U.K. local authorities lack intelligence for effective counter-terrorism

Initiatives by local authorities in the United kingdom aimed at tackling violent extremism have been undermined by a lack of “up-to-date” grassroots intelligence on potentially vulnerable individuals, according to a new government-backed study. Jimmy Burns writes in the Financial Times that the study found that government counter-terrorism funding to local authorities and neighborhood policing over the last two years has yet to translate into a coherent strategy to stop people from becoming terrorists or supporting violent extremists.

A joint investigation by the Audit Commission and Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary found “inconsistent levels of engagement and awareness” of the government’s “Prevent” strategy in schools and colleges. It also unearthed inadequate information sharing caused by a lack of trust between police and local authorities. While this was largely due to “the nervousness of staff” in using the term “preventing violent extremism,” there was also concern as to how the community might view the passing of information to the police.

The report warns that the United Kingdom, along with other countries, faces a severe and continuing threat from international terrorism. It partly blames central government for a “lack of clarity” about its policies, but it also warns against excessive intervention by Whitehall. “A much clearer, fuller description (of the ‘Prevent’ strategy) from government setting out the role of all departments would be helpful,” the report states. “Detailed guidance and prescription around delivery is not just seen as useful as this can limit the ability of local areas to tailor their approaches to the local context and priorities.”

According to the report some local “Prevent” strategies have been rolled out quickly and given priority status in response to specific terrorists incidents or arrests of individuals suspected of terrorism. Some councils, however, have found themselves recipients of additional funds with “insufficient and late guidance” on how to use them. “Outcomes were mostly measured by monitoring spend against budget … We found few performance of success measures to judge the outcomes and achievement of the Preventing Violent Extremism Pathfinder Funds (PVEPF),” says the report.

The level of government funding for Prevent has increased from £6 million in 2006 to £45 million for April 2006 to March 2011, with overall resources dedicated to counter-terrorism and intelligence to be increased to £3.5 billion within the next two years.

Hazel Blears, communities secretary, said the investigation by the spending and police watchdogs has given government the opportunity to be aware of best practices and of areas than can be improved. “I am confident that local responses alongside tough security measures remain the best way to tackle violet extremism,” Blears said.

The report has brought to the surface some of the problems faced by the Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism as it tried to formulate an updated counter-terrorism strategy before the end of the year with a renewed focus of tackling the problem of disaffected, radicalized Muslims.