’ and ‘None of the above’):

• Increase awareness of the Prevent duty among those who are required to fulfil it
• Increase understanding of how to identify someone at risk of being drawn into extremism among those who are required to fulfil the Prevent duty
• Increase understanding of what to do if someone is at risk of being drawn into extremism among those who are required to fulfil the Prevent duty
• Update Prevent training to ensure it is relevant to the types of extremist ideologies that exist in Scotland
• Update Prevent training to make it more engaging
• Opportunities for organisations to share and discuss best practice for delivering Prevent
• Increase resources for fulfilling the Prevent duty (e.g., more staff, more time)
• Ensuring that the responsibility for delivering Prevent is shared evenly amongst the sectors that have a statutory duty to do so (i.e., local authorities, health and social care, education, prisons, and police)

Additionally, survey respondents were asked to what extent they agree or disagree with the following statements about Prevent:

• Prevent is effective in tackling extremism in Scotland
• Prevent has a favourable reputation in Scotland
• Prevent is delivered in the right way in Scotland

This section will first examine overall perceptions of Prevent in Scotland from participants, then perceptions relating to each statement (effectiveness, favourability, and delivery), and finally views on potential improvements to Prevent in Scotland. Subsequently, conclusions from the section will be drawn.

8.2. Overall practitioner perceptions of Prevent in Scotland

In qualitative discussions views on Prevent tended to be uncertain or neutral, with public sector practitioners feeling they did not know enough to have a strong view either way. This was particularly true for those without Prevent-related roles.

Similarly, in the survey views on Prevent were also largely uncertain or neutral. As shown in Figure 22, in the survey most participants answered ‘neither agree nor disagree’ or ‘don’t know’ for each statement – almost two thirds (65%) for ‘Prevent has a favourable reputation in Scotland’, three fifths (61%) for ‘Prevent is delivered in the right way in Scotland’, and half (52%) for ‘Prevent is effective in tackling extremism in Scotland’. At the same time, a significant proportion answered positively, with 23%, 29% and 41% saying they ‘somewhat’ or ‘strongly’ agree with the statements, respectively, with very few answering negatively (13%, 9% and 7% respectively).

This may reflect the relative lack of detailed awareness and understanding about Prevent, particularly amongst those not in Prevent managerial roles or Prevent-related roles.

Q12. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements about Prevent in Scotland?

Base: All respondents who have heard of Prevent, n=407.

Some practitioners in Prevent-related roles commented that the PMAP process (Home Office, 2021d), which outlines guidance for the multi-agency approach to Prevent in Scotland, has been rolled out in Scotland relatively recently, leading to caution about making a judgement too early.

Although the survey showed uncertainty about the effectiveness, favourability, and delivery of Prevent in Scotland, there was a broad consensus in the qualitative research that tackling extremism was important, and, by extension, Prevent was also important. Despite an underlying sense that a focus on extremism and Prevent was more of a priority in the rest of the UK than Scotland (due to perceptions that Scotland has less of a problem with extremism than the rest of the UK), there was an appetite to improve Prevent and to promote it more widely. Views on specific improvements will be explored in the final part of this section.

“I think it’s necessary, a necessary evil you might say. We would be naïve if we thought we shouldn’t have something like that. But it’s about how it’s implemented.”

(Practitioner with a Prevent-related role, Further / Higher education, In-depth interview)

However, when it comes to their own roles, public sector practitioners without Prevent-related roles did not feel they needed to consider Prevent any more than they currently do. When compared with other safeguarding issues such as child abuse or mental health concerns, particularly in roles with safeguarding as a more central feature (e.g., working with children or with mental health), Prevent appeared to be a less important or relevant concern (especially given low perceived prevalence of extremism in Scotland).

8.3. Perceptions of the effectiveness of Prevent

When asked about whether Prevent is effective in tackling extremism in Scotland, four in ten (41%) agreed, with one third (33%) saying they ‘somewhat agreed’ that it is effective. This statement had the highest level of agreement of the three statements.

“[Prevent is a] good programme, necessary in the UK, but we have an awful lot of other issues to think about in Scotland and that’s where the greatest harm is likely to come from.”

