This hub provides case studies on effective Prevent practice, sorted by the themes detailed in the Prevent duty guidance.
We also provide guidance and examples of positive practice drawn from ongoing assessments (Thinking about 'What works').
Case study: Institute of Contemporary Music Performance
The Institute of Contemporary Music Performance has incorporated Prevent into its wider safeguarding processes. A new safeguarding team includes representatives from Programme Support, Facilities, Wellbeing and Careers and Employability, and ensures that there is cover for all main student areas and both buildings.
Communication of these policies to staff and students through training and the student senate has been effective. Safeguarding is promoted internally via a safeguarding newsletter. There are posters identifying the designated safeguarding lead and members of the safeguarding team, and explaining how to raise concerns about students. These are located in all staffrooms and main staff break-out areas. Posters and slides on IT are displayed on screens.
The designated safeguarding and Prevent lead continues to provide updates on legislative changes and identifies training through the monthly staff meetings.
A safeguarding newsletter was distributed to all staff at the start of the academic year, identifying changes to legislation and confirming members of the safeguarding team and relevant contact information.
Case study: University of Nottingham
The University of Nottingham has long-standing partnerships with local communities, wider national professional networks and effective cross-organisational collaborative partnerships with relation to Prevent.
The university has positioned its work relating to the Prevent duty firmly within its broader safeguarding and welfare agenda. It believes strongly that this offers the most effective means of ensuring that issues are identified as quickly as possible and handled appropriately for all parties.
The university believes that embedding Prevent within processes that are already familiar to staff and students, and for which there is an established framework, has helped to ensure thorough and consistent application of processes.
Following the publication of the statutory guidance, the university updated its guidance for staff, which now includes direct references to the Prevent duty with details of escalation routes.
There is also an effective welfare structure, with welfare officers in each academic school so that issues can be flagged and escalated quickly through an easily accessible and well-publicised route.
The university has recently updated its safeguarding policy, which now also makes direct reference to the Prevent duty. Its messaging on Prevent has consistently emphasised that all matters should be managed in line with welfare policies, and all communications regarding Prevent clearly set out contact details of the student welfare team and counselling facilities.
Case study: Guildhall School of Music and Drama
Guildhall School of Music and Drama is a specialist conservatoire and drama school with around 900 higher education students.
There is a clear structure in place for Prevent and safeguarding duties. The School’s Prevent lead is also its overarching safeguarding lead, and each area of the school has a designated departmental safeguarding lead. The School safeguarding lead has termly meetings with the departmental safeguarding leads from across all areas of the institution, and departmental leads are able to deputise for the safeguarding lead in cases of absence.
The Prevent lead is a member of the key safeguarding boards in the City of London Corporation. The Corporation has recently instigated a forum through the community safety partnership team, in which all higher education institutions based in or bordering the city are invited to share practice and ensure effective partnership working.
Strong policies and processes within the Student Affairs department provide a mechanism for staff and students to raise wellbeing and welfare concerns. Meetings are held weekly about students of concern, at the end of which actions are agreed, encouraging a multi-faceted approach. Should a concern relating to Prevent be raised, it would be discussed at such a meeting.
The profile of safeguarding in general has increased in the school during the last year, and the understanding of the Prevent duty has been embedded through training courses for staff.
All staff have received communication about the Prevent duty, and the safeguarding and Prevent reporting structure has been updated and distributed to staff via the school’s monthly e-zine.
Additionally, staff have been given information to help identify factors that make people more likely to be drawn into supporting terrorist ideologies. There is a clear process for staff, students and others to raise any concerns, and a Prevent referral chart has been issued to staff and is available on the intranet. There is now a link to the Safeguarding Policy on the footer of the website, so it appears on every webpage and is easily accessible to staff, students and visitors.
Case study: University of Greenwich
The University of Greenwich has over 20,000 students across its three UK campuses. It has adopted a whole institution approach to welfare and made a conscious decision to talk about and reflect the broader concept of wellbeing in all related policies and processes.
The university has incorporated radicalisation into its ‘Students giving cause for concern framework’, established in 2015, which provides good practice guidelines for staff to manage incidents or concerns appropriately. The framework illustrates a co-ordinated approach which signposts the support available to students and provides information to staff on how to seek advice. The framework covers a wide range of student issues including health, mental wellbeing, and disruptive behaviour.
