Understanding extremism in Scotland: stakeholder perceptions and views

6. Ability of sectors to identify and support those vulnerable to being drawn into extremism

As noted in the methodology section, some participants in this research represented sectors which have a statutory obligation to fulfil the Prevent duty (n=18). These participants were asked for their views on the ability of those working in the sector they represent to both identify and support those who may be vulnerable to being drawn into extremism.

It should be noted that the number of participants who were asked these questions was small, and that the current role of these participants does not involve direct contact with service users. While the questions were designed to gather organisational-level views on the ability of those working in statutory sectors to identify and support vulnerable individuals, a separate strand of this programme of research (Scottish Government, 2023c) provides greater insight into the views and experiences of frontline public sector practitioners working to deliver Prevent in Scotland.

The section begins by outlining views of participants from each sector^[11], before covering key themes which emerged across all interviews with those representing statutory sectors, including the impact of COVID-19 and difficulties in identifying and supporting with particular forms of extremism.

6.1. Views by sector

Local authorities

Participants representing the local authority sector generally felt that those working within this sector are well-placed to identify those who may be vulnerable to extremism. They discussed how local authority practitioners tend to be connected to individuals and families in a range of ways, meaning they are able to notice changes in behaviours or views that may indicate vulnerability to extremism.

‘Local authorities connect with individuals and families in a way that no other sector does and from multiple angles. Especially very vulnerable people that are quite often in touch with mental health services, social work services, education and housing. That gives us multiple points of contact.’ (Local authority sector participant)

However, some felt that local authority practitioners may be less well-placed to identify vulnerabilities among those who are no longer in education and who are not in receipt of social security or housing provision, as they may have limited contact with public service providers.

‘I think the concern I would have is older people. If you’re not on the radar of social provision and you’re older than 20, you’re not there, as far as the local authority’s concerned [...] once people are out of education provision, they become much more difficult to identify.’ (Local authority sector participant)

Further, while many participants felt that those working within the local authority sector are generally well-equipped to identify vulnerable individuals, some commented that because instances of individuals being vulnerable to extremism tend to be rare, local authority practitioners may not be involved in supporting these individuals on a regular basis.

‘I think that [being able to identify vulnerable individuals] are pretty widespread skills actually, the problem is that instances are pretty rare, so in some authorities there may be no cases, in some there may be one every few years [...] I think that can lead to a bit of complacency.’ (Local authority sector participant)

There was a view that local authority practitioners may therefore be less confident in dealing with vulnerable individuals than in their ability to identify them. However, one mitigation against this raised by some participants is that the approach adopted by Prevent is similar to approaches which are used within child protection, adult protection and mental health, which practitioners use regularly and are experienced in.

‘The methodology that we’re using is the same methodology that we use for child protection and adult protection. So it is a risk that we don’t deploy it on a significant number of occasions around extremism or terrorism, but on the other hand I think that we use almost the exact same process in a number of different cases is probably a sufficient mitigation.’ (Local authority sector participant)

Finally, as noted in the previous section, resource and funding problems were highlighted as making it difficult for those working in the local authority sector to contribute to Prevent at the level required.

Police

Participants representing the police sector had mixed views on how well-placed those working within that sector are to identify individuals who may be vulnerable to extremism. Some felt that the police are in a strong position because they typically have high levels of engagement with communities, and in particular with individuals who are vulnerable in society in general, such as those with mental illnesses, those with drug or alcohol-related problems, or those who are involved in crime.

‘We are probably the only remaining service to actually go out in the community and have an active involvement with the individuals who are our most vulnerable in society, particularly round about mental health, crime, drugs and alcohol [...] we come across those people day in and day out.’ (Police sector participant)

There was also a view that flows of intelligence and information-sharing within the police tend to work well, and that frontline officers are well-supported by colleagues with specialist counter-terrorism expertise, meaning they can seek guidance or advice when required.

However, some participants commented that the nature of the interaction between the police and members of the public may differ from the interaction between members of the public and those in other statutory sectors. In particular, they felt that police officers may have more sporadic, one-off encounters with individuals, such as when responding to emergency calls, than those in the education or local authority sectors, who typically spend more time with service users. There was therefore a view that those in other sectors may be better-placed than the police to identify changes in behaviours or views that would indicate vulnerability to extremism.

‘Obviously teachers, health visitors, and social workers might spend years interacting with individuals and looking at their behaviour. They have a lot more signals than we do, because they have a lot more exposure to it.’ (Police sector participant)

Some participants also felt that awareness of Prevent may be low among frontline police officers. Participants discussed how police are required to complete online training on Prevent, but that if this is not refreshed regularly then it may not be at the forefront of their minds given the wide range of other issues they are faced with when on duty.

Some participants also held a view that there may be apprehension among the police to engage with counter-terrorism or make referrals to Prevent, due to a hesitancy to label someone as a potential terrorist. It was therefore felt that raising awareness of the safeguarding focus of Prevent in Scotland among the police could be useful.

While views were mixed on the ability of police to identify individuals vulnerable to extremism, many felt that the police are well-equipped to support those who have been identified as vulnerable. It was highlighted that while the PMAP process is relatively new, similar principles and approaches are used to help individuals with other vulnerabilities, such as in child and adult protection, which police are skilled and experienced in. However, as noted in previous section, there was a view among some that PMAP is sometimes viewed as a police-led process, rather than one that is dependent on collaboration between sectors and partnership working.

‘A lot of what people think about Prevent is that it’s police led. It’s not. Sectors should be working together, problem solving to create bespoke plans for individuals. We’ve all got to be working hand in hand across agencies to provide a response.’ (Police sector participant)

Participants with this view felt that it would be helpful to raise awareness of the need for a wide range of sectors to work together to support individuals vulnerable to extremism.

Education

Participants representing the education sector also generally felt that those working in education are well-placed to identify individuals vulnerable to being drawn into extremism. They discussed how a range of safeguarding processes exist in educational institutions around child protection, wellbeing and mental health, and how Prevent is often integrated into or aligned with these. In particular, participants discussed how those working in education are already trained to look out for problems such as loneliness, frustration and mental illnesses as part of their wider safeguarding responsibilities, meaning that they are experienced in observing signs that may indicate vulnerability to extremism.

‘[Education practitioners] would be looking out for isolation, seclusion, anger, mental health issues of any kind anyway [...] Prevent has been incorporated into that. People just see that as part of the same continuum to do with mental health and wellbeing.’ (Education sector participant)

However, participants thought that more Prevent-specific training and resources for those working in education could be helpful, particularly focusing on behaviours and signs to look out for.

‘I think we need to provide real examples of what extremism means within Scotland, what those behaviours look like, because if people don’t understand what it means how are you going to get them to raise that concern.’ (Education sector participant)

Further, although participants generally felt that education practitioners are capable of identifying individuals that may be vulnerable to extremism, some felt that the perceived negative reputation of Prevent may create hesitancy to engage with the policy. There was also a view that some practitioners working in the Higher Education sector in particular see Prevent as incompatible with free speech, a narrative which has also been discussed in the literature (Fenwick and Fenwick, 2020). As with those representing the police sector, education sector participants felt that it would be helpful to raise awareness of the safeguarding positioning of Prevent in Scotland.

‘I think above all, Prevent should be presented not as an anti-platforming or an anti-free speech or free thought or stigmatising process, but part of a broader spectrum of support for potentially vulnerable individuals.’ (Education sector participant)

A concern was also raised that Prevent results in some vulnerable individuals, such as those with poor mental health, being treated differently to others, when the underlying problem may be similar.

‘The problem with Prevent is that you have a subsection of [vulnerable individuals] who go into a different state-run aspect of management. It sits uncomfortably within the HE [Higher Education] sector that we treat certain types of vulnerable individuals differently from certain other types of individuals.’ (Education sector participant)

Health

Only one participant represented the health sector. This participant discussed current resource strains on the NHS, which they viewed as existing prior to the COVID-19 pandemic but as having been exacerbated as a result. They felt that due to challenges such as high workloads and care backlogs, health practitioners are unlikely to be spending the time with patients that would be required to identify potential vulnerability to extremism.

