Understanding extremism in Scotland: research findings - summary

Views on Prevent in Scotland

Levels of awareness of Prevent were low among the public and public sector practitioners. While the public would not necessarily be expected to know about Prevent, greater awareness would be expected among practitioners, given their statutory obligation to fulfil the Prevent duty.

Although awareness was low, there was general support for the policy in principle, and a desire for more awareness of how it works in practice.

Positive aspects of Prevent delivery identified by stakeholders and practitioners included: the positioning of Prevent as a policy that supports community cohesion and integration in Scotland; the Prevent Multi-Agency Panel (PMAP) guidance^[3]; resources and approaches used within Prevent such as Intervention Providers^[4]; and the involvement of a range of sectors in the delivery of Prevent.

Concerns raised by stakeholders and practitioners included: the view that Prevent has a negative reputation, for reasons such as a perception of excessive surveillance and an overemphasis on Islamist extremism; that the training could be made more engaging; and a perceived lack of resources and funding.

Stakeholders also felt there is a lack of work to tackle the causes of radicalisation, and that Prevent's reputation could be improved in Scotland if there were greater grassroots engagement with communities, third sector organisations and faith groups; support of projects and initiatives to encourage community cohesion and integration; and events and workshops, with the purpose of raising awareness of Prevent and challenging extremism at a local level.

Most public sector practitioners felt confident that they could identify someone at risk of being drawn into extremism. However, only a minority felt very confident, and many struggled to clearly articulate the signs of extremism they would look out for. Their levels of confidence in knowing what to do if they came across someone at risk of being drawn into extremism were slightly higher.

This suggests that increasing confidence in identifying individuals who may be susceptible to extremism – and improved understanding of what to do in the event of such an identification – are important areas that could be more effectively addressed. Building practitioner confidence in how to identify a susceptible person emerged as a particular priority.

This was reflected in the research with stakeholders, who felt that training for practitioners on behaviours which indicate susceptibility to extremism would be beneficial.