Agenda item

City of London Prevent Policy and Channel Guidance/Internal Further Education Prevent Guidance

Report of the Director of Community and Children’s Services.



The Committee received a report of the Director of Community and Children’s Services regarding City of London Prevent Policy and Channel Guidance/Internal Further Education Prevent Guidance.


An officer introduced the report stating that the Community Safety team works with the police on prevent to stop radicalisation.  It was noted that various sessions had taken place within the community to create more awareness.


The Chair noted the recent member training session which had gained excellent feedback.


A member asked how many referrals the team had received.


An officer responded that the City had received 2 referrals and only 1 had been opened as an active case.  On average they received no more than 2 a year.


A member asked for the definition of an ‘immediate risk’ case.


An officer clarified an individual making active plans would be treated as an ‘immediate risk’ case and often included the involvement of the police. 


A member asked if there was much cross boundary work with neighbouring boroughs.


An officer responded stating that local authorities were responsible for their own residents and rough sleepers.  Referrals can be transferred to the correct borough if identified elsewhere.  It was noted that the team attended bi-monthly forums with neighbouring local authorities to stay updated on trends throughout London.


A member asked how contact details for the prevent officers were being made readily available to the public.


An officer clarified that the contact details in the report for the prevent coordinator were for the Committee to use if they had comments or questions, but the community safety pages held information for those who needed to submit a referral.  Agencies also often submitted referrals and the team worked with the community frequently to raise awareness about the team.


A member asked if the flowchart could be updated with new contact details e.g., generic email addresses and current phone numbers which were regularly monitored to ensure no incidents were missed.


An officer clarified that the flowchart in the report was simply for the Committee but the information available online to the public used details for an inbox which was monitored by the whole team not just one individual.  Overall, the public information was designed to be as concise and clear as possible.


A member commented that often resident services were difficult to find on the CoL website and wanted to ensure that this information would be easily found in the future.


RESOLVED, that – the report be noted.

Supporting documents: