Navigating the Prevent duty: a focus on whole-community safeguarding

Few topics in education have sparked as much debate as Prevent. Positioned as a crucial safeguarding measure yet criticised for its unintended consequences, Prevent sits at the intersection of security, civil liberties, and trust within school communities. The tragic events in Southport have reignited discussions, prompting an urgent question for governing boards: how can we ensure Prevent is implemented effectively, in a way that is both effective and fair and without instilling fear or alienation?

Governance isn’t about rubber-stamping compliance; it’s about strategic oversight, ethical leadership, and ensuring that policies work in practice – not just on paper. The Prevent duty, often viewed as a bureaucratic exercise, is, in reality, a complex and evolving challenge. Schools and trusts must tread a fine line between vigilance and fairness, between security and trust. For governing boards, this means ensuring their organisations fulfil their safeguarding responsibilities in a way that is proportionate, informed, and embedded within a culture of care rather than suspicion.

Understanding Prevent: More than a legal duty

Prevent is part of the UK government’s counter-terrorism strategy (CONTEST), designed to stop people from being drawn into terrorism or extremist ideologies. It places a legal duty on public bodies – including schools and trusts – to identify individuals at risk of radicalisation and to intervene early. This involves training staff, building resilience among pupils, and making safeguarding referrals when necessary.

While designed to protect young people from harm, Prevent has long been a topic of debate. Critics argue that it disproportionately targets certain communities, risks eroding trust between pupils and staff, and can result in unnecessary referrals. Supporters, however, view it as a crucial safeguard for identifying early warning signs and preventing individuals from being exploited by extremist groups.

Understanding Prevent Referral Categories

Extreme Right-Wing (ERW): Refers to ideologies that promote racial or cultural superiority, often advocating for exclusionary nationalism or anti-democratic beliefs. This category includes individuals or groups endorsing violence to achieve their goals.

Islamist Extremism: Involves individuals or groups promoting a distorted interpretation of Islam to justify violence or support for terrorist ideologies. It is distinct from mainstream Islamic beliefs and communities.

Incel (Involuntary Celibate) Extremism: A subculture that expresses hostility toward women and society due to perceived romantic rejection. Some individuals within this movement endorse or glorify acts of violence.

Mass Violence (e.g., ‘School Massacre’ concerns): Includes threats or expressions of intent to commit mass violence, often inspired by previous attacks or online extremist communities. This category highlights the role of harmful digital content in shaping violent ideologies.

By understanding these categories, educators and safeguarding professionals can better identify risks and support young people in resisting extremist narratives.

Other categories can be found by visiting: User guide to: Individuals referred to and supported through the Prevent Programme, England and Wales - GOV.UK

The bigger picture: What the data tells us

Recent statistics highlight the scope of Prevent in education. In the year ending 31 March 2024, there were 6,922 referrals to Prevent – an increase of 1.5% from the previous year. The education sector made the highest number of referrals (2,788; 40%), reinforcing the significant role that schools play in identifying and addressing potential safeguarding risks.

For the fourth consecutive year, referrals for extreme right-wing concerns (1,314; 19%) outnumbered those for Islamist concerns (913; 13%). This ongoing trend highlights a shifting landscape of radicalisation, emphasising the need for schools to remain vigilant against a wide range of ideological threats.

There was also a relatively small but growing number of referrals for both ‘school massacre’ and ‘Incel’ related concerns. We know that harmful online content and misinformation – amplified by social media and continuously available on smartphones – pose a significant risk for our young people. It’s crucial that we take a strategic approach to online safety and ensure that relationships and sex education support pupils to form healthy, respectful relationships.

Lessons from Southport: A call for vigilance and collaboration

In her statement following the Southport attack, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper revealed that the perpetrator, Axel Rudakubana, had been referred to Prevent three times between 2019 and 2021. He had also contacted Childline on several occasions, disclosing he wanted to cause harm to others. Despite multiple interactions with police, social services, and mental health teams, key warning signs were missed, and his case was closed prematurely.

