In response to Amm Samm's last post, "visitor" raised a number of interesting points, one of which I wanted to use the opportunity to quickly highlight.

Amm Samm: "there are no clear metrics for measuring success"
Visitor: "what do you offer?"

This is something that I have to admit that I have also been guilty of, complaining about the absence of metrics of PREVENT without necessarily offering any solutions. Consequently, I will use this opportunity to sketch out some thoughts I have been recently having on the topic (Amm has some coming up too I believe).

On the one hand, it should be quite easy to measure success: no terrorism attacks means the strategy is "preventing" terrorism. But how do we know whether what we are spending public money is actually having an impact and it is not other factors? This is important if we do not simply want to be throwing money away.

One solution that has been offered is to calculate the amount of good that groups receiving Prevent funding are able to do in their community: are they helping kids, providing useful local social functions, etc.

A police view that I have instead heard is that success in Prevent is measured by the amount the community trusts and engages with them – are communities coming forwards to offer information on people unsolicited? Are traditionally more sceptical communities using local social services, and thus "trusting" the system and becoming more engaged and less alienated?

But while both of these sound like reasonable areas to use as a basis to measure success, it remains hard to know exactly how many terrorists have been "prevented" in each case for each pound spent. Also, it seems awfully unclear to me that either of these metrics is somehow evidence that the government's strategy is in fact shielding us from the few individuals within society who choose to get involved in terrorism.

Without wanting to sound like I am throwing the baby out with the bathwater, maybe the root of the problem is that the scope we have defined for PREVENT is simply too large, and thus this is why we cannot find suitable metrics: maybe if we pared PREVENT down to simply being activity which pre-empts terrorist activity before it reaches the PURSUE stage then we might be able to measure success it in better.

As I have said before, this does not mean stopping work being done under PREVENT, simply de-tagging it from security. Instead, let us have PREVENT be more intelligence based activity or strengthened (and targeted) social work, alongside efforts to actively counter the spread of radical ideas and breaking up groups actively recruiting people to go abroad to fight. While it will remain hard to calculate success (we are still after all talking about measuring something by its absence), it will theoretically be more tangible than the slightly abstract societal measures that are currently offered by NI 35.

I look forward to hopefully having a conversation with people on this either in the comments or via email if you would prefer.

Comments

Raff, The UK police services, alongside other public servants, have been struggling with performance indicators that became performance measures and the police are now trying to move away from this 'performance culture' that has not always been good. I have followed the debate over metrics in COIN, largely a public debate in the USA and reflected on several websites notably Small Wars Council. The US military has yet to find its COIN metrics, so why should PVE not be struggling to find some? There are some easy options, the traditional "bean counting" and impressions gained from meetings etc. Harder options do exist, mainly around opinion polling and for reasons lost to me HMG has not (openly) gone down that route. What is the base level of support for violent Jihad? Readers here will be able to think of other questions they'd ask. Polling can be fine-tuned to focus on particular postcodes and communities (an issue in itself). Apparently adding questions to a standard poll costs 40k. I doubt if anyone would want a PVE-only poll. Harder options do exist - the use of the 'mystery shopper' for example. Options that are in use in other security areas. I can hear the HM Treasury mandarins asking already 'What is the effect of spending X?' and currently we can only reassure them 'X' is positive. One of the big problems is that some individuals and groups are not even on the 'radar'; yes, that is the "nature of the beast". Much of PVE mapping has been spent on community mapping, looks nice on PPT, what is the impact of such work? What metrics do others use? I noted recently that the French use a (confidential) questionnaire to assess mosques and in some old reading Singapore had thought hard on this. IIRC centred around the families of detained persons.

davidbfpo - 12 Feb 2010 (12:31)

A police view that I have instead heard is that success in Prevent is measured by the amount the community trusts and engages with them – are communities coming forwards to offer information on people unsolicited? Are traditionally more sceptical communities using local social services, and thus "trusting" the system and becoming more engaged and less alienated? Well as a practitioner involved in prevent, i haven't heard anyone officially or othewise talk in these terms. It bears no resemblance to the work I and others are involved in. Utter nonsense. Gibberish.

paul - 16 Feb 2010 (20:32)

Paul, Perhaps Raff's first paragraph 'A police view....alienated' may reflect the comments by Norman Bettinson, who is the ACPO spokesman on PVE work and cited in the recent publicity around the BBC series 'Jihad Generation'. I cite:Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Sir Norman Bettison was featured on the show. He said Muslims must do more to inform police of potential terrorists. He said: "I'm looking for the community to work much more closely with the police in identifying young people they have concerns about in terms of people they're mixing with, the sort of websites they're going on and the material they're reading. "That information can only come from the community itself." Sir Norman is an Association of Chief Police Officers' vice-president with responsibility for advising the government on countering extremism. He said it would probably take 20 years to prevent the "infection" of extremism spreading in Britain. He said: "I think this is generational. I think we woke up as a society in 2005 to the idea that people were prepared to commit suicide and carry out atrocities in Britain because of the perversion of an ideology." From:http://www.dewsburyreporter.co.uk/news/West-Yorkshire-police-chiefs-fears.6065253.jp A few years ago another senior officer, Peter Clarke, referred to the lack of information from the Muslim community in the Colin Cramphorn lecture. He later added to those remarks in a less public arena. Part of Prevent in many places has been to engage with communities, explaining the CT issue, the police role and more - like using 'Act Now'. Building trust and confidence, where just maybe information will be forthcoming one day. Agreed not a 'measure', but certainly could be an indicator.

davidbfpo - 16 Feb 2010 (22:42)

David. Thanks and a few quick random thoughts. I spend at least 40% of my working day doing Prevent work, and the principle of Plod getting out and getting to know as many people from across the entire spectrum of society is an excellent one. P Clarke now long retired and historical. perhaps he may have had a lot more info from the Muslim Community (what ever that is) if he hadn't enthusasticaly participated and implemented the destruction of the Met Special Branch, which had 120 yrs experience of doing just that and replacing it with a culture that actively stifle such activity. N Bettison - Fine words, but its implications for day to day ground work in inner London are pretty limp, which communty does he refer to? all of them? any of them? if he see's extremism as an infection which implies there is a definitive solution to prevent it, then beyond his platitudes pls state it. Totally support the idea that British citizens and others residing in the UK are treated equally under the law of the land regardless of race, religion creed etc. what he seems to ignore or avoid is the reality that a percentage of the community do support and agree with the extremists and speaking to PC Plod isn't going to ultimately change that. What will change it in my opinion is HMG action on the flash points that incense Muslims and reverbrates into wider British society such as Palestine, Kashmir etc. Plus the wider community have a perfect right to say that in the UK the civil law has primacy and certain forms of behaviour are not acceptable ie; xenophobia, homophobia, anti semitism (unfortunate expression but in this context i mean anti jewsih racism by non jews). And to say that those who publicly state these expressions and encourage violence are cntravening the law. Indicators are a scouge of modern Policing and generate an entirely new strata of middle management who achieve little of any great socially constructive value. If ACPO and HMG want Plod to get out and meet people and try and learn how best to stop radicalisation and extremism they would be advised to read and listen to Dr Bob LAMBERT from Exeter Uni. As an ex cop of 30yrs service much of it in the intel world and laterly creating the Mets Muslim Contact Unit, he is ideally suited to know the best way forward. Sorry if I've ranted on, bit tired and weary. Thanks

paul - 17 Feb 2010 (18:37)

David. Thanks and a few quick random thoughts. I spend at least 40% of my working day doing Prevent work, and the principle of Plod getting out and getting to know as many people from across the entire spectrum of society is an excellent one. P Clarke now long retired and historical. perhaps he may have had a lot more info from the Muslim Community (what ever that is) if he hadn't enthusasticaly participated and implemented the destruction of the Met Special Branch, which had 120 yrs experience of doing just that and replacing it with a culture that actively stifle such activity. N Bettison - Fine words, but its implications for day to day ground work in inner London are pretty limp, which communty does he refer to? all of them? any of them? if he see's extremism as an infection which implies there is a definitive solution to prevent it, then beyond his platitudes pls state it. Totally support the idea that British citizens and others residing in the UK are treated equally under the law of the land regardless of race, religion creed etc. what he seems to ignore or avoid is the reality that a percentage of the community do support and agree with the extremists and speaking to PC Plod isn't going to ultimately change that. What will change it in my opinion is HMG action on the flash points that incense Muslims and reverbrates into wider British society such as Palestine, Kashmir etc. Plus the wider community have a perfect right to say that in the UK the civil law has primacy and certain forms of behaviour are not acceptable ie; xenophobia, homophobia, anti semitism (unfortunate expression but in this context i mean anti jewsih racism by non jews). And to say that those who publicly state these expressions and encourage violence are cntravening the law. Indicators are a scouge of modern Policing and generate an entirely new strata of middle management who achieve little of any great socially constructive value. If ACPO and HMG want Plod to get out and meet people and try and learn how best to stop radicalisation and extremism they would be advised to read and listen to Dr Bob LAMBERT from Exeter Uni. As an ex cop of 30yrs service much of it in the intel world and laterly creating the Mets Muslim Contact Unit, he is ideally suited to know the best way forward. Sorry if I've ranted on, bit tired and weary. Thanks

paul - 17 Feb 2010 (18:37)

