Module 1 of 2 · 40 minutes
The duty, the vulnerability, and the referral
By the end of this module you will be able to
- State the legal basis and scope of the Prevent duty
- Explain radicalisation as exploitation rather than belief
- Identify genuine vulnerability factors and avoid profiling
- Describe the referral route and the Channel process
Amara I will be honest, Nadia, this is the module people dread and a lot of staff quietly resent.
Nadia I know, and I would rather deal with that head on than pretend it is not there. So let me start with what Prevent is not, because getting that wrong is how bad referrals happen.
Amara Go on.
Nadia Prevent is not about Muslims. It is not about religion, ethnicity or political opinion. And holding radical, offensive or extreme views is not a crime and is not grounds for a referral.
Amara That is not how it is often taught.
Nadia No, and where it is taught badly it produces referrals that are discriminatory, that damage trust in health services among the communities who most need them, and that waste the time of people dealing with genuine risk. Bad Prevent training makes everybody less safe.
Amara So what is the duty?
Nadia Section 26 of the Counter Terrorism and Security Act 2015. Specified authorities, including NHS bodies and many care providers, must have due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism. And crucially, it sits inside safeguarding. Same structures, same thresholds, same escalation through your safeguarding lead.
Amara Help me understand radicalisation itself.
Nadia Think of it as grooming. That single reframe does almost all the work.
Amara Explain.
Nadia Somebody identifies a person who is isolated, aggrieved, searching for identity, purpose or belonging. And they offer all of it. Conditionally. Gradually. In a way the person does not experience as coercion at the time.
Amara Which is exactly how county lines works.
Nadia Precisely the same mechanism, and it is why the response is support rather than punishment. We do not prosecute a fourteen year old who has been groomed into carrying drugs. We safeguard them.
Amara So what am I actually looking for?
Nadia Change, and an exploiter. Withdrawal from family. Secrecy. A sudden new circle of contacts. Somebody new who is meeting all of this person's needs, and the question of what they want in return.
Amara And vulnerability factors?
Nadia Social isolation. Recent traumatic loss or a real grievance. Identity crisis. Mental ill health where it affects judgement or reality testing. Experience of discrimination or racism, which is itself a driver. Family breakdown. Being under the influence of someone manipulative.
Amara And explicitly not?
Nadia Religion. Ethnicity. Nationality. Wearing religious dress. Praying. Having strong political opinions. Criticising government policy. None of those are vulnerability factors and none of them belong in a referral.
Amara Does Prevent actually cover other ideologies in practice?
Nadia It does, and this surprises people who have only ever heard it discussed in one context. Extreme right wing terrorism accounts for a very substantial proportion of referrals. If your mental model of a Prevent case has one demographic in it, your mental model is wrong and you will miss cases.
Amara What happens if I raise a concern?
Nadia It goes to your safeguarding lead, like anything else. Record facts, not impressions. If the person is assessed as at risk, they may be referred to Channel, which is a voluntary multi agency panel offering tailored support.
Amara Voluntary. So it is not a criminal process.
Nadia Not a criminal process, not a sanction, and participation requires consent. The majority of people referred are found to need no Prevent intervention at all, though some are signposted to other support they genuinely needed.
Amara Last question, and I want a straight answer. Prevent has been heavily criticised. Should staff know that?
Nadia Yes, and a course that hides it is treating you like a child. It has been criticised for disproportionate effects on Muslim communities, for chilling clinical trust, and for referrals made on weak grounds. It has been independently reviewed and it remains publicly contested.
Amara So what do I do with that?
Nadia You apply the duty precisely rather than ignoring it. Referrals on evidence of vulnerability, never on identity. That is the version that protects the person in front of you and the version that answers the criticism. Sloppy referrals are not a sign of taking the duty seriously. They are the failure.
The written material
The legal basis
Section 26 of the Counter Terrorism and Security Act 2015 requires specified authorities, including NHS bodies and many care providers, to have due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism. Prevent is one of the four strands of the CONTEST strategy, alongside Pursue, Protect and Prepare.
The duty sits within safeguarding. In practice it uses the same structures, the same thresholds of professional concern, and the same escalation route through your safeguarding lead.
Radicalisation is exploitation
The most useful way to understand radicalisation is as a grooming process. Somebody identifies a person who is isolated, aggrieved, searching for identity, purpose or belonging, and offers all of it, conditionally.
That framing does the work. It tells you why the vulnerable are targeted, why the process is gradual, why the person often does not experience it as coercion, and why the response is support rather than punishment. It is the same reason we do not prosecute a child who has been groomed into county lines.
Vulnerability factors, and what is not one
Genuine factors include social isolation, a recent traumatic loss or grievance, identity crisis, mental ill health where it affects judgement or reality testing, experience of discrimination or racism, family breakdown, and being under the influence of someone who is manipulative.
What is not a factor: religion, ethnicity, nationality, wearing religious dress, praying, having strong political opinions, or criticising government policy. Referrals made on those grounds are discriminatory, they damage trust in health services among the communities that most need them, and they take time away from genuine cases.
- Look for a change: withdrawal from family, secrecy, a sudden new circle of contacts
- Look for the exploiter: who is meeting this person's needs and what do they want in return
- Look for expressed intent or fixation, not for identity
- Prevent covers all ideologies, including extreme right wing terrorism, which accounts for a large proportion of referrals
Referral, Channel, and the criticisms
Raise a concern with your safeguarding lead, exactly as you would any other safeguarding concern. Record facts, not impressions. If a person is assessed as at risk of being drawn into terrorism, they may be referred to Channel, a voluntary multi agency panel that offers tailored support.
A well informed professional should also know the criticisms. Prevent has been criticised for disproportionate effects on Muslim communities, for chilling effects on clinical trust, and for referrals made on weak grounds; it has also been reviewed independently and has been the subject of significant public debate. Knowing this is not a reason to ignore the duty. It is a reason to apply it precisely, so that referrals are made on evidence of vulnerability and never on identity.
Knowledge check
The knowledge check and your certificate need a free account, so that your progress and results can be saved as evidence.
The learning itself stays free and open. You are reading all of it right now without an account.