Memorandum from the LGA Group (PVE 30)

 

 

The LGA Group is made up of six organisations - the Local Government Association, Improvement and Development Agency, Local Government Employers, Local Authority Co-ordinators of Regulatory Services, Local Partnerships and the Leadership Centre for Local Government. Our shared ambition is to make an outstanding contribution to the success of local government.

 

The LGA is the single voice for local government. As a voluntary membership body, funded almost entirely by the subscriptions of over 400 member authorities in England and Wales, we lobby and campaign for changes in policy and legislation on behalf of our member councils and the people and communities they serve.

 

We work with and on behalf of our membership to deliver our shared vision of an independent and confident local government sector, where local priorities drive public service improvement in every city, town and village and every councillor acts as a champion for their ward and for the people they represent.

 

 

In response to the questions posed by the Committee, we offer the following responses:

 

(1) Is the Prevent programme the right way of addressing the problem of violent extremism, or are there better ways of doing it?

 

This is not entirely 'new' territory - collectively national and local government have dealt with terrorism, extremist activity and unpleasant perversions of religious rhetoric in various forms before. However, we are all aware of the salience and scale of the particular threat from AQ-inspired extremism, and the need for a co-ordinated, robust and thoughtful approach to a complex and evolving problem.

 

Our focus within the LGA group is on the role of local government. We are concerned how the national Prevent policy meshes with local councils' ability to deliver what they feel is best for their communities. Local authorities have a vital role in promoting safer, stronger communities; promoting 'shared values', and building resilience to extremist rhetoric and behaviour at a local level and we are pleased that this is recognised at national level. Over the past two years, the LGA has played a central role in challenging and shaping policy development, through championing and reflecting the views of local authorities as the Prevent programme has developed. Both IDeA and LGA have also been closely involved in supporting delivery at a local level.

 

We have not always agreed with the Government's rhetoric - particularly at the outset, when the language was less nuanced, and the focus on Muslim communities at times felt heavy-handed and was felt by many to undermine cohesion work. Many local authorities felt that Government lacked consideration for the difficulties they faced in initiating a meaningful dialogue with partners and local communities to get understanding and buy-in to Prevent at a local level. And there was a genuine sense that Government was unclear about the precise nature of the role that local authorities should play - as opposed to the Police.

 

But we have come a long way since then. Both we and the authorities we represent and work with would acknowledge that we have had some difficult but useful debates, both with local delivery partners and national Government. We are, collectively, in a better place now in understanding some of the grievances, concerns and vulnerabilities we need to address within our communities.

 

Some key strengths of the programme to date include:

 

· Improved local partnership working between Police and local government, including development of Counter Terrorism Local Profiles (CTLPs)

· Greater confidence and trust from central Government in local capacity to deliver - evidenced, for example, through the expansion of the IDeA's sector-led support and review programme; Challenge and Innovation Fund and continuation of delivery of Prevent funding through Area Based Grant rather than ringfencing

· Good communications between national and local government through the Government Office network. In our view, Government Offices have made considerable and noticeable improvements in their key role as a conduit for information exchange between national and local government. Their role in NI35 self-assessments and support for CAA has generally been viewed as positive by local authorities and their partners, and both IDeA and LGA are grateful for the key role they played in identifying key areas for IDeA support and review for 2009-10

· Government has shown a willingness to shift policy in response to dialogue with local delivery partners. The FCO's decision to explicitly acknowledge the impact of foreign policy and international events on local grievance was a good example. Supporting this with visits to local communities was also appreciated.

 

In our view some areas for further development include:

 

· Need for greater acknowledgement of the role of local councillors in leading, representing and supporting local communities. The LGA and IDeA have taken the initiative on working to improve support, training and communications specifically for councillors through development of a 'councillors network'. This work is being supported by CLG and RICU.

· Need for more confidence in engaging with controversial voices at a national level. Government needs to be more confident in its dealings with those with whom it does not agree, especially when they have broad support from within communities or in academic circles. Government Departments should also be consistent in their approach to relationships.

· Further discussion and clarity of understanding is needed on the relationship between Prevent and 'other forms of extremism', including Far Right extremism

· Government must remain visibly committed to the line that focusing on preventing AQ-inspired extremism, and identifying and supporting vulnerable members of Muslim communities, absolutely does not and should not equate to 'demonising' British Muslims. Strong and committed reiteration of these key messages at a national level is important to enable local authorities to rebut and address local grievances about the remit of Prevent. Ministerial speeches have gone some way in addressing this and we would want this to continue.

· Tension between OSCT and CLG on the nature of the focus of Prevent, and the activity which should flow from that, can be a problem at times. We in local government support John Denham MP's view of Prevent as distinct but necessarily situated within the broader context of community cohesion and equalities. We do not believe that this in any way dilutes Prevent, it simply sits it in the appropriate context. Police and the Security Services will necessarily see things from a different perspective. But as OSCT builds a direct relationship with local government delivery as well as local Police then these messages need to be properly aligned across Government.

 

(2) How robust is the Government's analysis of the factors which lead people to become involved in violent extremism? Is the 'Prevent' programme appropriately targeted to address the most important of those factors?

 

Firstly we feel that the Government is committed to trying to identify potential risks and drivers through ongoing commissioned research. For example the research that has taken place at Manchester University, looking at commonalities in influences and behaviours among UK nationals convicted of terrorist offences.

 

Concrete analysis of potential risk factors is rightly different from developing a profile of the 'typical extremist'. Some of the early presentations from JTAC presented a continuum from grievance or alienation through radicalisation to violent extremism. We are pleased to see that this approach has been replaced by a more holistic view of potential risks and interventions.

 

There is an acknowledgement at both the national and local level that the ability to prevent acts of violence of this kind goes to the heart of some serious social, psychological and philosophical debates. However, there is also a strong, and we feel sensibly founded, sense that Prevent must be practically situated within a wider context of equality, human rights, social cohesion and social justice.

 

The local context is therefore of paramount importance and Prevent is quite rightly focused at the local level. LGA and IDeA have been key partners with national Government from the outset and we feel that this current balance between national and local leadership and delivery is about right.

 

One of the key issues identified at a local level was the quality and protocols for sharing key information on risks and vulnerable individuals between Police, local authorities and key community partners. LGA and IDeA therefore worked with OSCT to develop and introduce CTLPs. Early feedback is encouraging, although more could still be done to ensure that the appropriate information is being shared with frontline and middle-tier officers with responsibility for monitoring and delivering projects and Action Plans.

 

In our view, the objectives of the Prevent strategy have stood up through the difficult initial phases of policy implementation and have proved a useful framework within which to work.

 

(3) How appropriate, and how effective, is the Government's strategy for engaging with communities? Has the Government been speaking to the right people? Has its programme reached those at whom it is-or should be-aimed?

 

We feel strongly that engagement with communities is the business of local government, and we also feel that acknowledgement of this is one of the key strengths of the overall approach to delivering Prevent.

 

However, there are some key messages which national Government should take responsibility for delivering, for example in explaining the focus on Muslim communities. We also feel that it is crucial that national Government is absolutely clear - across all departments - on the purpose and remit of work on Prevent. But what we feel is equally important is that local partners feel empowered and supported to communicate effectively at a local level, and we would agree that the Government has taken the right approach to working with local partners including local authorities and the Police.

 

We also support the mechanisms that Government and we as partners have put in place to enable local delivery partners and local communities to give feedback and seek advice, including web resources, guidance and groups such as the Local Delivery Advisory Group (LDAG), the National Muslim Women's Advisory Group (NMWAG) and the Young Muslim Advisory Group (YMAG). Our work going forward will include closer work with local councillors who have not been central to the strategy to date.

 

(4) Is the necessary advice and expertise available to local authorities on how to implement and evaluate the programme?

 

Advice on implementation is generally strong. The scale of the programme comes with its problems - for example lack of agreement between Government departments, or speed of response to key international events (Gaza in particular) - but overall it has definitely been a strength in terms of having the resources to produce good, timely and well-written guidance on local delivery.

 

LGA and IDeA have been directly involved in delivering a wide range of advice and support to local authorities. In 2008/09 the IDeA delivered a CLG-commissioned programme of peer support to six local authorities (Derby, Preston, Peterborough, Hackney, Calderdale and Luton) to support the delivery of Prevent.

 

The aim of the peer support programme was to use teams of local government and voluntary sector peers, managed by experienced IDeA consultants / associates, to build knowledge, understanding, confidence and capacity around Prevent within the local government sector.

 

Peers were recruited, accredited and trained by the IDeA. Peers also came from a diverse range of local authorities including Tower Hamlets, Haringey, Rotherham, Burnley, Birmingham and Kirklees. There are also some VCS partners including Shaista Gohir from Muslim Voice UK and Hanif Malik from Leeds' Hamara Centre.