David, Paul, Thanks both for your thoughts. Aside from David's pointers to P Clarke and N Bettinson, I would also add that Andy Heyman former Head CT at Met Police also cites this indicator in his book "Terrorist Hunters." I also concur that Bob Lambert has a lot to add to this conversation and have had discussions with this topic in the past. Indicators may indeed be a scourge of modern policing, but when we are dealing with Prevent we need to find some way of making sure that we are pursuing a path which is helping. Especially when we consider how long range some of the scope of the projects is and the outlook that Bettison projects. As a practitioner in Prevent, I'd be interested to hear how you evaluate success in your work? Contact me offline if you would prefer.

Raff - 18 Feb 2010 (12:35)

Raff. Andy Hayman ! This Andy Hayman quoted from Guardian Sept 2008 - "Britain's chief anti-terrorism officer, Andy Hayman, announced his resignation today, saying "unfounded accusations" against him had taken a personal toll. The third most senior police officer in Britain, who worked as head of specialist operations at Scotland Yard, said he felt it was the "right time" to retire from the force". That Andy Hayman ? That the one? In recent weeks he has been dogged by controversy over claims he ran up credit card expenses of more than £15,000 and took his female staff officer on foreign trips. He was also criticised over the Met's handling of the shooting dead of Jean Charles de Menezes at Stockwell tube station in 2005. A spokesman for the Metropolitan police said: "Following discussions with the Metropolitan Police Authority and the commissioner, assistant commissioner Andy Hayman has decided to retire from the Metropolitan police service."

paul - 18 Feb 2010 (17:56)

Paul Nonetheless, as was pointed out, similar comments have been made by others who are less tarnished. I also remain interested to hear how you measure success in your work.

Raff - 19 Feb 2010 (11:53)

Slightly off topic but seems to relevant as it mentions KCL - so it seems that we allow one raging Fascist to speak but if the BNP tried to pitch up they wouldn't be given the time of day never mind the opportunity to speak. Islamic preacher who called Jews ‘filth’ to speak at London university 25.02.10 A London university has been condemned for inviting an Islamic preacher with anti-Semitic and homophobic views to give a lecture to students. Sheikh Abdullah Hakim Quick is due to speak at King's College's Strand campus at six tonight. Peter Tatchell, of pressure group Outrage, accused university bosses of cowardice and “complicity with fundamentalism” by giving the preacher a public platform. Sheikh Quick has denounced the “filth” of Jews and once gave a televised lecture in which he said the Islamic position on homosexuality is “death”. He added: “Muslims are going to have to take a stand [against homosexuals] and it's not enough to call names.” He is due to give a talk on the environment in an event organised by the University of London Union Islamic Society for its Green Week campaign. Mr Tatchell said: “King's College would not host a white supremacist who advocated racism or death to black people… King's College has an equal opportunities policy that prohibits the promotion of hatred against minorities, but it is not enforcing it. "The university is not a safe place for Jewish and gay students when it facilitates a vicious homophobe and anti-Semite like Sheikh Abdullah Quick.” He claimed that the university's attitude represented “collusion with the gateways to terrorism”. A King's College spokeswoman said Sheikh Quick's talk would be on “environmental problems, Islamic solutions”, adding: “He has already spoken at other universities without controversy and there is no indication that the topic of his talk will be controversial. “The Dean of King's College London, who oversees multi-faith relations, and the president of the students' union will attend the event. If they deem any comments from Sheikh Abdullah Hakim Quick to be offensive to minorities, the talk will be stopped.” Sheikh Quick is also due to visit the University of East London at the weekend. His website says he was born in America and completed a masters degree and a doctorate in African history at the University of Toronto, and has served as an imam in Los Angeles, Jamaica, Canada and Cape Town.

paul - 26 Feb 2010 (9:51)

Did anyone go and hear Abdullah Hakim Quick? R

Raff - 09 Mar 2010 (5:46)

Add Comment

Name
Email
Comment
Updates	Notify me of any comments and updates to this blog
Security Code:	Please enter the security code you see on the left in the text box below.