Memorandum from Oxford Council of Faiths (PVE 58)

 

 

Evaluation of 'Prevent' Initiative for Prevention of Violent Extremism

· Too narrow focus of 'Prevent'

· Government 'quick-fix' and 'knee-jerk' responses

· Lack of communication with grass roots

· Lack of knowledge of community divisions

· Lack of sustainability for projects

· Lack of proper provision for carry forward spending

· Poor value for money

· Government ignorance of cultural norms

· Short term culture of civic finances

 

Evaluation of 'Prevent' Initiative for Prevention of Violent Extremism

1. The Communities and Local Government Committee is right to undertake this evaluation of the 'Prevent' programme. Much of the focus of this initiative has been misdirected and far too narrow in content. The Prevent programme has not been helpful to the general community. There are certainly better ways of creating peaceful and sustainable communities than the short term finance of projects that are not properly embedded in the local community.

2. There is the fundamental problem that much government action seems to be reactive rather than proactive. The knee-jerk response to the September 11 terrorism in New York and the July 7 bombings in London have alienated sections of the community as they seem to have not taken into consideration the innate loyalty to the state of the majority of residents in the UK. The actions seem to be duplicitous, if not downright dishonest and are often contradictory in their expressed intentions. The reaction towards the Moslem Community in England is seen as both appeasement of some of the socially unacceptable behaviour of some of that community and a wholesale suppression of legitimate expression of political activity when it contradicts government actions or policy.

3. At times the reaction of the state seems to equate to a sense of inerrability of the government; as for instance, when it declared 'war against terrorism' or invaded the states of Iraq and Afghanistan. There has been what has appeared to be a draconian reaction to protests about government policy which is seen by people as 'unjust'. The passing of laws to prevent reasonable assembly or the security measures which impinged mainly upon innocent bystanders rather than concentrating on real security issues has hindered community acceptance of policy.

4. What is seen as the duplicity of the state does not help build up the aims of the 'Prevent' programme. The response of interested parties has therefore ranged from incredulity or direct alienation of the people that were most needed to support the policy.

5. There has been a lack of communication both at national and local levels to the expression of the intentions of the 'Prevent' programme. Often the absence of a sense of equity towards all sectors of society has led to a mistrust of the policy initiative. Also there is a lack of understanding on the part of the civic authorities of the cultural and religious expectations of many of the faith groups in society. There has been a great readiness to accept as representative people from faith communities who most nearly presented western societal norms.

6. Most of the people who have represented Moslem or other faith groups have been self selecting and do not necessarily have the support or backing of the wider community of the faith for which they claim to be representative. There are instances where the acceptance of self-definition as belonging to a specific faith community has not been challenged; this has lead, in places, to the withdrawal of the majority of a faith community from participation in activities fronted by these self-appointed spokespersons.

7. I have to some extent colluded, so far, with the equating of violent extremism with 'British' and 'Moslem' relationships. This is tempting as it provides easily identifiable 'combatants'. It also establishes two commonly underlying propositions; 'We need to integrate Moslems into British Society' and 'We need to make British Society aware of and accepting towards Moslem faith and culture'. Both of these are half truths and exempt us from investigating more deeply the underlying causes of discontent in UK society. Further there is not a single body of concepts that identify 'Moslems' as a group or one that uniquely defines what is meant by 'British Society'.

8. Within National and Local Government there seems to be a failure to realise that within the Moslem, Hindu, Jewish Buddhist and Sikh communities there can be divisions which are as deep and at times deeper than between Christian communities in Britain. And that the adherents of minority groups are often those who take greatest part in dialogue with civic bodies.

9. The lack of genuine community representation noted above will lead to a dialogue between like-minded individuals who are trying to do the best for the community but have not the support or backing of the community. Some initiatives will be seen as trying to deprive communities of their individuality and distinctiveness in programmes that are seen as paternalistic or imperial.

10. One development in recent years is the consolidation of much of the government funding through a single agency which mixes Lottery derived money and Central Government grants. This has led to a falling off of the acceptability of the funding to those who adhere most closely to their beliefs whether they are Moslem, Christian, Buddhist or other people of faith. This tainting of financial sources has led to a lessening in the acceptability of many activities financed by 'Central Government' money.

11. The transparency of the funding of initiatives is important as it will affect the uptake and targeting of them.

12. The existence of the several funding strands and initiatives has diluted the comprehension by both Local and Central Government of the different strands and more importantly sown confusion in the Community generally. The potential exists for good projects to fall between the cracks of funding streams and the failure of different parts of the country to uniformly put the different strands into practice.

13. The lack of economy of scale that a single Community Building programme would have and the ability of officers at a local level to combine imaginative programmes has been taken away. There is not an holistic approach to Community at a local level and disparate activities remain unconnected and there is a serious waste of resources and experience that could have been shared between similar projects. The community misunderstanding of the various strands of funding and the frequent overlapping objectives is great and even those most closely involved with good community relations are perplexed by the interpretation given to the criteria for their administration.

14. The most serious objection, as I see it, is the lack of continued funding to successful projects which can be deemed successful by those administering them but then completely fold after the withdrawal of 'Prevent' funding. For example if a detached Youth Worker is employed for a one or two year project there will be established many initiatives that would continue to benefit the community but which cease to exist because there is no carry forward funding or no mechanism to transfer the project to main-stream funding. Similarly, a one off education project to provide guidance and information about a particular aspect or aspects of inter-faith dialogue or cooperation may produce excellent material which becomes dated and in need of refreshing or reissuing to reach an ever-changing clientele. This continuation funding is not there; nor can it be written into the initial project proposal that a certain amount of the funding is carried forward to enable this refreshment process in years ahead. This means that good projects are created which then are squandered by being left on a shelf or on a website that becomes progressively dated and so is not consulted.

15. The value for money, of short-term projects will be less than that for good embedded projects that continue to contribute to their local community. The knee-jerk or quick-fix mentality that seems to characterise much of government activity will inevitably lead to waste of money and the misdirection of resources. The need is for proactive participation that takes us away from fulfilling short-term politically-correct solutions to a long-term and holistic approach that accepts and builds upon the values within the local communities. Central Government needs to learn from and listen to the many faith communities and local communities across the country to find out what is actually the practice within a community, what are the values of the community and how can it build upon these practices and values to create a sustainable community that is respected by the state and which itself respects the state.

 

September 2009