Preventing violent extremism

Report: 14
Date: 2 April 2009
By: Chief Executive

Summary

During the 5 February seminar on Preventing Violent Extremism (PVE) Members requested that a practical next steps guide be produced to set out the MPA role in PVE and provide support for Members at engagement and partnership level. The report provides background on the PVE programme for those Members unable to attend the seminar in February and sets out the key principles that govern the delivery of Preventing Violent Extremism at a local level.

A. Recommendation

That

1. MPA officers monitor progress on delivering Prevent across boroughs and report back to relevant MPA committees on a twice yearly basis, supporting members on London wide and national prevent boards;
2. it the Authority host a follow up seminar/s from the London Debate in June to inform the Authority on progress against the consultation recommendations, to consider current and changing MPS policy on section 44 and to research the impact of the Prevent programme in London’s communities; and
3. members review MPS progress against Prevent objectives in a year’s time.

B. Supporting information

1. In October 2006 70 local authorities in England received a total of £6million from the Preventing Violent Extremism Pathfinders Fund (PVEPF) and a further £45million will be provided to fund projects until 2011.

2. In London PVE is co-ordinated and managed through the Government Office for London. For 2009-10 all local authorities were requested to produce enhanced programmes of action for January 2009 to enable sufficient time for local Prevent Partnerships (which include the police) to develop and agree the local Prevent strategy for the 09-10 financial year.

3. In October last year the Audit Commission and HMIC published a joint learning and development report into the progress of PVE across the pathfinder areas. Importantly it found that:

Councils and the police are developing their strategic approach to Prevent using existing partnership arrangements and established local working relationships.

• There is a mixed picture on the strategic approach to Prevent. This reflects the varying levels of confidence in how best to respond to the complex challenge of preventing violent extremism locally. Most councils position the Prevent approach within their cohesion strategy. This tends to focus on building resilience within communities rather than explicitly addressing the vulnerability of those who may become engaged in violent extremism.
• An agreed local narrative that confidently deals with the Prevent approach is needed as the first step to success. The narrative should tell the story of the place, describing the risks and priorities to be addressed through local Prevent strategies. Where councils and police have had direct experience of dealing with the impact of terrorism, the local narrative has evolved and the Prevent approach tends to be clearly described within the cohesion strategy. The local narrative is dependent upon sound understanding of the vulnerability of communities and individuals to violent extremism through effective information sharing by all partners.
• There is a wealth of Prevent experience concentrated in a small number of councils and police forces. It is vital that current knowledge and experience, as well as new learning, are captured, shared and acted upon.
• If the local narrative is to be effective, it is vital that faith leaders and trusted community leaders are involved. They encourage local participation and provide credibility and critical challenge. It is important that Prevent initiatives are owned by communities and voluntary organisations [1].

4. The PVE programme is a partnership exercise and dependent upon information sharing, robust working relationships and leadership centred on the principles of the crime and disorder reduction partnership model. Whilst evaluation is in its infancy it is noticeable that effective programmes, such as Tower Hamlets, have clear accountability structures, with monitoring and evaluation systems established. The programme sets out the outcomes required against the Prevent Delivery strands, based around an informed assessment of local threats and vulnerabilities. Funded projects are procured against strict tender criteria and are subject to monitoring against established milestones by the Prevent Partnership.

5. The police role in PVE is complex. As partners the police should, in theory, take an associate role focusing on information sharing and liaison through neighbourhood policing leads and counter terrorist intelligence and engagement officers. The ACPO Prevent pyramid usefully illustrates the division of Prevent activity ranging from universal/cohesion and targeted interventions in tiers 1 and 2 to interventionist and enforcement activity in tiers 3 and 4. (The Tied Approach diagram is available as appendix 1)

6. In reality, of course, the dividing line is often unclear. For example there is an inevitable cross-over between tiers 2 and 3 and policing leadership will be required. Likewise at an interventionist level there will be occasions when local leadership will be more appropriate. As a result successful implementation across London is reliant upon mature and effective partnerships ensuring that local strategies are jointly agreed and managed. It is here, at the partnership level that the Authority can have a significant impact.

7. Building on emerging best practice members should, where possible, ensure that partnerships set out strategic priorities for programme managers, with well defined objectives, timescales and direction monitored regularly at the CDRP. Once the local narrative is set it is critical that prevent initiatives whilst supported by partners are owned by the local community.

Working in partnership and implementing effective scrutiny – what should MPA Members be looking for?

8. The APA has produced draft guidance on delivering Prevent for police authorities due for final sign of at APA Council in April. It provides members with a useful starting point for engagement and management at a local level.

Police Authority Role in the Prevent partnership - taken from the draft APA guidance.

• Have local partnerships been identified across the force area to take forward the Prevent Objectives in relation to the Prevent Strategy? This could be an existing partnership such as CDRP, LCJB, or an appropriate coordinating partnership.
• Is the partnership operating at the right level (e.g. membership and geographical spread), and involve the right partners?
• Are the roles and responsibilities of members of the partnership clear and appropriate to their individual organisational objectives?
• Does the police authority have a clear role and relationship with the partnership(s), e.g. through attendance, receiving reports through the chief officer, a force-wide coordination role etc?
• Ensure regular community mapping processes are delivered through CDRPs, ensuring they take account of information available through a range if local partners, including a process for monitoring incoming communities, e.g. utilising information available through health and education partners.
• Ensure approaches to engaging young people are developed and delivered in conjunction with the local Children’s Trust/Local Safeguarding Children’s Board.
• Ensure appropriate training is delivered to frontline officers, exploring the potential for joint training with other local partners.

9. These questions provide a useful framework within which members can support and challenge boroughs on their work in this area. Clearly PVE is in progress at borough level and some CDRPs have already received presentations on the current status and development of this area of work. In order to support members in their oversight role, the Engagement & Partnerships Team will be liaising with local partners to get a better understanding of current progress in each borough and will brief link members as appropriate. Officers will also work with link members and other partners to develop the best approach to oversight, based on the principles set out in this paper, to ensure an appropriate level of scrutiny and support is provided in each borough.

10. Finally, it is recommended that the Authority hold an event or seminar/s inviting those that participated in the London Debate to seek their views on the impact and effectiveness of Prevent in London and emerging MPS proposals on the use of section 44 across the capital. Officers will collate findings and review in context of the Prevent programme reporting back to SOP in September.

C. Risk implications

Preventing violent extremism has a number of associated risks. Dependent upon productive relationships and partnership it has significant challenges. Prevent relationships and impact can also be affected by outside factors, such as a terrorist incident or counter terrorist operation, foreign policy and wider satisfaction levels across policing and local government. The CT sub-committee will monitor the MPS prevent risk profile and performance during its regular assessment of risk across the CONTEST strategy.

D. Race and equality impact

1. The Equality and Diversity impact of CT policing have been set out in previous papers. It remains the highest priority for police authorities to ensure that approaches to community engagement are recognised by police forces and conducted in an appropriate and positive manner.

E. Financial implications

1. MPS Prevent funding is allocated by the Home Office CT specific grant.

2. PVE, alongside the wider Prevent programme it is funded until the 2011 CSR round. Future funding will be reliant upon a sound evidence basis of effective interventions and balanced against a challenging budget environment.

F. Background papers

• Preventing Violent Extremism - A Strategy for Delivery
• Preventing Violent Extremism - Learning and Development Exercise

G. Contact details

Report author: Sally Benton, MPA.

For information contact:

MPA general: 020 7202 0202
Media enquiries: 020 7202 0217/18

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback