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, eg 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."
"The peer support and the events that
took place mark a significant milestone between the local authority
and Muslim communities"
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 two and three 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
| 
