Managing unclear ideologies in Prevent-related cases: Universities’ and colleges’ perspectives

The Prevent duty is the legal obligation placed on higher education providers and others to give due regard to the need to stop people from being drawn into or supporting terrorism. This summer we met with a range of universities and colleges, to learn about their experiences of identifying, assessing, and managing Prevent-related cases where the underpinning ideology is unclear.

As part of our Prevent annual accountability and data return (ADR), universities and colleges need to report data on Prevent-related cases and the underpinning ideology behind each one. Currently, these are:

• extreme right-wing radicalisation
• Islamist radicalisation
• mixed, unclear or unstable ideology
• other radicalisation.

Where a university or college can confirm the most appropriate radicalisation category for a Prevent-related case, this is useful intelligence about what is happening in the higher education sector and how Prevent-related risks are changing over time.

Ideology is an important consideration, and we ask institutions to determine the most suitable radicalisation category in their ADR. However, determining a category is not mandatory for a Prevent referral. A referral should be made if there is concern that a person may be on a pathway that could lead to terrorism.

Through our conversations, we've heard how Prevent-related cases are becoming more complex, and how ‘ideology drift', or elements from multiple ideologies, can make identifying an underpinning ideology challenging. A student’s susceptibility to these ideologies may also indicate a wider safeguarding or welfare concern.

For example, some institutions have suggested that there could be overlap between a student or staff member’s mental health and Prevent-related concerns, particularly where the underpinning ideology is unclear or ambiguous. What may initially appear as a Prevent-related issue could be a safeguarding or welfare matter, or vice versa, creating differences in how cases are classified and managed by different support teams within an institution.

The staff we met told us about the various enablers they found helpful when addressing Prevent-related concerns, which others may also find useful.

Clear processes

Staff spoke about their processes for identifying and reporting potential Prevent concerns, and the importance of having a clear process that  is familiar to students and staff. We also heard how this worked better when integrated with safeguarding and welfare support systems. Because of the pre-criminal nature of Prevent concerns, support can be offered before an individual acts unlawfully (such as committing a terrorism offence), thus helping to prevent such an outcome.

A joined-up approach

Staff emphasised the benefits of taking a collaborative approach and collective decision-making when managing less clear potential Prevent concerns. This includes discussing anonymised cases with appropriate staff and external Prevent partners. Seeking informal advice from established Prevent networks to discuss cases, facilitate sense-checking and determine referral thresholds is seen as useful. This might include the police, Department for Education coordinators, local authorities and Prevent Partnership Boards. For example, police officers can talk through a potential concern without the need for a formal referral.

Strong relationships

There was positive feedback on the benefits of partnership working in the higher and further education sectors, including forging close links with other institutions in the region to share effective practice and raise awareness of concerns. Universities and colleges also found it useful to sit on steering groups at other institutions in their region.

Clear pathways

Staff emphasised that Prevent-related concerns are a small subset of broader safeguarding and welfare issues that arise. They suggested that escalation pathways should be clear, should be integrated where possible to more effectively manage issues that evolve quickly, and should incorporate elements from wider safeguarding support systems. Information-sharing should follow an institution’s own policies, be in line with data protection legislation and use appropriate risk assessments.

Training and awareness

Training should be clear and relevant to ensure cases are being referred correctly internally and externally. Institutions spoke about updating training as Prevent and the counterterrorism landscape evolves, for example in relation to ‘Incel’ concerns, to ensure staff are up to date.

What are we doing?

Earlier this year we tested our plans to update the ideology categories we ask institutions to use in their ADRs to align with the categories used by the Home Office in its annual reporting of Prevent referrals. The revised categories better reflect the evolving counterterrorism landscape, though we recognise they can’t resolve the ideological complexities that may exist in some cases.

We encourage staff working on these issues to consider the feedback we've gathered from institutions and set out in this blog as they develop their approach. Ensuring staff receive relevant training, have clear reporting lines and robust processes for managing cases, understand the interplay of safeguarding, welfare and Prevent, and use partners where possible, are all valuable in supporting work to identify and address Prevent concerns.

Our ADR categorisation changes will come into effect for the December 2026 ADR submission (relating to the 2025-26 academic year). The December 2025 ADR requirements remain unchanged.

For more questions about our work in this area, please contact [email protected].