 

Following a successful evaluation from the participating authorities IDeA is expanding the programme this year. This will draw in a wider range of councils and sector-led learning.

 

"Peers were extremely useful in challenging what Luton had done and not done, e.g. deliberate decision not to work with councillors. The Member briefing they proposed has enabled some influential councillors to develop a good understanding of the issues."

Lead Officer, Luton

 

"The peer support and the events that took place mark a significant milestone between the local authority and Muslim communities"

Lead Officer, Hackney

 

LGA was disappointed by the Government's decision to introduce 'Direct Support', now called the Prevent Exemplar Partnership Programme. We do appreciate that in can be difficult for Government to get first-hand understanding of how Prevent is being delivered on the ground, and to demonstrate value for money, but we feel a national-Government-led programme of this kind undermines the commitment to freedom and flexibility in local delivery.

 

LGA have led on setting up a 'Councillors Network' to provide training and information to councillors on Prevent policy and implementation. Again the intention is for this to be primarily sector-led, with support and facilitation from LGA and IDeA.

 

LGA has also produced written guidance for councillors and run a successful national conference specifically for the local government sector. This is being followed up with a One Year On event on 10 November 2009.

 

(5) Are the objectives of the 'Prevent' agenda being communicated effectively to those at whom it is aimed?

 

In terms of consistent messages and resources, we feel generally 'yes'. As noted above, the scale of the programme and the resources committed to it mean that the quality of published guidance is good.

 

We also feel that communication between local and national government has improved.

 

RICU has taken a time to establish but it is now starting to take a genuinely meaningful role in co-ordinating communication across and between national and local Government and with local partners.

 

There is still some way to go. We still see evidence of gaps at a local level, particularly between senior figures in the Police and local government and their frontline staff, and with councillors and community partners. We hope that some of the work around, for example CTLPs and the ongoing development of RICU's local focus, as well as ongoing local delivery support from IDeA will continue to strengthen local communications and information sharing. For example IDeA will be working with Rotherham council and South Yorkshire Police, as well as other South Yorkshire authorities this year to build on identified good practice on information sharing between partners.

 

Government Offices have improved considerably in their role as a key conduit for information between national and local Government.

 

Lack of consistency of message between key Government departments is the main source of confusion.

 

Open access to advice and guidance remains a key area for further work and we welcome CLG's planned redevelopment of its web resource to provide more accessible information to these audiences. IDeA and LGA are working closely with CLG to ensure that sector-led content hosted on their pages complements key Government content and information. We feel that there is a considerable lack of clarity about the purpose and audience for OSCT's recently launched website.

 

We welcomed the Government's two national conferences, and the strength of some of the workshops was encouraging. We welcome the proposed commitment to making this year's event less about plenary sessions and far more about interaction between both national and local delivery partners.

 

(6) Is the Government seeking, and obtaining, appropriate advice on how to achieve the goals of the 'Prevent' programme?

 

Dialogue with local government and its partners has been good, and is evidence of a trusting relationship. However timeliness could be improved. In our view the Government could usefully do more to acknowledge the role the sector has had in shaping its current stance and the acknowledgement of the merits of sector-led learning.

 

A good example of sector-led learning was when, in April 2009, Slough council began a forum discussion on the IDeA Community of Practice about the use of council assets by groups with extreme political views. LGA and IDeA picked up and facilitated a meeting and ongoing discourse with about 20 local authorities, which led to the development of written guidance. This was an entirely sector-led discussion of a real and pertinent issue for local authorities. Councils both acknowledged and accepted that the approach depended on local circumstances, but also made an important commitment to offering mutual support and advice to one another when groups with questionable views or motives attempted to use council-owned premises to host meetings. National Government acknowledged the importance and value of this coming from local authorities themselves

 

Government is in a difficult position in relation to monitoring and evaluating Prevent at a national level. The LGA group supports the discretion afforded local authorities through the use of ABG to distribute Prevent funding, but we are also aware that this does not satisfy Ministers in understanding precisely how Prevent money is being spent. We in LGA and IDeA support the view that local authorities should be seeking to evaluate the local impacts of their work on Prevent. However, because of the newness of this agenda, whilst we do not support close monitoring, there is a reasonable desire to collect good practice for further policy development and the IDeA Group can play a role in that. IDeA's Action Planning challenge and development sessions and its online networks will actively support this information-sharing. We also felt that the OSCT publications following their review of all of the Action Plans in May 2009 was helpful. We support the proposed review / refresh of Action Plans in October 2009. Within this context we feel that the 'Tracker' is now an unnecessarily cumbersome and bureaucratic tool for capturing local delivery.

 

We think the Local Delivery Advisory Group (LDAG), National Muslim Womens Advisory Group (NMWAG) and the Young Muslim Advisory Group (YMAG) are all positive and constructive approaches to seeking advice from communities. We would perhaps like to see these groups refreshed and broadened a bit more than they are the moment.

 

Think Tanks have produced a huge range of research on the issue of Prevent, for example the NLGN report on broadening the focus or the Policy Research Centre's recent report on the views of young British Muslims. We would like to see Government taking a more active role in reviewing and debating the findings of these reports, rather than generally dismissing them. We feel we are more responsive on this and as the policy agenda matures and more research of this nature is published, we in the local government sector are already ensuring that that research is being adequately acknowledged, debated and analysed. One example of this is the IDeA which is currently revising its web pages to provide a greater degree of discussion and debate with key local government figures to support this.

 

(7) How effectively has the Government evaluated the effectiveness of the programme and the value for money which is being obtained from it? Have reactions to the programme been adequately gauged?

 

Given the clear philosophical constraints on measuring the success of Prevent we feel that there have been some good, early attempts to measure the impact and effectiveness of work on Prevent.

 

The joint HMIC Audit Commission review was hugely valuable piece of work, and we welcome the inclusion of Prevent work in the CAA.

 

We also have confidence in the work that is being delivered between CLG, OSCT, LGA and IDeA to work with local authorities to challenge and monitor delivery Prevent at a local level through reviews of local Action Plans.

 

With regards to NI35, it focuses on processes rather than outcomes and therefore it is of limited value. We feel that there is a good emerging performance management methodology for Prevent emerging through other channels, for example the Tavistock evaluation recommendations and local authorities' own Action Plan monitoring and we feel that NI35 could usefully be dropped from a revised indicator set without devaluing work on Prevent. This could be supported by a sensible discussion of how other indicators - for example NI2 (belonging) support and reflect effective Prevent delivery.

 

The ability of local authorities to agree what works for them locally and to monitor the impacts that they feel matter at a local level is an important one. We therefore welcome the Government's recent Prevent evaluation guidance, commissioned from the Tavistock Institute.

 

Gauging of public reactions has been less well-developed. We know that there is still a strong sense in some quarters that Prevent focuses unfairly on Muslim communities. More robust analysis and discussion of this would be beneficial.

 

(8) Is there adequate differentiation between what should be achieved through the Prevent programme and the priorities that concern related, but distinct, policy frameworks such as cohesion and integration?

 

In the early stages of Prevent there was considerable lack of clarity about what precisely it was the Government felt local authorities could and should take lead responsibility for in relation to Prevent. There was rhetoric about it being 'distinct from community cohesion', but in reality it was difficult to place this and to work out what was the responsibilities of local authorities (as opposed to Police).

 

We feel that considerable progress has been made in resolving this - largely through considerable on-going dialogue and a shared acceptance of the complexity of the agenda. The Prevent objectives have been very helpful for this understanding. Objectives 2 and 3 are controversial for local authorities, but we feel that their inclusion in the Prevent strategy is crucial to promoting local debate and commitment to tackling the more hard-edged aspects of the Prevent agenda.

 

It should not be problematic that some aspects of Prevent overlap with community cohesion, integration, or equality. Local authorities are experienced and sophisticated about joining policy up at a local level, and in looking at diverse outcomes and impacts within their communities.

 

There is an inherent tension between delivering Prevent through ABG, and the way in which it clearly overlaps with other policy agendas, and a desire to ensure that money is being spent appropriately and effectively. However, we feel strongly that the way to resolve this is not through increased Government intervention and micro-management of local delivery. Local circumstances will be the key influence on how Prevent is both articulated and understood in each area.

 

Action Plans are a useful and welcome methodology for capturing local prevent delivery, and we think it is useful for councils and their partners to articulate what they feel impacts on Prevent in their locality, and how this is being addressed. The strong examples cited by the Home Office in their recent publications, for example those from Waltham Forest, Rotherham and Peterborough, demonstrate how a considerable range and diversity of projects and working relationships can be captured in a way that is genuinely helpful, useful and informative. The good examples of Action Plans also effectively demonstrate how Prevent is positioned within an overall mainstreamed approach to supporting and maintaining safer, stronger local communities.

 

September 2009