A terrorist attack in the UK is highly probable. The UK’s terror threat has been raised from “substantial to severe”. This is the first time since 2004 that the level of threat has been raised to severe. The warning came along with an announcement from the Home Office that there was a growing threat of terrorism from small groups and individuals based in Britain.
The UK’s counter-terrorism strategy is called Contest, and the Prevent program is a major part of it.
Prevent’s primary goal is, as its name implies, to prevent people from becoming involved with terrorism and extremist ideologies.
It is therefore designed to provide tailored early intervention aimed at mitigating risks of extremism, radicalisation and terrorism.
As a researcher in the field of counterterrorism, I’ve had a lot of interaction with Prevent practitioners. In my experience as a researcher in counter-terrorism studies, I have engaged extensively with Prevent practitioners.
Prevent does not mean that someone is guilty or suspected of being guilty of criminal offenses. It indicates that someone with “prevent duties” raised concern about a person’s behavior, expressions, or vulnerability.
Teachers, social workers or healthcare professionals are all examples of these professionals.
The scale of Prevent is illustrated by recent data: from April 2024 to March 2025 8,778 individuals were referred. It is the highest number recorded since 2015.
A significant number of referrals concern young people. 36% (3192 cases) involve children between 11 and 15 years old. Another 1,178 were referred by those between 16 and 17 years old.
Prevent was referred to by more than one third of all referrals. Aoy_Charin/Shutterstock
Referral criteria are wide-ranging and include any change in behavior, extremist opinions, or vulnerability which could lead to radicalisation.
A panel of representatives, often from the education sector, law enforcement and social services assesses referrals.
Referrals are often not taken further than this first stage. Referrals may instead be directed to another team, like social services, in order to receive more assistance.
The Channel program can offer support to individuals who are concerned. Prevent uses this as its primary tool to deradicalise. Referrals are anonymous and voluntary. They can be made by anyone. Police and the education sector are usually responsible for issuing them.
Support is provided according to individual needs, and can include mental health and mentoring. Participants can choose to participate or not at any time.
The stigma and polarisation
Prevent is preemptive, intervening prior to criminal activity. This breadth of the program is a constant source for controversy.
Critics claim that referrals can be made based on misinterpretations or ambiguous behaviour.
It can therefore reinforce polarisation in particular with regard to certain groups, such as Muslims. It can leave some people feeling stigmatised or under constant surveillance, or even unfairly judged.
This is especially true if the referral appears to be based on cultural or religious misunderstandings.
It also suffers from significant structural shortcomings, as the scheme is more of a limited-time intervention than an ongoing system. After a closed case, the individual is no longer under continuous supervision. A previous referral doesn’t eliminate future risks – but it does mean that at the time, the threshold was not reached for an intervention.
Remember that good news stories are rarely covered by the media. Every year in the UK, thousands of individuals receive support early on and are able to successfully leave radical or extremist ideologies.
Prevent occupies a challenging space, between safety and security.
Risk is evaluated before an incident occurs. High-profile incidents can increase the perception of failure but they don’t reflect all aspects. The majority of referrals don’t lead to any further action. However, many do result in early and voluntary support, which helps individuals disengage from dangerous pathways.
Concerns about ambiguity, stigma and other issues remain valid. It’s more important than viewing Prevent as an indicator of guilt to recognize its limitations, and the role it plays as a tool for early intervention.