‘I think [the health sector] has real challenges around capacity and has done for a couple of years, the system is under a lot of strain. It compromises the ability of clinician or a medical practitioner to spend any amount of time with someone other than dealing with the obvious issues they are presenting with. You’re not going to get that conversation that might develop in which they start to pick up on potential problems in the background.’ (Health sector participant)

The participant therefore felt that while healthcare practitioners may be able to pick up on obvious signs of vulnerability to extremism, they are unlikely to notice more subtle indications of this.

‘I think without a proper conversation, unless they said something obvious, so if you had a white middle-aged male who had a skinhead and a football shirt on, who took immediate offence to a non-white nurse, something like that, where it was very quickly, very obviously a difficult situation. I think, beyond those obvious ones, it’ll be very hard for a nurse or a doctor to quickly pick up on something.’ (Health sector participant)

A further concern raised by this participant was that there may be inconsistency in how Prevent is delivered across different Health Boards in Scotland. The participant felt that at present some Health Boards are engaged in Prevent and have formalised structures for delivery, while others are less engaged and deliver Prevent on a more informal or ad hoc basis.

‘In Scotland at the moment, we’ve got inconsistencies across the areas, in terms of how Prevent is done from healthcare settings [...] a lot of the Prevent stuff is done on quite an informal basis, not a sort of formalised structure, therefore what happens in Health Board A might be quite different to Health Board B. Some instances that’s maybe a pragmatic solution, I think in others it creates problems.’ (Health sector participant)

Prisons

As with health, only one participant in this research represented the prisons sector. This participant felt that those working in prisons are typically experienced and skilled in identifying vulnerabilities among prisoners, such as when a prisoner has poor mental health. However, they felt that they may not necessarily associate such vulnerabilities with a risk of extremism or radicalisation. They suggested that training around behaviours that specifically indicate a risk of vulnerability to extremism, such as signs to look out for or symbols that may be displayed in prisoners’ cells, would be beneficial.

‘I would say that the prison staff are very well equipped to identify individuals that are struggling, identify when someone has a mental health problem. But I don’t think they associate that with the risk of extremism or radicalisation. I do think there’s probably more training there for prison staff in terms of what type of behaviours they should be looking out for and what to do if they suspect that someone is at risk, or if someone is displaying these types of behaviour.’ (Prison sector participant)

However, the participant felt that there had recently been improvements in the ability of prison staff to support individuals that have been identified as vulnerable to extremism, resulting from new processes and systems now in place.

6.2. The impact of COVID-19

Participants representing statutory sectors discussed the potential impacts that COVID-19 may have had on the ability of those working in these sectors to identify and support those that may be vulnerable to extremism.

Many felt that it was more challenging to identify vulnerable individuals during the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants discussed how the restrictions associated with the pandemic led to a reduction in face-to-face interaction between practitioners and the public, making it difficult for them to notice changes in views or actions that could indicate vulnerability to extremism. In particular, although in many cases contact between practitioners and the public continued online during this period, some discussed the difficulties involved in identifying changes in behaviour remotely.

‘Online, you can switch your camera off. You’re not necessarily seeing your students [...] I think the pandemic affected that ability to see a nuance of change in somebody or notice that, oh [a person] has turned up in the same clothes for the past five days. You can’t see those things because you’re not physically together.’ (Education sector participant)

There was also a view that the pandemic may have distracted practitioners from looking out for signs of vulnerability to extremism, as COVID-19 and public health were at the centre of practitioners’ minds over this period.

‘[COVID-19] probably has had an impact because it’s just… I suppose it’s been a distraction. The staff coming into work on a day-to-day basis, at the forefront of their mind is going to be anything COVID related.’ (Prison sector participant)

Indeed, over the period April 2020 to March 2021 there were only 55 referrals to Prevent in Scotland, which represented a decrease of 45% compared to the previous year (100 in the year ending March 2020) (Police Scotland, 2023b). However, as discussed in section 4.2, many participants felt that extremism is more likely to have increased in Scotland over this period, as people were spending more time isolated from others, potentially being exposed to extremist content online.

Views were more mixed regarding the impact that COVID-19 may have had on statutory sectors’ ability to support individuals that have been identified as vulnerable to being drawn into extremism. Some felt that COVID-19 did not have a significant impact on sectors’ ability to offer support, as the processes for doing so remained fundamentally the same, but were adapted to ensure they adhered to public health restrictions. An example of this is PMAPs taking place online, which some felt there were benefits to as more people could attend without having to travel long distances.

However, some felt that supporting vulnerable individuals was more challenging during COVID-19. For example, difficulties with providing support online were highlighted, with some participants viewing it more difficult to build rapport and trust with individuals remotely. One participant discussed this in relation to IPs specifically.

‘I know there’s been cases where Intervention Providers have been deployed via teams or via phone which has been entirely ineffective [...] It can be difficult to build up that rapport with an individual, getting the social cues, the kind of non-verbal communication that you can get sitting in a room with somebody. I would say that it’s more difficult to build trust.’ (Police sector participant)

Though various impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic were highlighted by participants, many felt that these were no longer affecting the ability of sectors to identify and support vulnerable individuals. However, there was a view among some that COVID-19 has led to a change in work patterns, with more people working from home than was the case before the pandemic. These participants felt that this may mean that there could be a continued impact on sectors’ ability to identify vulnerable individuals due to reduced levels of face-to-face interaction.

6.3. Identifying and supporting people who are vulnerable to different types of extremism

Some participants felt that particular forms of extremism may be more difficult to identify and address than others. In terms of ideologies that may be more challenging to identify, incels were highlighted. As described by Regehr (2022) the incel community is comprised of individuals who feel rejected by women – and arguably society more generally – and turn to the Internet to voice their anger, and often, desire for revenge. Typically, they express violent fantasies to be perpetrated against ‘Chads’ and ‘Stacys’ (popular men and women) (Regehr, 2022).

Participants discussed the continued existence of patriarchal views in society, and how these may be difficult to distinguish from incel-related beliefs when expressed in subtle ways. Some also felt that behaviours that may be associated with the incel community, such as being reclusive, frustrated or not fitting in, can be common among young people. They felt that practitioners may therefore be hesitant to make a referral to Prevent based on these behaviours alone.

‘I think what’s made the sort of incel type thing more worrying is that being reclusive, being a loner, feeling that you don’t fit in, is not an unusual situation for a teenager, so capturing that in a way that’s not overreacting is quite difficult.’ (Education sector participant)

Participants who considered sectarianism to be a form of extremism also highlighted it as being potentially more difficult to identify than other types of extremism. As discussed previously, participants commented that sectarianism is so engrained within Scottish culture that it is rarely labelled as extremism, which is reflected in the low number of referrals to Prevent for sectarianism.

In terms of support for those who may be vulnerable to extremism, some participants felt that individuals who present with a mixed, unstable or unclear ideology could be more difficult to help than individuals affiliating with other ideologies, due to a view that it can be challenging to offer a counter-narrative to forms of extremism that are not necessarily coherent or clear.

‘I think if there’s an identified ideology it makes it easier to actually deal with. For those who don’t have an identified ideology and kind of sit in between, or sit in the cracks and the gaps, it becomes very difficult to actually do much with them, because you’re not, you can’t then address the ideology and try and reverse it.’ (Police sector participant)

The incel movement was also highlighted as particularly complex and less well-understood than other forms of extremism because it has only recently gained traction. It was felt that specific training on incel and mixed, unclear or unstable ideologies would be beneficial for practitioners.

6.4. Summary

Across all interviews with participants representing statutory sectors, there were mixed views on the ability of those working within these sectors to identify and support individuals who may be vulnerable to being drawn into extremism. While many felt that practitioners are well-placed to identify and support vulnerable individuals, participants also highlighted various concerns, most commonly around the requirement for more resources and funding to deliver Prevent, and the need for training on behaviours and signs to look out for.

All participants discussed the impact of COVID-19 on the ability of frontline practitioners to identify and support vulnerable individuals. Many felt that COVID-19 made it more challenging to identify those vulnerable to extremism, but views were more mixed on the impact of COVID-19 on supporting individuals identified as vulnerable. However, it was felt that COVID-19 is no longer impacting the ability of practitioners to identify and support vulnerable individuals.

Finally, some participants felt that particular forms of extremism may be more challenging to identify and address than others, including the incel movement, sectarianism, and other mixed, unstable or unclear ideologies.