Official Statistics

User survey feedback summary: changes to the Individuals referred to and supported through the Prevent Programme statistics

Published 6 August 2026

Applies to England and Wales

We have recently reviewed the Prevent statistics publication and shared a survey to collect feedback of the contents of the publication to ensure they remain relevant and meet user needs. Below is a summary of the feedback we received and our response.

If you didn’t get a chance to share your thoughts with us while the survey was open, but the decisions outlined below would greatly affect your work, you can get in contact with us at HSAI_Statistics@homeoffice.gov.uk.

Alongside the publication of the “Individuals referred to and supported through the Prevent Programme, April 2024 to March 2025 statistics” in November 2025, we launched a user survey to better understand our audience and gather feedback. The survey questions focused on the following key themes:

• awareness and access
• user profile and use cases
• publication frequency and timeliness
• publication components used and interests
• data coverage and breakdown requirements
• open feedback and suggestions

User feedback on the content of the published statistics

We received 26 responses (between 6 November 2025 and 6 Jan 2026) from various users of the statistics, including Home Office (HO) policy colleagues, the public, local government, researchers and those that work in the Counter Terrorism (CT) sector.

A. Awareness and access

Of the 26 people who completed the survey, 24 said that they have accessed the statistics and 2 had not. The 2 that had never accessed the statistics (both cited lack of awareness as the reason) were removed from the analysis.

Among the 24 users, engagement was as follows:

• 54% access the publication very frequently or often
• 21% access it 2 to 3 times per year
• 25% access it once a year or less

Our response:

It is encouraging that users who are aware of the publication tend to engage with it regularly, suggesting the statistics meet an ongoing need and are revisited over time.

B. User profile and use cases

The publication is primarily used in operational and policy‑relevant settings, with the following use cases provided:

• 50% use it due to work in the counter‑terrorism sector
• 38% due to work in local government
• 29% for academic research
• general interest (8%)
• 17% Other

Our response:

The survey confirms that the publication is primarily used by professional and operational audiences, particularly those working in counter‑terrorism, local government, and academia. This reinforces the importance of maintaining a product that supports policy development, operational decision‑making, and research needs.

We will continue to engage with users on a regular basis to understand evolving needs, and where demand or user requirements change, we will seek to reflect these in future developments of the publication, where feasible.

C. Publication frequency timeliness

Fifty-eight per cent of users said they are satisfied with the current publication frequency.

Among the 42% who weren’t satisfied with the current publication frequency:

• 80% favoured quarterly updates
• 20% preferred twice-yearly updates

Free‑text comments emphasised timeliness rather than volume, with concerns that:

• data arrives too late to inform training cycles and operational planning
• earlier or more “live” access would increase usefulness

Some users stressed the importance of retaining an annual publication for long‑term trends, even if frequency increases.

Our response:

The survey indicates an expressed interest among some users for more frequent publication, particularly to support operational planning and training timelines. While the majority of respondents are satisfied with the current frequency (annual), feedback highlighted a need for earlier access to data. In response, we have moved from an annual to a bi-annual publication schedule, as an initial step. We will keep publication frequency under review and continue to engage with users to assess whether further changes are appropriate in the future.

D. Publication components used and interests

Engagement is highest with the core statistical products:

• 92% use the main bulletin
• 88% use the data tables
• 54% use the user guide

Main Bulletin

Feedback on the main bulletin commentary was strongly positive. Out of 22 responses:

• 91% found it useful and 95% found that it contained data of interest
• 82% found it easy to read and understand
• 91% said charts help explain the narrative
• 82% said it helps them understand how Prevent works
• most users (82%) can cross‑reference commentary with tables and guidance

Qualitative feedback suggests that the publication is well regarded by users. For example, one respondent noted that “the statistics and supporting narrative are really useful for me as a prevent coordinator.” At the same time, users highlighted opportunities for further development, including requests for more detailed analysis. One respondent suggested that “it would be good to include some cross-referencing with TACT and PLP statistics.”

Data tables

The data tables are widely valued. Out of 21 responses:

• 90% find them useful and relevant
• 86% find them easy to use
• 81% can find what they need

Areas to improve:

• 71% felt tables provide the level of detail they require
• nearly a quarter (24%) disagreed

Users asked for:

• more detailed temporal breakdowns (for example, monthly)
• clearer representation of individual journeys through Prevent
• better ability to relate referral source to outcomes
• more granular or case‑level data (where possible)

User guide

Among those who use it, the user guide was found to be effective. Out of 13 responses:

• majority (92%) found it useful
• most (85%) agreed it is easy to understand
• majority (92%) said it improves their understanding of the data
• 85% said it improves their understanding of the Prevent programme

Comments suggest specific clarity issues, particularly:

• interpretation of consent and “adopted” categories
• explanation of the mental health and neurodiversity data

The glossary was highlighted as especially valuable.

