Guidance

Case studies

Updated 7 September 2023

Applies to England

Case study 1: Channel support

Abdu, 12 years old, Islamist ideology

What happened

Abdu is in year 7 and has been subject to bullying in the past. He has one brother who he did not get on with, which made life difficult at home. His grandmother had recently passed away. He spent a lot of time on the internet unsupervised and had few opportunities to socialise with others.

Abdu made comments at school which suggested support for Daesh. He agreed with Daesh’s views, including their use of violence, and had a strong dislike of Christians. The school referred Abdu to Prevent.

Abdu’s parents were supportive but found it difficult to steer him away from the subject on which he had become fixated.

Abdu’s online activity involved watching beheading videos. The school felt that he was at risk of being groomed online.

Support offered

The designated safeguarding lead (DSL) attended the Channel panel, taking a proactive approach and engaging with the process. Abdu’s parents were also very supportive.

Abdu was clearly vulnerable and the Channel panel adopted the case.

The Channel panel agreed upon an intervention provider to support Abdu. The intervention provider held monthly sessions with Abdu and was able to build a good relationship with him.

Other forms of support included going to a youth club, offered through the Youth Service, and the National Citizenship Scheme, which made sure Abdu was less isolated and improved his confidence. It also encouraged Abdu to develop personally and socially by working on skills like leadership, teamwork and communication.

Outcomes

Abdu’s first session with his intervention provider was very positive. The intervention provider was able to answer Abdu’s questions about his ideology and satisfy him with the answers.

Abdu felt less isolated, partly due to joining the Youth Service and the National Citizenship Service, but also support from the school and his parents.

Abdu was very grateful for the support he had received and commented that it had come to him ‘just in time’.

The case was eventually closed by the Channel panel, following a range of reviews to ensure positive sustainable outcomes moving forward.

Case study 2: the role of the police in a referral

Brian, 14 years old, school massacre ideology

What happened

During a lesson, Brian was seen accessing inappropriate material on his computer. The teacher in the class saw this and feeling that the material was related to school massacres, shut down the website. The teacher asked the student about the material on the website, but he just seemed evasive and angry.

The teacher decided to report the incident to their designated safeguarding lead (DSL). The DSL had already received a number of safeguarding concerns from the student’s other teachers, so they made a Prevent referral.

The referral was sent to Counter Terrorism Police. They searched their records for any information that might suggest the student is vulnerable to being drawn (coerced or groomed) towards extreme violence or any terrorism-related offending. The police Prevent officer also contacted the school and the teacher to talk through the details of the referral. The school had spoken to the student and parents and was able to provide further context.

Support offered

After the initial assessment, the police assessed whether the student would need further support, such as Channel support. They co-ordinated the gathering of information with statutory partners, including the local authority and school, to find any information that would increase the initial concerns.

The police found no vulnerability or ideological risks that might require Channel support.

Information sharing showed that the student was not being groomed by an extremist or violent group. It also showed that he did not seem to have a fixated or overly concerning interest in extremists, terrorists or ideological causes connected to school massacres. The website mentioned in the referral, although distasteful, had no terrorist concerns or links.

Although the police did not find any issues relating Prevent, information sharing did confirm that the student may have some mainstream safeguarding vulnerabilities in his home life.

To make sure the correct support was put in place, the Prevent police referred the case to the multi-agency safeguarding hub or local equivalent.

Outcomes

The mainstream safeguarding partner updated the school and they felt reassured that a full Prevent assessment had been completed. Police Prevent officers also gave the school advice about re-referral if they had further concerns in the future.

Case study 3: Channel support

Charlie, 17 years old, extreme right wing ideology

What happened

Charlie was a year 12 student at college. He made racial comments while in college and openly talked about people of other religions and ethnicities, particularly Muslims, being a risk to white British people. He would cross the road away from people who he saw as a threat to him. The college referred him to Prevent.

The Channel coordinator of the local authority met with Charlie’s parents. They felt that his thoughts had come from the reporting of international terrorist attacks on television and social media. Charlie felt a sense of threat from a perceived risk of attack from Muslim people.

During the meeting, the parents produced a Nazi armband. They said Charlie had bought it when he met with National Front members who were allegedly recruiting people into their organisation. Charlie had gone there knowingly, after communicating online. Charlie told the Channel coordinator that he was a member of the Army cadets and that he played in a band.

Support offered

Charlie’s parents were anxious about his behaviour and their relationship with him was tense. Children’s Social Care carried out an assessment of need.

A social worker liaised with child and adolescent mental health services as part of their assessment. They confirmed that Charlie had previously been medicated for anxiety, but he did not attend the service any more. The family had a negative relationship with services due to past experiences.