The university implemented a ‘Health, wellbeing and fitness to study policy’ in 2016. This policy was created to supplement the two other linked procedures, relating to fitness to practise and student discipline. It is used to manage more severe student problems and aims to consider the student’s best interests in relation to their personal situation, mental health, and general wellbeing, with the focus on enabling the student to progress and complete their programme.
The principle is to encourage early intervention and active collaboration across all relevant staff (including the students’ union), to ensure a co-ordinated and sensitive approach to managing complex individual cases. This approach involves discursive practice techniques – a classic safeguarding approach which applies theories and techniques relevant to real behaviour in actual situations.
This involvement by staff at all levels from across the university has fostered effective internal partnership working, resulting in a greater awareness of wellbeing issues and improved staff confidence in dealing with challenging situations.
Case study: University of Birmingham
The university’s Prevent risk assessment and action plan includes carrying out periodic audits as part of its strategy for mitigating risk associated with ‘space and speaker management’. These ensure that procedures are being followed and appropriate documentation is made.
The institution provided an update on activity in relation to this as part of its annual report to HEFCE in December 2016. It has advised that an initial audit was undertaken in the summer of 2016, which examined the procedures and cross-checked these against a random sample of speaker and event requests. Through this audit the university was able to check that the procedures had been followed appropriately.
The institution is developing plans for this to be a routine exercise.
Case study: University of Central Lancashire
The University of Central Lancashire has recently undertaken a review of its ‘Code of practice to ensure freedom of speech’ and has developed a ‘Designated events procedure’, which includes guidance on managing external speakers. The students’ union is involved in identifying designated student events, which helps to ensure consistency of practice.
The university has embedded and continues to review mechanisms to ensure effective oversight of the management of events on and off campus. It has established a dedicated group with responsibility for reviewing risks and mitigating actions. The Prevent Advisory Group and the university's Audit and Risk Committee provide subsequent oversight, followed by Board-level review.
The university’s communication strategy ensures that all staff and students understand what constitutes a ‘designated event’, and how to seek advice when planning such an activity. Various relevant teams are involved in this discussion to ensure that messaging is appropriate, including the Communications and Engagement team, the student union and Human Resources.
The university has also ensured additional safeguards are in place to identify ‘higher-risk’ events, by reviewing and developing procedures relating to its Timetabling and Room Booking Unit and its Conference and Events team, both of which have been trained in Prevent. There is a clear escalation process for ‘designated events’ which are referred to the Chief Operating Officer or Director of Student Services in the first instance.
The university has ensured its partner institutions are appropriately appraised of its policies and procedures to maintain consistency across its campuses and to facilitate the sharing of good practice.
Case study: Royal Holloway, University of London
The university has created a central repository for speaker requests linked to freedom of speech or security considerations, to assist with Prevent compliance. This allows the institution to record appropriate mandatory data more efficiently and effectively.
Historically, Royal Holloway has had a relatively low number of speaker requests associated with freedom of speech considerations, but there remains a risk assessment process led by college security and the secretariat for all events with security or lower-level political considerations.
The university has also reflected on how best to communicate its external speakers and events policy to staff and students. It ensures that there is sufficient time in the process for staff to assess the risk fully and to manage the organisation of the event.
The university recognises the need to ensure that an event organiser has fully considered the potential risks pertaining to a potential speaker or event at a very early stage in the process. It has ensured that the procedure is widely available to staff and students, both through the student and staff intranet systems and by working with its internal communications team on a wider online ‘launch’ of its procedures.
Case study: St Chad’s College, Durham
In response to the statutory duty, the college chose to introduce a new external speakers’ policy, which was approved and introduced for the start of the 2016-17 academic year.
To ensure that the college’s process is proportionate to its relative size and context, event organisers are required to submit requests to the college’s commercial team for checking, with final decisions being made by the principal.
Having noted that no requests were being escalated to the principal, the college conducted an informal review of the speaker’s process to assure it that the process was being implemented effectively. It found that staff understood their responsibilities and how to use the process, and that requests were being scrutinised appropriately.
Case study: St John’s College, University of Cambridge
The College has implemented an external speakers and events policy that has been put into practice in the past academic year.
As part of operating within the collegiate structure, an external speaker event may need to operate within both the university process as well as that of the college; for example if a university society wishes to book a room at the college. In relation to such requests, the college works in collaboration with the central university team to understand the decisions taken with regard to any appropriate mitigation of potential risk arising from an event for which a room booking request has been received. The college subsequently works with the event organisers to appropriately manage the physical location of the event, and any necessary health and safety or security concerns.
Feedback from such events has been positive.