Our response:

1. Main bulletin and analytical depth

Feedback indicates strong support for the main bulletin, alongside interest in deeper analytical insight. We recognise the value that additional analytical depth and contextualisation can bring. We will explore opportunities to enhance analytical insight in future editions, where this can be done proportionately and adds value to the statistics published.

Suggestions around linking Prevent statistics with other datasets (such as TACT or PLP) will be considered carefully, recognising the complexity and sensitivity of such linkages.

2. Data tables: granularity and journeys through Prevent

Users expressed interest in more detailed temporal breakdowns, including monthly data, and clearer insight into individual journeys through Prevent. We will consider whether additional temporal disaggregation could be introduced in future publications; however, this will be subject to statistical disclosure control.

Requests for case‑level or individual‑level data cannot be met, as publishing this information would pose a risk of identification and potential data breaches. We will continue to prioritise data protection and confidentiality in all releases.

Specific feedback highlighted the need for additional information to support interpretation of referral progression. Specifically, that Table 2 includes a category for referrals that are “open at the information-gathering stage” but does not show how many referrals are closed at or before this stage. They also suggested that this information would provide greater context for understanding progression rates and also noted that a breakdown of referral journeys by referral characteristics, such as type of concern, would enable more detailed analysis of referral outcomes.

Another specific feedback noted that while Table 2 provides aggregate information on where referrals have been signposted to, it does not show where those referrals originated. As a result, it is not possible to determine whether referrals from education are more or less likely to progress to Channel than referrals from other sources. Similarly, they also highlighted that the tables do not indicate whether referrals from education are more or less likely to be signposted elsewhere, nor whether such signposting is directed to, or back to, education settings. They suggested that this information would provide valuable insight into referral pathways and outcomes by referring sector.

We have taken onboard these feedback and will explore whether it is possible to provide clearer aggregate insight into referral outcomes and progression by referral source in future publications and whether we can further split the data by the different referral characteristics as per recommendation.

3. User guide: clarity and definitions

Feedback on the user guide was largely positive, with the glossary noted as particularly helpful. However, users identified areas where explanations could be clearer, notably:

• the interpretation of consent and “adopted” categories
• the presentation and purpose of the mental health and neurodiversity data

In response, we have worked with CTP and DHSC and expanded definitions and explanatory content, including clearer descriptions of adoption, Prevent stages, and mental health and neurodiversity reporting. These improvements have been incorporated in this release (year ending September 2025 publication).

E. Data coverage and breakdown requirements

Most breakdowns included in the publication are seen as useful, with the following specific positive feedback:

• highest value placed on age, type of concern, Prevent stage, region, and sex
• moderate support for sector of referral, consent status, MH and ND, and ethnicity

Financial quarter is the least valued breakdown.

Common themes in the feedback include:

• desire for monthly and more granular stage breakdowns
• clearer consent and progression pathways
• improved MH and ND categorisation and per‑individual measures
• more nuanced indicators of violence and complexity beyond headline categories

Our response:

The survey findings indicate that most of the existing breakdowns included in the publication are valued by users, particularly those relating to age, type of concern, region, and sex, which will continue to form a core part of the statistics.

Feedback highlighted a desire for more granular breakdowns by month and Prevent stage, as well as clearer pathways showing progression through the Prevent process. We will explore whether additional aggregation or presentation changes can better illustrate progression and outcomes, while ensuring compliance with statistical disclosure controls.

We note requests for improved MH and ND categorisation and for measures presented on a per individual basis, rather than counts of reported needs. We recognise the analytical value of this and have implemented a count of individuals as well as a count of conditions in this publication.

Feedback also indicated a desire for more nuanced indicators of violence and case complexity, beyond high-level categories such as type of concern. In particular, there was interest in introducing a dedicated ‘violence’ marker or flag. This feedback will be shared with the relevant colleagues as part of ongoing improvements to the data collection system.

Feedback suggested that the financial quarter breakdown was perceived as less useful, largely due to a preference for more granular monthly data. We will consider this in reviewing the continued inclusion and presentation of this variable. However, any move towards greater detail will need to be balanced against the risk of identifying individuals, and therefore changes cannot be guaranteed.

F. Open feedback and suggestions

Users expressed strong overall support for the statistics, describing them as important, helpful, and high quality.

Other themes:

• earlier release or live‑style access
• ethnicity should be a mandatory field
• desire for more consultation with system partners on data changes

Our response:

We welcome the strong positive feedback on the importance, quality, and usefulness of these statistics. We recognise the need to improve timeliness and have taken a decision to publish these statistics bi-annually. We will continue to work to improve the statistics to meet user needs and comply with the principles of the Code of Practice for Statistics (trustworthiness, quality and value).

We understand that current completion rates for ethnicity data are not as high as they could be, and improving this would support better data quality and help meet user needs. We will therefore explore ways to encourage more complete recording.

We recognise the importance of engagement and will look to strengthen consultation with system partners, to ensure that future data developments are informed by user needs and shared priorities.

Contact us

HSAI Statistics at email: HSAI_Statistics@homeoffice.gov.uk