Prevent - there are more children like Rudakubana

[noblegiraffe]

I just read this interesting and worrying article about the increase in children being referred to Prevent but not getting support from them due to lack of terrorist ideology.

https://schoolsweek.co.uk/school-prevent-referrals-rise-but-fewer-get-support/

I can see that if Prevent resources are geared to children who are being groomed into jihadist ideology or white supremacy then they wouldn't necessarily be able to tackle someone who just wants to go on a killing spree. However it is clear that if violent tendencies and posing an obvious risk do not meet the threshold for Prevent support, then we either need a different agency to deal with these troubled children, or Prevent needs to widen its remit.

If Rudakubana phoned Childline aged around 12 to say he wanted to kill people, if social services were involved, if CAMHS was involved, if there were enough concerns that he was repeatedly referred to Prevent, then clearly there was need for a type of support that wasn't on offer.

The article says "In the year to April 2024, two in five school referrals were found to involve a vulnerable child, but one deemed not to be driven by a terrorist ideology.
That meant more than 1,000 cases from schools were classed as “vulnerability present but no ideology or CT [counter-terrorism] risk” – an increase of 140 per cent since before Covid."

"Just 8 per cent of all school referrals in the year to April 2024 resulted in a decision to give the child specialised support through Prevent"

Then what on earth is happening with the other 92%?

Isn’t that rather different though? I imagine the number of people who love fast cars and drive recklessly is much larger relative to the number of people killed on the road. I do think that’s different from homicidal ideation, consuming violent online content of real life torture and murder and expressing an intention to kill.

I clearly don’t understand the rationale in law for distinguishing between people exhibiting similar behaviours but with different diagnosis so that someone experiencing psychosis during a mental health crisis is treatable and can be sectioned whereas with non treatable personality disorder and the same behaviours you can’t be. I am interested in learning if someone can explain. I obviously do see the risks of locking people up before committing crimes and how illiberal potentially unfair that might be. But just want to understand it from a medical/ policy perspective.

I agree about misinformation by the way. It’s scary how accessible racist, incel etc content is available and more mainstreamed. I hope there is sufficient capacity for deradicalisation given how prevalent it is.

But in this case it wasn’t silliness and bravado from kids. His family and professionals thought he posed a risk and there was evidence to support that. There’s always a risk and should be cautious about anything that deprives people of their liberty but I’d be interested in understand whether there is a threshold where you could assume likely harm. Does the fact that he tried and failed make it more likely he would try until he succeeded for example?

Where I think there is genuinely scope for change is the remit - and therefore size and budget - of Prevent. It should have the remit and expertise and budget to address the problems presented by radicalised, violent young people whether they be loners or driven by a recognised ‘ideology’.

Why would living in Spain negate what the poster said!!!!

Wasn't guantanamo bay the type of facility that people are wanting?

There are whole services within the NHS to prevent people with ASD from being sectioned though as the research guides practice which says that this is counter productive. As someone said its not an NHS issue if the person isnt mentally ill, but a criminal justice issue.

I would imagine he didnt have a diagnosis, or some wooly diagnosis perhaps

Im coming more and more to agree with this, unfortunately

I was going to mention that prick.

Why would living in Spain negate what the poster said!!!!

Why would you report children in Spain to Prevent in the U.K.?

@Rewindpresse exactly he wasn't just saying stuff he had been on a bus with a knife and took a hockey club into school to do damage which he did. He was active

I assumed they meant their version of it, however, if they mean UK prevent, then impossible to do so Im sure.

Lots of countries have a similar programme.

Interesting just how many dont actually have a programme according to this list but its not clear if its up to date

https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/policies/internal-security/counter-terrorism-and-radicalisation/prevention-radicalisation/prevent-strategies-member-states_en

I think @Allthegoodnamesarechosen was puzzled because Prevent is a British organisation, so if Maddy is indeed working in Spain, it's difficult to understand why she would be referring these boys to Prevent.

Perhaps Maddy works for an online school, teaching Brutish boys in Britain from her home in Spain 🤔

He was known to CAMHS but wasn't engaging. If someone doesn't want to engage you can't make them. Do you continue trying to engage someone who doesn't want to know or do you move along the ever growing list to the next person where you might be able to make a difference?

Likewise if he had fallen under the remit of Prevent, chances are he wouldn't engage with them either. It is voluntary.

And then when they have those things spend it on buying sex, drugs, gambling.

You invest in broad prevention services.

We've stripped out funding from youth services and youth Worker roles in the last 15-20 years and this consequence partly relates.

Do you know how many people enrolled in professional youth work courses last year in England? Around 50. 5.0.

@podthedog can you please say more about what the youth work offer would be for someone like him? Eg if he wouldn’t engage with mental health services or attend his Pru placement? The police found him with a knife and returned him home. Why would someone planning violence engage with youth workers and how could they divert violence?

I don’t doubt at all that public services have really been run down and that shows up in lots of ways but I want to understand what the interventions are could possibly stop someone with his profile.

A lot of interventions have their value in the relationship between the worker and the client, if that isnt there, or the client doesnt want to engage/doesnt see a problem, then its not of huge value to be honest.

The fact he did phone childline at one point seems to suggest he might have been open to help, but that was when he was very young, not sure if that is the same as he got older

The costs of ‘locking children up’ indefinitely are astronomical. They range from approx £100 000 pa in a young offenders institution to approx £250 000 in a secure children’s home and I would bet there are more expensive individual bespoke placements. ( I work in an allied area) If we locked up AR from 13 he would already have cost a minimum of £600 000, but probably at least double that as he would have needed more than a standard YOI.

Multiply that by all the other children you may want to preventatively secure then the costs rapidly become unsustainable.

It is a challenge… I have also referred a number of children to Prevent. A 70:30 mix of white supremacy vs Islamic jihadism, a representation of the context of the local area. Only 1 was accepted.

It either has to be from a mental illness perspective, within the umbrella of the NHS, or from a crime prevention perspective, within the remit of law enforcement.

Given that if there is no treatable diagnosis, the NHS can't do anything, I think expanding a program like Prevent is the better option (alongside the NHS actually ruling out mental illness).
Along with a huge re-instatement of youth services as @podthedog says, for widespread early prevention.

Placements in the secure estate are always cheaper than specialist placements which often dont contain the young person and often call themselves specialist but arent really, they're just a gaggle of staff, often poorly paid and trained trying not to get attacked by the clients.

Yes - poorly paid and trained ‘specialists’ are a huge challenge. This applies to SEND and youth justice, both systems AR was in.

In a free democracy you can’t just start locking up people (esp children) that you “think” might commit a crime and keep them institutionalised for life. There is no legal mechanism to do something like this.

agree with @podthedog on youth services. Also this problem of loner, misfit young men seems to be a wider issue not always related to violence. Esp with school refusal ext.. on the rise there seems to a large number of teenagers not leaving their home these days that warrants a service targeting this isolating behaviour.

In a free democracy you can’t just start locking up people (esp children) that you “think” might commit a crime and keep them institutionalised for life. There is no legal mechanism to do something like this.

Perhaps there needs to be a legal mechanism, akin to sectioning but not under the health system?
And it wouldn't be for life, just until the risk dropped (as far as the experts could tell) - is a Prevent intervention at present for life?

Society could decide it does want a mechanism like that though. We had that years ago.

In terms of services targetting kids that sit around at home and are isolated and wont go out and engage, I would guess that a great number of them would be considered by their parents as doing what was necessary to help them manage, probably citing anxiety or depression, perhaps with or without ND as to why they cant face the world. There would be a lot of backlash and possibly little engagement from parents and kids.
A lot of them will be school refusers or wont have a school place anyway.

How is that navigated with that dynamic?