(Practitioner without a Prevent-related role, Primary / secondary education, Mini focus group)

Public sector practitioners without experience of Prevent were more likely to be uncertain or neutral about its effectiveness than those with experience, with two thirds (66%) without experience of Prevent in their roles saying they ‘neither agree nor disagree’ or ‘don’t know’ (compared with 40% of those with experience). The same was true when comparing those with Prevent managerial and non-managerial roles, with those in Prevent managerial roles more likely to see extremism as a problem in Scotland (96% compared with 85% of practitioners in Prevent non-managerial roles) and be more certain about Prevent’s effectiveness (37% saying ‘neither agree nor disagree’ or ‘don’t know’ compared with 59% of practitioners in Prevent non-managerial roles).

“Part of me thinks, if there was [extremism], would we know? If it’s being managed, we probably wouldn’t be told. It doesn’t have an impact in our daily lives.”

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

On the other hand, those in Prevent managerial roles (i.e., with a responsibility to manage or coordinate a response to Prevent concerns) or with experience of Prevent in their roles tended to be more positive about Prevent’s effectiveness. Over half (53%) of those with experience and those in Prevent managerial roles (57%) thought that Prevent is effective in Scotland, compared with 28% of those without experience and 34% of those in Prevent non-managerial roles. This is shown in Figure 23 below.

Q12. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements about Prevent in Scotland? ‘Prevent is effective in tackling extremism in Scotland.’

Base: All respondents who have heard of Prevent, n=407; Practitioners with Prevent managerial roles, n=130; Practitioners with Prevent non-managerial roles n=277.

While some noted a perception of Prevent as ineffective in the aftermath of terrorist attacks due to not having prevented them, these views were not held by public sector practitioners themselves.

“I know Prevent gets slated in the press when someone is part of Prevent and goes on to do something. I think it’s important, it is a good process, we just need to promote it more.”

(Practitioner with a Prevent-related role, Police Scotland, In-depth interview)

8.4. Perceptions of the favourability of Prevent

The statement that ‘Prevent has a favourable reputation in Scotland’ elicited the highest level of uncertainty and neutrality, with two thirds (65%) saying ‘neither agree nor disagree’ or ‘don’t know’. Only a minority (22%) agreed that Prevent has a favourable reputation in Scotland. While still low, this elicited the highest level of disagreement of the statements, with 13% disagreeing that the reputation is favourable.

“[Prevent is] something that’s hard to have an opinion on. I don’t know.”

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

Practitioners in the police sector were most likely to agree that Prevent’s reputation is favourable (33%), with those in the education sector least likely (16%). Practitioners in the health and social care sector were similarly unlikely to agree, but in this case due to a high level of uncertainty about the favourability of Prevent, with 41% answering ‘don’t know’ (compared with 29% saying ‘don’t know’ in the education sector, for example).

Again, as shown in Figure 24, those in Prevent managerial roles and with experience of Prevent in their roles were less likely to be uncertain and more likely to agree that the reputation was favourable. Over a third (36%) in Prevent managerial roles agreed with the statement and 13% answered ‘don’t know’, compared with 16% and 38% for those in Prevent non-managerial roles. Similarly, 28% with experience agreed and 25% answered don’t know, compared with 16% and 36% without experience.

Q12. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements about Prevent in Scotland? ‘Prevent has a favourable reputation in Scotland.’

Base: All respondents who have heard of Prevent, n=407; Practitioners with Prevent managerial roles, n=130; Practitioners with Prevent non-managerial roles n=277.

Positive views of Prevent often stemmed from the idea that extremism exists in Scotland and therefore Prevent is important, rather than being focused on specific aspects of it. However, as will be explored below, among public sector practitioners working more closely with Prevent, the safeguarding approach contributed to a favourable view.

“We need to have it. I’ve been on a couple of day courses about it… We need to highlight that extremism is an issue within society.”

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

Public sector practitioners in urban areas were most likely to disagree with the statement that Prevent has a favourable reputation in Scotland (22% disagreed it was favourable compared with 8% in rural areas and 6% in mixed or suburban areas). Similarly, male public sector practitioners were also more likely to disagree with the statement than female practitioners (21% compared with 7% of women).

In the qualitative research, several public sector practitioners noted that Prevent has a negative reputation, particularly those whose roles most closely involved Prevent. However, this was often seen to be the case for the rest of the UK more than Scotland specifically. Reasons cited for a negative reputation included a perception of excessive surveillance and an overemphasis on Islamist extremism. However, only a few public sector practitioners held these views themselves about Prevent.