This tragedy highlights a persistent safeguarding challenge: the fragmented nature of multi-agency working. Too often, agencies operate in isolation, assuming that radicalisation is someone else’s responsibility. But when safeguarding lacks coordination, vulnerable individuals slip through the cracks.

Writing this blog, I am reminded of a meeting I attended with representatives from the youth offending service, police, health, and children’s services. The discussion was focused on the rise in youth violence, and I was taken aback when a professional, referring to the pupil referral units I worked in, pointed at me and said, “YOU have a problem with gangs and youth violence.”

New to the role and the local authority, I found the comment disheartening but also revealing of the culture that existed when addressing issues around safeguarding. I pushed back:

“No. WE have a problem with gangs and youth violence. OUR community has a problem with the exploitation of vulnerable children.”

This mentality of viewing problems as someone else’s responsibility or “out of sight, out of mind” has long fostered a culture of disconnectedness between services and hindered effective safeguarding practices, allowing issues to fester, deepening distrust. We have witnessed it crop up, wrapped in the narrative of “lessons will be learned” throughout countless inquiries and changes to legislation following horrific tragedies and crimes against some of the most vulnerable members of society.

If we are serious about tackling radicalisation, we must shift our mindset. Safeguarding is a collective responsibility, not a bureaucratic exercise.

Lessons from recent events: The need for vigilance and balance

The Southport tragedy highlights the importance of vigilance, early intervention, and a whole-school/trust, multi-agency approach to safeguarding. While the full details of the case are still emerging, it serves as a stark reminder that safeguarding risks, including radicalisation, can manifest in various ways.

For governing boards, this means:

Ensuring schools are risk-aware, not risk-averse: Schools and trusts should be confident in their safeguarding processes, identifying and responding to concerns in a measured way rather than through an overly cautious or fearful approach.
Reinforcing the connection between safeguarding and Prevent: The best Prevent approaches are embedded within a school and trust’s wider safeguarding framework, rather than treated as a separate compliance requirement. Prevent monitoring should be included within the safeguarding link governor's remit.
Promoting open dialogue: Pupils should feel comfortable discussing complex issues, including political and ideological beliefs, in a safe and structured environment that fosters critical thinking and resilience to extremist narratives.

What should those governing be asking?

To provide meaningful oversight, governing boards must go beyond compliance checklists and engage critically with their school or trust’s approach to Prevent. Key questions to consider include:

Policies and procedures
- Does the school or trust have an up to date Prevent risk assessment?
- How does Prevent align with the school or trust’s wider safeguarding policy?
Training and awareness
- Have staff received Prevent training, and do they feel confident in identifying and responding to concerns?
- How does the school/trust ensure training remains up to date?
Proportionality and impact
- How does the school/trust ensure that Prevent is applied in a way that avoids stereotyping or over-surveillance?
- How do leaders monitor the impact of Prevent on school/trust culture and relationships with pupils and families?
Community and parental engagement
- How do schools communicate its Prevent duty to parents and carers?
- Are there opportunities for parents to engage in conversations about safeguarding and radicalisation?
Curriculum and critical thinking

How does the curriculum promote critical thinking and resilience to extremist narratives?
Are pupils encouraged to discuss and debate difficult topics in a structured and safe way?

Supporting governing boards: key resources

For those looking to deepen their understanding and provide effective governance oversight, the following resources are valuable starting points:

Department for Education Prevent risk assessment templates (for schools and further education)
Educate Against Hate – a hub of Prevent-related guidance and resources
Home Office Prevent e-learning – awareness, referral, and Channel courses
The Prevent Duty: Safeguarding Learners Vulnerable to Radicalisation
NGA’s library of resources, e-learning, training and toolkits.

The challenge for governing boards is to ensure that Prevent is neither neglected nor applied in a way that erodes trust. This means cultivating proportionality, transparency, and open dialogue. It means making sure schools are risk-aware, not risk-averse. And above all, it means remembering that safeguarding is not just about policies – it’s about people.

By asking the right questions, supporting school leaders, and ensuring a balanced approach, governors can play a crucial role in making Prevent more than just a legal duty – it can be a tool that genuinely safeguards pupils while upholding the values of inclusion, trust, and open conversation that define a healthy school community.