Memorandum from Aylesbury Vale PVE Strategic Advisory group (PVE 42)

 

1. Summary

1.1 This is a collated response from the Aylesbury Vale PVE Strategic Advisory Group. This group is a multi-agency partnership currently consisting of: Aylesbury Vale District Council, Thames Valley Police (TVP), Chair of the TVP Independent Advisory Group, Bucks County Council, Aylesbury Vale Equalities and Human Rights Council, [the Government Office for the South East also attend strategy group meetings].

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

2.1 The current seven objectives under the Prevent programme are relevant and the Government has provided guidance on the kind of activities that can be delivered under those objectives to address violent extremism.

 

2.2 The group strongly agrees that the following elements need to be integral in order to achieve the desired outcome:

i. Engagement with community leaders in particular, is essential to address this agenda

ii. In order to build resilience, the criteria of the type of activities that can be delivered should be based on a robust evidence base of the needs of the community; community led; and more flexible (eg: to involve the wider community),

iii. Vulnerable individuals (i.e. disaffected youth) from other communities of interest should be engaged and included in activities.

iv. The programme should be re-branded to increase engagement from the community. Although this is beginning to be addressed in recent documents the Government should ensure the language and messages are clearer. A high-profile re-branding may help overcome the 'label' of PVE, which has, in our experience, deterred some community organisations and groups from becoming involved with the programme.

v. A multi-agency approach is the most effective way of ensuring services are addressing local issues in an holistic way, whilst recognising the remit of each partner in being able to deliver against each of the seven objectives.

 

3. Question 1

How robust is the Government's analysis of the factors which lead people to become involved in violent extremism?

 

3.1 The government's analysis of the factors is accurate, however further analysis of the causes is required in order to develop effective solutions. The kind of solutions to focus on might be those that address socio-economic inequalities (for example education, employment and training), celebrate diverse communities and build cohesive communities. These should allow for flexibility to take into account local concerns and priorities.

3.2 Is the 'Prevent' programme appropriately targeted to address the most important of those factors?

3.3 The Prevent programme, as we understand it, expects all seven objectives to be addressed proportionately in relation to local needs. In our experience and based on local evidence, the local need is met predominantly through objectives 3 and 4. The partnership firmly believes that the programme should link Prevent activities with the wider community, however, as Aylesbury Vale does not receive Cohesion funding we are limited in what we can do and therefore risk excluding the wider community and undermining the work we do around Prevent.

 

4. Question 2

How appropriate, and how effective, is the Government's strategy for engaging with communities?

 

4.1 The Government's approach to engaging with communities has been through multi-agency partnerships, led by the local authorities. This is appropriate and effective in that local authorities are 'closer' to communities because of their knowledge of local communities, the ongoing engagement they carry out, and the services they provide which may also have an impact on the communities that Prevent is aiming to support. However, as Prevent as a national issue, it would be more effective to have a national strategy to run alongside and support the work of local partners.

4.2 Has the Government been speaking to the right people? Has its programme reached those at whom it is-or should be-aimed?

4.3 The Government has relayed most of its messages to lead agencies, who in turn have been sharing them with partners and relaying them to community organisations and communities that they want to engage in the Prevent agenda. The messages provided by Government have not always been clear or consistent and the language used has deterred some sections of the community with whom the local authority would like to engage. The very nature of the programme still elicits a mixed response from community members and some people feel that it isolates and stigmatises their community and has a negative impact on community cohesion. The partnership feels that the Government should focus less on the headline of PVE and do more work to communicate the broader messages of the programme to emphasise, for example, the support offered through the programme. Messages need to be tailored to the audience and relayed through 'respected' community leaders.

5. Question 3

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

5.1 The information and advice provided by the Government Office and Office for Security and Counter Terrorism is of a really good standard and helps to ensure that the partnership remains on track with its plan and proposed future activities. Regarding evaluation, the partnership feels that there should be independent evaluation as this would help to inform the development of the programme in the future. Additionally, this would also make it easier to make comparisons across authorities.

6. Question 4

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

6.1 The objectives of Prevent and the programme have not been communicated effectively to the Muslim community by central Government. There is mistrust within some parts of the Muslim community to engage with the Prevent agenda because of the lack of clarity regarding some of the terms/language used. In particular, we have received feedback that there is an assumption that anyone supported through the programme is automatically perceived by the rest of the community as susceptible to becoming a terrorist.

6.2 There should have been a more thorough assessment of the impact on the Muslim community, with a more effective plan to mitigate some of the negative press and use of language.

7. Question 5

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

7.1 It has not been made clear how and who the Government is seeking and obtaining appropriate advice from, therefore it is difficult to respond to this question. The Government's engagement with Muslim communities should be more direct rather than solely through local partners. The general Muslim population should have more opportunities to engage with Government to discuss and develop solutions that would work - rather than through representative Muslim forums or groups.

8. Question 6

How effectively has the Government evaluated the effectiveness of the programme and the value for money which is being obtained from it?

8.1 Prevent is a long term programme and it will be difficult to evaluate its effectiveness in the short term. To ensure value for money the Government must ensure that there is funding and support available for the long term after March 2011. Withdrawing funding for community led projects and expecting local partners to begin to mainstream, at a time when budgets will be reducing substantially, is unrealistic and will have a significant negative effect on the communities and the Prevent objectives. The effectiveness of the programme in preventing Muslim extremists cannot be measured without also considering the impact of the programme on the wider community on community cohesion.

8.2 Have reactions to the programme been adequately gauged?

8.3 No. There is little evidence that local partners have been asked for their views to date, or that any changes have been made as a result. There is also little evidence of engagement with the wider community and the impact this has had on community cohesion.

9. Question 7

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?

9.1 There is differentiation between the Prevent programme and other policy frameworks such as cohesion and integration. However there is debate about the extent to which they can be viewed separately. As the Prevent programme develops we feel that the links between Prevent, cohesion and equalities needs to be clarified to develop a clear understanding within the community and across partners about the linkages and differences between these work streams, and the impact one can have upon another. Only when this is done can Prevent be mainstreamed, so that instead of being viewed in isolation it will be seen as the responsibility of the whole community.

 

September 2009