Preventing Violent Extremism - Communities and Local Government Committee Contents


Memorandum from Leicester City Council (PVE 29)

1.  LEICESTER—CONTEXT

  1.1  Leicester is a very diverse, multi faith, multi ethnic city and is amongst the most diverse ethnic minority communities outside of London. The city prides itself on this and the high levels of community cohesion that exists within and amongst its communities.

  1.2  This uniqueness has attracted much national and international public and academic interest in the city and how it manages community cohesion.

  1.3  Local intelligence indicates that approximately 60% of the city's population is ethically white and 40% have an ethnic minority background.

  1.4  In terms of faith, Leicester has a unique mix of Christians, Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs. The majority of the ethnic minority community are Hindu (approximately 61%), a quarter are Muslim (approximately 25%) and 4% are Sikh. (Leicester City Council estimates September 2009).

  1.5  Faith seems to play an active part in the lives of many of Leicester's communities. There are approximately 150 places of Christian worship in the city, two Jewish synagogues, 36 mosques—majority of which are Sunni mosques, 22 Hindu temples, seven Sikh Gudwaras and one Jain temple.

2.  LEICESTER'S MUSLIM COMMUNITIES

  2.1  Two thirds of Leicester's Muslim communities are of Indian origin.

  2.2  Over recent years, particularly since the arrival of Somali communities from 2001, as well as asylum seekers and refugees, the Muslim population in the city has significantly increased. This growth is expected to continue as 26% of the school population is Muslim and 15% Hindu. (PLASC, 2006).

  2.3  As well as our Muslim population increasing we have observed an increase in devoutness to the Islamic faith with an increase in symbols, the wearing of the headscarf by Muslim women and religious dress.

  2.4  Another interesting observation is that our Hindu and Muslim communities are very spatially concentrated in Leicester: Hindus in the north of the city, and Muslims to the east of the city centre. There are no similar concentrations observed for other religions.

3.  MAINSTREAMING MODERATION IN LEICESTER

  3.1  During 2007-08, Leicester was identified as a priority local authority and became one of the government's 70 Pathfinder areas.

  3.2  Following the launch of the Prevent Strategy, the city was provided with additional three year funding through the Local Area Based Grant in support of work to prevent violent extremism.

  3.3  Leicester has questioned the government's use of "Preventing Violent Extremism" (PVE) language and has chosen to refer to it locally as a strategy of "Mainstreaming Moderation" which is more suited to the to the city's approach as it encompasses all forms of violent extremism.

  3.4  We have built on the extensive work on community cohesion in the city, coupled with a focus on developing and delivering targeted work with our diverse Muslim communities.

  3.5  Over the past two years our focus on Muslim communities has concentrated on work to further understand and engage our diverse Muslim communities, work with Muslim school-age young people and women and supporting vulnerable individuals identified at risk of getting involved in violent extremism.

  3.6  In Leicester we continue to work to challenge and prevent violent extremism in all its forms and promote our city's shared values. This includes those inspired Al Qaida and linked groups, and includes the far right and animal activists etc.

  3.7  Working hand in hand with our diverse Muslim and non-Muslim communities and partners, we are actively working to identify, challenge and expose violent extremist ideologies that attack and undermine our city's shared values.

LEICESTER CITY COUNCIL'S RESPONSE TO THE QUESTIONS SET OUT BY THE COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE RELATING TO THE GOVERNMENT'S PROGRAMME FOR PREVENTING VIOLENT EXTREMISM KNOWN AS "PREVENT".

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

  1.1  A Prevent strategy and programme alone cannot and will not address the problem of violent extremism the UK faces. This is a multi layered, multi issue, complex agenda and the response needs to acknowledge and address this.

  1.2  The current strategy has, intentionally or not, led to the stigmatisation and isolation of some of our Muslim communities. This has been unhelpful and at times even detrimental to the strong levels of community cohesion the city has worked so hard to achieve.

  1.3  The current Prevent programme is heavily focused on tackling "extremism" and does not give enough importance to other social factors such as poverty, deprivation, alienation and conflicts of culture and identity which all are potential influencing factors.

  1.4  By working with all our communities in a fair and transparent way we can build a greater sense of trust and confidence which will provide a stronger basis to bring about challenges and solutions to common issues that affect us all—such as the threat of violent extremism.

  1.5  We all (Government, local authorities, the police, youth services etc) need to understand that a stand alone strategy is not enough. This is a real challenge and we need to be working across strategies and cross cutting agendas to see "success"—this means making sure all services are open and accessible and fitting to the diverse communities we serve, that all our young people have a fair chance to education and achieving their aspirations, that those identified as "vulnerable" or "at risk" and their families are suitably supported.

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

  2.1  Our understanding of "terrorists" in that they lie in the shadows and do not identify themselves as "terrorists".

  2.2  The profiles of previous convicted terrorists paint a varied picture which cuts across ethnicity, culture, class, education and geographical boundaries and makes it difficult to effectively target 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?

  3.1  Broadening and deepening community engagement: The government needs to broaden its engagement to include the UK's diverse Muslim and non-Muslim communities, specifically smaller communities who do not affiliate themselves to larger representative organisations.

  3.2  This lack of formalised link to Muslim representative opinion presents problems for government and us locally too, as it can allow for individual opinions and differences to sometimes dominate the debate.

