Memorandum from the London Borough of
Barking and Dagenham (PVE 11)
CLG COMMITTEE INTO
"PREVENT"
SUMMARY
— The nature of the Prevent agenda has
meant that new strategies and interventions have had to be developed
at speed.
— The Government's approach in supporting
locally-relevant strategies is welcomed, but it must be accepted
that this reduces the potential for standard or easily measured
outcomes.
— Consequently, the evaluation framework
for this programme is perceived as being under-developed.
— Considerable care should be taken in
communicating messages relating to the Prevent agenda, and in
particular when attempting to rebut "myths"—experience
has shown that this will not be achieved by simply circulating
key messages.
— Further work is required to place Prevent
work more effectively within the community cohesion agenda.
1. 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?
1.1 The Government has rightly recognised
that the bulk of its engagement with communities in relation to
the Prevent agenda can only be carried out at a very local level,
through local government and its partners.
1.2 The benefit of this approach is that
it can be targeted towards local need and circumstances. The unavoidable
risk is that there is a lack of visibility as to whether all relevant
groups are being engaged with.
1.3 This is further complicated where communities
are rapidly changing. In authorities such as Tower Hamlets and
the northwest and east where muslim communities are well established,
the profile of local communities is well known and can be readily
understood. In a borough such as Barking and Dagenham, where it
is estimated that the BME population has increased from approximately
15% in 2001 to around 25% at present, to be able to identify
and engage with the relevant communities is highly challenging.
More up-to-date demographic information than that provided by
the 2001 census would assist in this work.
2. Is the necessary advice and expertise
available to local authorities on how to implement and evaluate
the programme?
2.1 When the Prevent strategy was first
launched there was very little advice and expertise available
on the implementation of the programme. Over the last 18 months
this provision has developed, but it is still limited, and is
not always relevant to local circumstances, since most advice
is forthcoming from areas which have experienced significant PVE
challenges. The development of a proportionate, risk-based approach
therefore remains a challenge.
2.2 Very limited advice and expertise has
been forthcoming in relation to the evaluation of PVE programmes.
The recent self-assessment framework for National Indicator 35 was
very usefully supplemented by guidance produced by a London Borough
and shared more widely.
2.3 Greater clarity from the Government
about the objectives of the Prevent programme has emerged over
the last 18 months, which has assisted in achieving a greater
focus on required areas of work, but, due to the nature of the
objectives, it will remain difficult to demonstrate a clear link
between cause and effect—particularly that by employing
X interventions, no violent extremism has emerged from a particular
locality.
3. Are the objectives of the "Prevent"
agenda being communicated effectively to those at whom it is aimed?
3.1 The objectives of the Prevent agenda
have now been communicated effectively to those officers who lead
its implementation (this was not always the case).
3.2 However, there remains the question
as to how effectively the objectives of the Prevent agenda have
been communicated to the muslim and wider communities. Recent
efforts by the Government to represent and refocus the Prevent
agenda are unlikely to overcome negative impressions about the
programme already implanted in both muslim and indigenous communities.
3.3 In Barking and Dagenham we have done
considerable work to understand the prerequisites of effective
conversations with local residents—which includes building
up trust, empathy and respect, before one can hope to discuss
"myths" on any topic. The Government's continued tactic
of disseminating briefings which state the Government's position
on matters relating to the Prevent agenda are unlikely to change
the opinions of anyone who is not already favourably disposed
to the Government on this matter without considerable work to
build that trust.
3.4 Furthermore, guidance on good practice
in mythbusting, which has been borne out in light of experience
in Barking and Dagenham, shows that stating and re-stating the
facts is not only ineffective, but can be counter-productive in
an environment where there is disaffection and alienation, and
extremist politics are gaining traction.
4. 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?
4.1 Please see the response given at paragraph
two above to the availability of expertise on how to evaluate
the programme. From a local authority perspective, there has been
little visibility of Government evaluation of the effectiveness
or value for money of the programme, or reactions to it.
5. 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?
5.1 There is clear differentiation between
Prevent work and cohesion and integration frameworks. The concern
is rather at the lack of joining-up across policies: many of the
problems which have arisen from the Prevent programme could have
been addressed if the Prevent work had been considered in light
of the wider cohesion agenda from the beginning. Similarly, as
the Prevent strategy is developed, there is no sign that it is
developed in light of developing cohesion guidance or initiatives.
5.2 The lack of joining-up is also an issue
within the Prevent agenda: what appear to be arbitrary security
restrictions on documentation have acted as a barrier to information
sharing and joined-up working with the police in the context of
otherwise excellence collaborative working between the police
and local authority.
September 2009
| 