The Channel coordinator found an intervention provider with extreme right wing knowledge, as well as experience of supporting young people. The intervention provider had many sessions with Charlie and developed a trusting relationship early on.

Outcomes

The intervention was completed, and the family reported it had restored their faith in services.

The relationships within the family circle had improved and Charlie’s parents were confident that he was back on a safe pathway with a focus in life.

After 11 months, the case was closed. Charlie had stopped engaging with extreme right wing groups.

Case study 4: responding to extremism concerns in the classroom

Josef, 10 years old, extreme right wing ideology

What happened

Josef was in year 6. He refused to work with a group of children in the class, saying: ‘It’s because they’re immigrants, they’re nasty and not British.’ He became very angry when other pupils disagreed. He argued that he was right because his older cousin had shown him YouTube videos of immigrants carrying out criminal acts. Josef had never said anything like this before.

The teacher challenged Josef’s behaviour. They asked Josef what he understood by the term ‘immigrant’ and why he thought the other students were ‘nasty and not British’. Josef mentioned the YouTube video.

Support offered

The teacher guided the class to talk about how many people commit criminal acts. They talked about how it is not unique to one specific group of individuals.

The teacher shared details of this incident with the designated safeguarding lead (DSL). The DSL talked to Josef and discussed this with his parents. His parents were very supportive and agreed to discuss this with Josef and his cousin. Josef showed remorse after his parents had spoken to him.

The school decided to embed and deliver lessons on prejudice, stereotypes and digital literacy within their personal, social, health and economic curriculum.

Outcomes

The school did not make a Prevent referral because there were no other contextual or vulnerability factors. Josef also had a positive relationship with his parents and they were able to talk to him about his behaviour.

Josef was not deemed vulnerable to radicalisation, but the DSL recorded this incident in case the risk escalated.

Case study 5: protective intervention by education settings

Alex, 9 years old, unclear or no ideology

What happened

Alex is in year 5. He lives with his dad, who is terminally ill, and his granddad. His mum left when he was younger.

Alex felt very isolated because he’d lost his mum and was close to losing his dad. He watched a lot of inappropriate programmes and films and played a lot of violent video games.

Alex had recently moved to a specialist provider because of his challenging behaviour. He seemed scared that something would happen there and made rudimentary weapons. The setting made a Prevent referral.

Support offered

The Channel panel did not take on the case. They signposted it back to the school because there were no counter-terrorism concerns.

Alex’s dad was not very supportive and did not want to engage with the school.

The school delivered online safety workshops with pupils. All pupils were able to discuss their views and Alex engaged very well in this.

A pastoral behaviour lead held regular mentor meetings with Alex. They put in place a behaviour plan to tackle his fears and concerns.

The specialist provider continued to try and engage with Alex’s dad. They were able to speak to him about internet use and gave guidance on parental controls and supervision.

Outcomes

Alex felt much more settled at the specialist provider and was not scared of what might happen there.

Alex’s dad’s condition improved somewhat, and he was able to plan a holiday with him in the summer.

Alex was given time and a safe space to discuss any concerns he had in the placement and his behaviour gradually improved. The school felt confident they could manage his behaviour.

Case study 6: protective intervention in education settings

Alice, 16 years old, school massacre ideology

What happened

Alice was in year 11 at an independent secondary school. She had written a piece of English coursework in which she expressed extreme right wing views and glorified the Columbine shooters.

Alice felt the school had ignored the bullying she’d suffered in previous years and decided to take things into her own hands. She had a plan to ‘kill the protagonists and take out anyone else who got in her way’. She expressed this through her writing, which was articulate and referenced the Columbine attack.

Support offered

The school spoke to Alice. She reassured them that she was not serious about her threat and was struggling with her mental health.

The school discussed this with her parents and asked the local authority Prevent team for informal advice. There were no other concerns about Alice and her mum was very supportive.

The school put in place an action plan to support Alice in her last term and shared this with the college she planned to attend. The college asked Alice’s mum how Alice felt about being at college. She said Alice was ‘loving college’.

Alice’s mum and the college agreed not to speak to Alice about what had happened at school. The college assured her mum that it had a zero-tolerance policy towards bullying. Alice’s teachers were asked to look out for any changes in her behaviour and peer groups.

Alice’s progress coach made sure that regular one to one meetings were taking place. They also told her about the student led enrichment groups that were available. The college closely monitored Alice’s attendance and progression.

Alice joined the college’s debating society and creative writing society.

Outcomes

Alice’s family said she’d thrived and blossomed at college. Alice said she enjoyed having ‘safe’ places to discuss topical issues and to listen to different views.

There were no Prevent related concerns raised during Alice’s time at college.

Alice has since obtained an apprenticeship.