  3.3  Up until the recent refreshed version, the Prevent Strategy has focused on engaging with Muslim communities which has been at times unhelpful in engaging the "target" communities as they have felt that the finger has been pointed to them as the "problem". The refreshed version supports Leicester's approach of engaging with all communities to address varying forms and guises of violent extremism that undermine the city's shared values, including those inspired by Al-Qaida and associated groups and far right extremists.

  3.4  The Prevent strategy needs to deepen its engagement beyond the "usual suspects" and community gatekeepers. We need to reach out to and work with those that are not currently accessing service provision; those that are not writing letters to us or sitting on our various groups and committee. We need to be hearing and listening to the "unheard" voices.

  3.5  At present in Leicester partners and key community contacts' are aware of the strategy but the wider community is largely unaware, except for some negative perceptions about its intentions fuelled by media reporting and internet sites.

  3.6  For Leicester our programme of work under this agenda will need to broaden and deepen, specifically work with Muslim parents, NEET young people and those not accessing youth provision, those of University age, and our Somali and Muslim convert/revert communities. We are also stepping up our work with our white outer estate communities, dispelling myths and perceptions and addressing grievances' fuelled by the Far Right. We believe this could be a potential area of tension, ie between Far Right activist and those of Muslim faith in the city.

  3.7  There needs to be less reliance on individuals advising at a national level and closer working directly with local authorities. Each area across the UK is very different in its makeup, structures' and relationships and will therefore require localised solutions. We would like the Government to be much more open to varying approaches—and this includes the allocation of resources.

4.   IS THE NECESSARY ADVICE AND EXPERTISE AVAILABLE TO LOCAL AUTHORITIES ON HOW TO IMPLEMENT AND EVALUATE THE PROGRAMME?

  4.1  Some are available and have proved to be useful. To assist us further, we would welcome clear and consistent guidelines, templates and case studies of what a "successful" programme or intervention looks like.

  4.2  Specific guidelines around conducting a "risk assessment" of the Prevent programme would also be welcome and assist in mitigating risks such as funding groups/projects that advocate violence or that challenge our country's shared values.

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

  5.1  "Prevent" should be aimed at all of our communities and therefore the answer to this question is currently "no".

  5.2  It seems that those in the "prevent" world—practitioners', policy makers, academics and community leaders are still focusing efforts on our Muslim communities.

  5.3  In Leicester we have made conscious efforts to balance focused work with our Muslim communities as well as those from non-Muslim backgrounds. In the past we have come across some tensions with Government about our approach however with the recent refreshed version of the Prevent strategy now in place this has confirmed our approach and we will continue to build on this—for example by working specifically with our white communities from the outer estates and addressing far right tensions.

  5.4  More effort is required to promote positive images and perceptions of what the strategy is striving to deliver and achieve. Communities need to understand that this is "our" (all communities) issue and not a "Muslim" issue.

  5.5  Mainstreaming is key to achieving this. We need to have the objectives of the Prevent strategy clear in our minds and instilled in day to day work so that it become part and parcel of everyday planning and practice—rather than being a "add on".

  5.6  Increasing understanding and raising awareness is crucial to the delivery of the strategy—In Leicester we are encouraging frontline staff across public services, including police officers, youth workers, social workers, mental health staff and teachers to attend a two day awareness raising training around "Prevent".

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

  6.1  The Government have commissioned a number of research projects, reviews and inquiries into how we can best achieve the goals of the Prevent programme, but there seems to be a lack of conclusive information as a result. Further work to seek the views of communities and individuals on "the ground" needs to take place including Imams, Muslim young people and women.

  6.2  There also seems to be a lack of evidence/critical evaluation of specific programmes such as "Channel". Robust evaluation of Prevent programmes is required and this needs to be disseminated in a timely fashion so localities are able to plan and allocate resources based on "what works" at the beginning of the programme—rather than getting to the end of year two and still being asked for information relating to the previous year.

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?

  7.1  As mentioned, Government must improve the way it evaluates the effectiveness of the Prevent programme.

  7.2  To date, this has been somewhat patchy and unclear with mixed messages being communicated regarding the effectiveness of programmes. In some cases this has led to a loss of community confidence and trust in the work we do and negative press coverage.

  7.3  We need to have a much clearer understanding of what "success" looks like and be equipped to demonstrate that a project or programme has achieved Prevent related objectives—through qualitative and quantitative evidence including case studies pictures, one to one interviews, observations, interviews, questionnaires etc.

  7.4  Further work around "value for money" also needs to take place—what will end/continue after the lifetime of the Prevent programme in 2011? To ensure best value, we need to be considering if and how projects can be mainstreamed, what additional and ongoing benefits may be reaped and identify any links to community cohesion objectives before funding is awarded.

  7.5  Specialist units such as the Community Contact Unit and RICU set up by the government to facilitate the delivery of the strategy have made steps to engage partners. As we move forward, we hope that this continues and develops further.

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?

  8.1  On the ground there is still a lack of differentiation between "Prevent" and other related policy frameworks, specifically "Community Cohesion".

  8.2  It seems that practitioners working in the field and those who have been involved or have a interest in the "Prevent" world have begun to gain an understanding of this complex agenda, reflected in the way funding has been allocated to projects over the last year compared to the Pathfinder year.

  8.3  The term "community cohesion" is relatively recent—further work with strategic leads, policy makers, front line staff and communities needs to take place to communicate the similarities and distinctions with other related policy areas including the prevention of violent extremism, in a clear and accessible manner.

September 2009





 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2010
Prepared 30 March 2010