It is aimed at stopping terrorism and radicalisation, but devastating attacks and high-profile reviews have meant Prevent has been under scrutiny since it started.
The government programme has undergone a number of changes since its introduction more than two decades ago, but two recent terror incidents have further damaged its reputation.
But what is it, how has it changed and why is it so controversial?
What is Prevent?
In short, Prevent’s aim is to “stop people from becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism”.
The government-led, multi-agency scheme also helps to rehabilitate and disengage those who are already involved in terrorism, and safeguard communities from threats.
Referrals to Prevent from the likes of schools and government bodies lead to a “gateway assessment”, made by specialist police officers to determine whether there are reasonable grounds to suspect a person is “susceptible to becoming a terrorist or supporting terrorism”.
The individual will then receive tailored support to reduce their susceptibility to being radicalised into terrorism, if appropriate.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:38 Tom Cheshire analyses who is being referred to Prevent
The Prevent programme has three main aims:
• Tackle the ideological causes of terrorism
• Intervene early to support people susceptible to radicalisation
• Enable people who have already engaged in terrorism to disengage and rehabilitate.
Prevent gets thousands of referrals every year. In the year ending 31 March 2024, 6,884 people were reported to it, with individuals aged 11 to 15 accounting for the largest proportion (40%).
The strategy was introduced as part of the government’s wider counter-terrorism strategy, known by the acronym Contest.
Prevent is one of four themes within Contest. These are its components:
• Prevent: to stop people becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism
• Pursue: to stop terrorist attacks happening
• Protect: to strengthen our protection against a terrorist attack
• Prepare: to minimise the impact of a terrorist attack.
Referrals that are deemed particularly serious, where there is a “genuine risk of radicalisation”, are escalated to the government’s other multi-agency anti-terrorism strategy, Channel.
Channel has a panel of professionals who collectively assess the case and decide on a tailored package of support that can be offered to the person. It is chaired by the local authority and can include partners such as the police, children’s services, social services, education professionals and mental health care professionals.
Why has Prevent proved controversial?
Criticism of Prevent has shifted over the years.
In the mid-2010s, much of it focused on how its processes allegedly targeted minorities, and particularly Muslims.
Some criticised Prevent for concentrating its resources too much on Islamism rather than on extreme right-wing threats.
Several high-profile terror attacks since its introduction, along with Britons such as Shamima Begum joining groups including Islamic State, have further called into question the strategy’s effectiveness.
An independent review was ordered into Prevent in 2019, and its findings published in 2023 called for “major reform”.
The wide-ranging review found Prevent “has a double standard when dealing with the extreme right-wing and Islamism”.
The review highlighted that Prevent had taken an “expansive approach to the extreme right-wing, capturing a variety of influences that, at times, has been so broad it has included mildly controversial or provocative forms of mainstream, right-wing leaning commentary that have no meaningful connection to terrorism or radicalisation”.
With regards to Islamism, it said the programme tended to take a “much narrower approach centred around proscribed organisations, ignoring the contribution of non-violent Islamist narratives and networks to terrorism”.
The government accepted all 34 recommendations by the review in its 188-page report, which also included resetting its thresholds, or “bars”, to a clearer standard.
“The bar should not be set so high as to only include concerns related to the most established terrorist organisations, nor so low as to capture mainstream politicians, commentators or publications,” the report read.
Attack on MP highlights Prevent’s shortcomings
Conservative MP Sir David Amess was stabbed to death by Islamic State supporter Ali Harbi Ali during a constituency surgery at a church hall in Leigh-on-Sea in October 2021.
The killer, who was given a whole-life sentence, had become radicalised by ISIS propaganda and had been referred to Prevent before the attack, prompting questions over whether the programme could have done more to stop the attack from taking place.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:59 Dan Jarvis tells parliament Prevent ‘released MP’s killer too quickly’
A subsequent review, published in February 2025, found Prevent dismissed Ali’s case too swiftly.
Ali was referred to Prevent in 2014 by his school after teachers said his demeanour, appearance and behaviour changed from a previously “engaging student with a bright future” with aspirations to be a doctor to failing his A-levels and wanting to move to a “more Islamic state because he could no longer live among unbelievers”.
His case was closed five years before the murder, after just one meeting for coffee at a McDonald’s with a Prevent “intervention provider” to deal with his interpretation of what is “haram”, or forbidden under Islamic law.
Despite Prevent policy and guidance at the time being “mostly followed”, his case was “exited too quickly”, security minister Dan Jarvis told the House of Commons in February.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:18 Former national lead of Prevent weighs in on whether it’s fit for purpose
A review by police 12 months after he was released from Prevent “also found no terrorism concerns” and the case was closed.
Matt Juke, head of counter-terrorism policing, said it was clear the management and handling of Ali’s case by Prevent “should have been better” and it was “critical” the review was acted on “so that other families are spared the pain felt by the loved ones of Sir David”.
Sir David’s daughter, Katie, has dismissed it as a “paper exercise” with no proper accountability.
Read more: What the review into Sir David’s killer found
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:43 ‘No accountability over MP’s death’ says daughter
Southport attacker was referred to Prevent three times
The review into Sir David’s killer’s case came after a similar one into contact between Prevent and Southport killer Axel Rudakubana.
The 18-year-old was jailed for a minimum of 52 years in January after murdering three girls at a Taylor Swift-themed dance class in July last year.
After the attack, a rapid review was launched into Rudakubana’s contact with Prevent, as he had been referred to them three times: first in December 2019 when he was 13, again in February 2021 when he was 14, and finally in April 2021.
The first report was due to concerns he was carrying a knife and searching for school shootings online.
The second was for online activity relating to Libya and Colonel Gaddafi, and the third for searching for London bombings, the IRA and the Israel-Palestine conflict.
Read more:
Stamp duty is changing – what you need to know
What’s the beef with farmers’ inheritance tax?
Similarly to Ali, the report found that Rudakubana’s Prevent case should have been kept open, but also found he should have been referred to Channel, another anti-terror scheme.
Speaking in the House of Commons, Mr Jarvis said the review found Rudakubana’s referral to Prevent was “closed prematurely”, and there was “sufficient concern to keep the case active while further information was collected”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:06 Southport killer case closed ‘prematurely’
“The review concluded that too much focus was placed on the absence of a distinct ideology, to the detriment of considering the perpetrator’s susceptibility, grievances, and complex needs,” he said.
“There was an under-exploration of the significance of his repeat referrals and the cumulative risk, including his history of violence.
“There were potentially incomplete lines of inquiry, that at the time the perpetrator could have fallen into a mixed, unclear or unstable category for Channel due to his potential interest in mass violence.
“Indeed, the overall conclusion of the review is that he should have been case-managed through the Channel multi-agency process, rather than closed to Prevent.”
As part of the review, 14 recommendations were made on how to improve Prevent, which Mr Jarvis said they had accepted and would be implementing.
Mr Jarvis said the government was working to set up an inquiry into what happened as soon as possible, although confirmed it would not initially be on a statutory footing.
Sir David’s family demand public inquiry
Katie Amess has given a scathing review of Prevent and pushed for a “full public open inquiry” into its failings in stopping her dad’s killer.
She told The UK Tonight with Sarah-Jane Mee that every victim supposedly failed by the programme deserved the same.
She dismissed the review by police last year as “woefully insufficient” and said it was just put together from existing paperwork and email logs.
However, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper rejected the family’s calls for a public inquiry into the killing.
In the letter to Ms Amess and Sir David’s widow, Lady Julia Amess, Ms Cooper said it was “hard to see how an inquiry would be able to go beyond” Ali’s trial and the Prevent learning review.
Ms Amess, who is taking legal action against Essex Police and the Home Office, previously told Sky News her father deserved better from his “friends” in parliament after the decades he served as an MP.
The 39-year-old also criticised Yvette Cooper’s reticence to approve a public inquiry as she was not in office when her father was murdered. The MP’s daughter said other inquiries had been signed off by home secretaries in similar circumstances.
“I want to know what is being covered up and why they’re not committing to an inquiry for myself and other victims,” she told Sky News.
Ms Amess said the information that’s emerged so far vividly shows the weakness of the Prevent programme, with “no clear form of communication between police and Prevent and other channels”.
She told Sarah-Jane Mee: “[Ali] even stood up in his trial and made a mockery of Prevent; he said all you need to say is ‘I’m not a terrorist and they stop following you’ – what message does that send?”
Sky News has contacted the Home Office for comment.