“I think [Prevent is] okay, I’ve had stories mostly in England where it’s been applied poorly.”

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

8.5. Perceptions of the delivery of Prevent

Perceptions of whether Prevent is delivered in the right way in Scotland also tended to be neutral or uncertain, with a minority (29%) agreeing with this statement. This may reflect a lack of clarity or knowledge amongst many public sector practitioners about how Prevent is delivered, including a lack of understanding of how the referral process works.

As with other perceptions of Prevent, those with experience of extremism in their roles or who held Prevent managerial roles were less likely to be uncertain or neutral and more likely to agree that Prevent is delivered in the right way. Two fifths (40%) of those with experience and almost half (46%) of those in Prevent managerial roles agreed with this statement, compared with 16% of those without and 21% of those in Prevent non-managerial roles.

There was low awareness of the approach taken in Scotland to Prevent, which places safeguarding at its centre, amongst public sector practitioners without Prevent-related roles. As examined in section 6.2, there was a higher level of awareness amongst public sector practitioners of the safeguarding elements of their role, compared with the Prevent aspects. However, among public sector practitioners familiar with the more safeguarding-oriented approach, this was broadly felt to be the right direction for Prevent in Scotland, and there was a feeling that this should be more widely known.

“Prevent wasn’t really branded in the right way – it’s seen as a snooper’s charter rather than a safeguarding measure.”

(Practitioner with a Prevent-related role, Further / Higher education, In-depth interview)

“Previously we had a presentation on Prevent years ago and team members didn’t enjoy it as it was too targeted to specific groups. We do the training from a safeguarding children and adults point of view – they found that much easier to accept.”

(Practitioner with a Prevent-related role, Local authority, In-depth interview)

There was a sense from some in Prevent-related roles that the delivery of Prevent is working well in that it is being delivered at all, given the relatively recent implementation of some aspects in Scotland (such as the PMAP guidance) and the feeling that extremism is an important issue to tackle. At the same time, there was a recognition from public sector practitioners in Prevent-related roles that improvements could be made to the way Prevent is delivered, as will be explored in the following section.

8.6. Views on how Prevent could be improved

There was a consensus among public sector practitioners about the importance of increasing practitioner understanding about Prevent and extremism. Increasing understanding of how to identify someone at risk of being drawn into terrorism and what to do once identifying an at-risk person were the most popular potential improvements, with over two thirds of public sector practitioners selecting each in their top two most effective improvements for better tackling extremism in Scotland (37% for both options).

Additionally, ‘updating Prevent training to ensure it is relevant to extremist ideologies in Scotland’ was rated as highly effective, with 32% selecting it as one of their top two most effective improvements.

Q13. Below are several ways that some have said Prevent could be improved. Please select the top two options you think would be most effective in better tackling extremism in Scotland.

Base: All respondents who have heard of Prevent, n=407.

Public sector practitioners in Prevent-related roles recognised that those without an explicit focus on Prevent within their roles may have relatively little understanding of Prevent, leading them to prioritise this as an area for improvement. Public sector practitioners without Prevent-related roles confirmed this to be the case themselves, and were keen to learn more about the Prevent duty and how to deliver it – they often felt that they did not know enough to suggest specific improvements beyond this.

Therefore, there was little difference by type of practitioner when it came to advocating for increasing understanding about how to identify someone at risk of being drawn into extremism and what to do, whether this was intended for themselves or for others.

Given low awareness of Prevent amongst the sample, raising awareness of the Prevent duty among those who are required to fulfil it was another popular improvement. A quarter (26%) of public sector practitioners put this in their top two most effective improvements, with very little difference between types of public sector practitioners.

The only exception was those in the education sector who were by far the least likely to select this as one of their top two improvements, with only a minority (12%) doing so. This was likely due to their already high awareness of the Prevent aspect of their roles.

“I don’t really have an opinion, because this is the first I’ve really seen anything about it, I’ve not really thought about it… I do think it’s important and I do think it’s something we should all be a wee bit more aware of.”

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

As explored earlier, especially for public sector practitioners less familiar with Prevent, there was some uncertainty about the types of extremist ideologies present in Scotland. Conversations with those more familiar with Prevent focused on different ideologies than conversations with those less familiar.

The biggest differences arose in relation to right-wing extremism, ‘incels’ and ‘mixed or unclear’ ideologies, all of which were seen by public sector practitioners with knowledge and experience of these ideologies to be recent and increasing problems in Scotland, but which appeared to be less well known – compared with, for example, Islamist extremism – when speaking to public sector practitioners less familiar with Prevent.

Therefore, updating the training to ensure it is relevant to extremist ideologies in Scotland was seen to be a key improvement for Prevent. Of those with experience of Prevent in their work, just over two fifths (43%) selected this as one of their top two most effective improvements to tackle extremism in Scotland, compared with one fifth (20%) without experience.

“WRAP [Workshop to Raise Awareness of Prevent] training is outdated. It’s been around for a few years. There is right-wing stuff, but nothing about unclear or mixed in it. Nothing about incels.”

(Practitioner with a Prevent-related role, Police Scotland, In-depth interview)

Although few chose making Prevent training more engaging as one of the most effective options, multiple public sector practitioners mentioned this in the qualitative research. This suggests that while this would be a welcome improvement, it is not the highest priority for public sector practitioners. The main suggestion was to make the training more interactive, as public sector practitioners without Prevent-related roles in particular felt it was currently somewhat of a ‘tick box exercise’, if they remembered completing it at all. Examples of improvements included making the training face-to-face and building in more discussion sessions.

“A lot of the modules we do online is a tick box exercise rather than anyone caring whether you do it or not... most of the time you’re clicking through all of the slides because you have five minutes and have to get back to your patients.”

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

Finally, over a fifth (22%) of participants selected ensuring the responsibility for delivering Prevent is shared equally among sectors as one of their top two most effective improvements. In the qualitative discussions, there was concern from a handful of public sector practitioners in Prevent-related roles that practitioners in other sectors were not as involved in delivering the Prevent duty as they were, for example a sense that they were not taking cross-sector Prevent meetings seriously enough. Similarly, some public sector practitioners felt that different sectors should work together more on Prevent, for example, sharing of information between sectors on individuals of concern.

“[One improvement would be] getting other sectors to be more a part of it. They’re aware of it but it feels like it is just something else to do when they’re busy enough.”

(Practitioner with a Prevent-related role, Police Scotland, In-depth interview)

8.7. Conclusions

In the qualitative and quantitative research, views tended to be uncertain or neutral about Prevent, particularly amongst those less familiar with Prevent as part of their roles. Practitioners without Prevent-related roles tended to feel they did not know enough to have a strong view either way in qualitative discussions, which may help explain the quantitative findings.

In the survey, a majority of respondents said they ‘neither agree nor disagree’ or ‘don’t know’ for each statement they were presented with – almost two thirds (65%) for ‘Prevent has a favourable reputation in Scotland’, three fifths (61%) for ‘Prevent is delivered in the right way in Scotland’, and half (52%) for ‘Prevent is effective in tackling extremism in Scotland’.

Few felt entirely negatively, with only 13%, 9% and 7% saying they ‘somewhat’ or ‘strongly’ disagree with the statements, respectively. Instead, larger minorities agreed that ‘Prevent is effective in tackling extremism in Scotland’ (41%), ‘Prevent is delivered in the right way in Scotland’ (29%) and that ‘Prevent has a favourable reputation in Scotland’ (23%). There was broad consensus in qualitative discussions that tackling extremism in Scotland was important, and that Prevent is therefore necessary.

Those with more familiarity with Prevent tended to be more positive about it, with practitioners in Prevent-related roles seeing it as particularly important in qualitative discussions. In the survey, practitioners in Prevent managerial roles (i.e., with a responsibility to manage or coordinate a response to Prevent concerns) were much more likely to see Prevent as effective (57% compared with 34% of those in Prevent non-managerial roles), that the reputation was favourable (36% compared with 16% of those in Prevent non-managerial roles), and that it is delivered in the right way (46% compared with 21% of those in Prevent non-managerial roles).

Public sector practitioners broadly felt it was important to improve Prevent and promote it more widely. When prompted with a list of potential improvements to Prevent, those that were ranked as most effective were those aiming to increase practitioner understanding of extremism. The most popular potential improvements were: support to increase practitioner understanding of how to identify someone at risk of being drawn into extremism; and support to increase practitioner understanding of what to do in the event that someone at risk is identified.