The college has also recently reviewed the process in which events of this type are managed, and identified areas for streamlining the process where both university and college interests are represented.
Case study: University of Wolverhampton
The development and implementation of the university’s approach to Prevent is co-ordinated through a designated Prevent working group. This group is made up of staff from the academic and operational aspects of the university, a student officer and the Chief Executive of the students’ union. The working group meets bi-monthly and submits reports to the university’s Safeguarding Committee. This reflects the university’s overarching approach to positioning the Prevent duty as a safeguarding responsibility.
The university is embedded within local Prevent structures and networks in the region, including good connections with relevant agencies, authorities, community groups and networks. These relationships promote the sharing of good practice, information and intelligence. This is achieved through a range of activities, such as being a leading member of the Wolverhampton Community Cohesion Forum and Interfaith Network. The university’s Prevent lead is also an active member of the local Counter-Terrorism Strategy (CONTEST) Board and Channel panels (across the region).
The university also has strong links with the police. The Police Inspector (Counter-Terrorism and Safeguarding) for Wolverhampton is a visiting member of the university Safeguarding Committee, and the DfE Regional Prevent Co-ordinator is a visiting member of the Prevent working group.
Case study: Leeds College of Art
Leeds College of Art is a small, specialist provider with a strong vocational emphasis. Speakers and events are almost wholly selected from and based around the creative industries.
The Prevent lead is a member of the senior management team and provides a regular update and report to Governors. The Board receives and monitors reports and briefings on safeguarding and Prevent. The Prevent lead is also responsible for student engagement and regularly meets with the student liaison officer and the student union president.
The college has a Prevent working group chaired by the Prevent lead. The group is made up of:
- academic staff from further and higher education
- heads of central functions including estates and IT
- the Academic Registrar
- designated safeguarding officers (whose responsibilities include judgements over Channel referrals)
- the Head of Research.
The group meets a minimum of three times a year and facilitates internal information-sharing, communication and decision-making. The group also reviews the college’s Prevent risk register and action plan. The meetings are observed by representatives from the staff and student unions, and their minutes are received by the senior management team.
Cross-college briefing days are used as opportunities for the Prevent lead to update all staff on developments in Prevent and provide clarity regarding communication and escalation processes.
The Prevent lead is also a member of the local Prevent Silver group, which links the college into partnerships across the city to share information and good practice and to promote dialogue. The Silver group has members from all the colleges and universities in the local area, as well as local authority representatives, government agencies, the police and its Counter-Terrorism Unit.
If a referral for an external speaker is made, the Prevent Lead is able to draw on the relationships and contacts made through the Silver group to check for any known links to extremism, or existing controversies involving other partners, to inform the college’s own risk assessment.
Case study: KLC School of Design
KLC is a small, specialist school running intensive courses in interior and garden design. Because of its size, KLC decided to embed Prevent-related policies within existing ones. The school formed a Prevent core team to take them forward, to oversee the Prevent Action Plan and to provide updates to the senior management team.
Members of the Prevent core team include the Quality Assurance Manager, the Operations Manager, and the Head of Student Welfare. The core team has also held discussions with the local authority Prevent contact, and has met with local police Prevent leads.
KLC’s student welfare team is on-site daily and available to provide pastoral support. Students have regular contact with the Head of Student Welfare. Details of available student services including contact information can be found in the student course handbooks.
KLC has a tutor student ratio of 1:10, which enables all students to be closely supported by course tutors and means that any change in behaviour would be quickly identified.
Case study: Regent’s University, London
The university's Chief Operating Officer is the senior manager with responsibility, and the single point of contact, for Prevent. The officer is a member of the university’s directorate and attends all meetings of the university’s Board of Trustees.
The university's Prevent working group includes representatives from:
- Student Services
- Human Resources
- conferencing and events
- academic faculties
- the students’ union.
The working group meets at least twice per year and will review the risk assessment and action plan.
The university’s Head of Estates and Security Manager has regular contact with local Metropolitan police officers who have Prevent as part of their brief. The university is part of the London Region Networking Groups, including the HE network and staff development group, which work in partnership to share good practice and resources.
The university is also a member of the Regent’s Safer Parks Group. This includes representatives from a number of secondary and higher education establishments, and Prevent is a standing item for discussion.
Case study: St Patrick’s International College
St Patrick’s International College is part of a broader group, Global University System, which has recently formed a safeguarding committee. This brings together Prevent and safeguarding leads from institutions across the group to participate in a shared forum, discussing matters of safeguarding, sharing of good practice, and finding ways to promote student and staff engagement with the duty.
The college has made good links with the local police and local authorities on Prevent.
Student representatives sit on the Student Council and the Mid-Term Board at St Patrick’s, providing the opportunity for the college to share Prevent updates with staff and students. The college also sends out wider communications to students about how they can participate in Prevent implementation processes.
The Prevent lead regularly updates the Student Council on Prevent implementations. These meetings provide the Student Council with opportunities for discussion and to put forward suggestions for ongoing monitoring.
The Prevent duty forms part of the student induction process for new and returning students. Members of the Student Council have been trained regarding Prevent at their own request, and the President of the Student Council has been actively engaged with the Prevent lead.
Case study: The Royal Agricultural University
The university has a wide range of support available to its students and a number of ways of engaging with them and raising awareness of this support and the policies and procedures that relate to them.
A team of Support Team Advisor Reps is in place to support and engage with students. They are recruited as student mentors to operate outside working hours, providing peer-to-peer support and signposting to university support provision. The university has incorporated them into its Prevent-related training provision.
Case study: Manchester Metropolitan University
The university has extensive and established arrangements for providing welfare, pastoral and chaplaincy support for students, whose continued development has taken account of Prevent duty obligations.
The university works closely and effectively with the students’ union on all aspects of its Prevent duty obligations. The Chief Executive Officer of the students’ union is a member of the Prevent Steering Group, which ensures that there is input from the students’ union into the development and operation of Prevent-related policies and procedures.
The code of practice on freedom of speech applies to meetings, events and activities that are organised by the students’ union and its societies, and the students’ union has rigorous procedures for carrying out initial checks and providing advice to its President and Chief Executive Officer.
The university’s Prevent training has been delivered to students’ union sabbatical officers and staff, some of whom are also members of the management group for the Muslim Prayer Room.
The university is currently developing a video produced by the students’ union, which will include an interview with senior university staff who are managing the implementation of the Prevent duty. The intention is to release the video at the beginning of the new academic year. This approach is considered to be more appropriate for a student audience, and focuses on those aspects of the Prevent duty that are particularly relevant to students.
Case study: London South Bank University
London South Bank University has written and developed its own online training for all staff, and its training software package provides detailed completion statistics. It has also adopted a tiered training model with face-to-face training for groups more likely to have dealings with someone being drawn into extremism, including security, catering and cleaning contractors. A wide range of staff from across the university have successfully undertaken the online training package, and staff in key roles have received more detailed face-to-face training. The institution’s safeguarding committee monitors an overall training timetable and progress within it.
The university is willing to support other providers with training. The Head of Health, Safety and Resilience has regularly shared information about the training package through the London Regional Network, in the hope that this will support other universities. The university has also discussed with its DfE Prevent Coordinator the potential roll-out of training to further education colleges.
Case study: The Open University
As a large provider, primarily of distance learning, operating across the UK, the Open University has developed a two-tiered approach to delivering training in respect of Prevent to reflect its specific operating context. This has ensured that the roll-out of training is proportionate, in light of the fact that its tutors work part-time, with very limited direct contact between frontline staff and students.
As part of this tiered approach, all staff are required to undertake a basic level of familiarisation training on Prevent including how to report a matter of concern. This has included contract catering, cleaning and security staff, despite their very limited contact with either students or university staff. In the annual reporting cycle 2015-16, the university recorded that over 4,000 staff, students and visitors had accessed the training material.
Those staff with key responsibility in respect of Prevent or in direct contact with students have been required to undertake additional e-learning training, and in some cases face-to-face training, to ensure they can recognise the signs of staff and students vulnerable to being drawn into terrorism.
The Prevent Co-ordinator and Deputy have attended a more specific Workshop to Raise Awareness about Prevent training, to ensure they are up to date and understand the requirements of the duty.
The university has also ensured that training relating to Prevent is included in the induction programme for all staff, as well as postgraduate research students. Training has also been made available to the Open University’s affiliated research centres in the UK, via its shared virtual research environment.
The university is also currently rolling out a new learning management system which will allow the tracking of all those who undertake Tier 1 and Tier 2 training.
Case study: De Montfort University
As a part of its training strategy, the university has considered the needs of academic staff who are often in the front line for pastoral care issues. Rather than focusing exclusively on Prevent, the university has developed a training package that addresses many issues where students could be at risk.
This training is intended to empower academic staff to be confident in dealing with student welfare issues, including those under the Prevent duty. The delivery of this training is face-to-face, with a complementary online module that links with the university student support mechanisms.
Case study: Sheffield Hallam University
Following extensive research into the training material and delivery approaches available in relation to Prevent, the university developed a comprehensive and bespoke tiered approach to training which recognises the different needs of staff and the requirements of the university as a whole. This entailed a detailed analysis of training needs to define the specific training requirements of different groups of staff across the university.
The core training product has been drawn from the materials provided by the Leadership Foundation for Higher Education, which the university has adapted and tailored to meet the needs of specific groups of staff.
The focus of the university’s Prevent workshops has been to encourage and facilitate discussion about the issues, using case studies and examples to enhance individual and team understanding. The workshops enable staff to assess the implications for themselves, their teams and the services they deliver in the university.
The tiered approach includes the delivery of workshops tailored to the needs of target groups of staff who have particular roles relevant to Prevent.
Briefings have taken place for some staff groups, and a Prevent e-learning module is available for all staff, with new staff asked to complete this as part of the induction process. The e-learning module is also the primary route for training academic staff and will be followed up with workshops for specific groups as required.
In preparation for the rollout of the online Prevent training, the university has disseminated to all its staff a video message from the Vice-Chancellor explaining the Prevent duty, the university’s Prevent arrangements and what staff can do to support them. This message reinforces awareness of the existing general information for staff about Prevent.
Case study: BPP
BPP has 21 centres across the country, which deliver education and training in areas such as health, law, business, accountancy and tax. The majority share their facilities with other tenants.
The main risk to successful implementation of the duty across this organisation is consistency of training. In response, the provider has established a two-tier approach to training, created ‘Prevent Champions’, forged strong links with Prevent partners, ensured that safeguarding and wellbeing teams meet frequently to discuss concerns, and coordinated escalation or referral through its DfE Regional Prevent Coordinator.
There is a short online module which all staff are required to complete to raise awareness of Prevent, and a second module focusing on safeguarding and wellbeing for those key staff in student facing roles.
The structure of the Prevent training is the same for each of the centres, which makes lack of consistency less of a risk as the approach is only different where necessary and appropriate, for example, local personnel and partner contacts, with activity coordinated across all centres by a ‘National Prevent Compliance Manager’.
Case study: University of Sunderland
As part of its decision-making process on whether or not to implement web filtering or monitoring, the university fully considered: the options available and their advantages and limitations; what expertise it already had access to, both in house and externally; and the impacts of its decisions on the core university, including potential cost implications and relationships with students and staff. It also engaged with all parts of the university community.
Subsequently, the institution decided to introduce web ‘blocking’ across all its networks and extended this approach to include student residencies and third-party tenants. It was agreed, following extensive consideration, that the university would block access to extremist-related material as well as two other categories.
As part of its strategy, this institution revised its acceptable IT use policy to ensure it aligned with the requirements of the duty, including explicit reference to the statutory duty and the consequences of accessing, promoting or supporting Prevent-related material.
The institution also established a clear process to authorise access to restricted content for legitimate research purposes for staff and students, including a decision log and a review of access.
The institution is committed to reviewing the efficacy of the arrangements and will do so at set points. It has also committed to establishing links to existing external projects, such as those facilitated by Safe Campus Communities.
Case study: University College London
In accordance with the statutory guidance, the university has considered the use of web monitoring and filtering as part of its overall strategy to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism. This has included consideration of the university’s Prevent risk assessment. However, the university has opted against using IT filtering on the grounds of preservation of academic freedom, and to prevent censorship.
The university reserves the right to monitor internet activity if it believes in grounds to suspect that there has been a breach in its computer regulations or that an individual is acting unlawfully.
The university’s Computing Regulations state that staff and students have an obligation to abide by the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015. This policy applies to the use of all IT facilities and sets out clear definitions of acceptable and unacceptable use. The policy specifies that university websites shall not link to unacceptable external sites. The regulations identify a route for reporting non-compliance and the disciplinary action that may follow.
Additionally, access to the internet from any IT system connected to the campus network is recorded, and the logs are retained to allow suspected misuse to be investigated in accordance with UK law. This has allowed the university to maintain strong relationships with academics and students alike, assuring them that every measure is being taken to reduce the risk of academic freedoms being infringed.
Case study: London Metropolitan University
The university took the decision, as part of its compliance with the Prevent duty, to implement web filtering and monitoring. It opted to use a web filtering product as part of the university’s firewall. The university carefully monitors what categories might be blocked through the web filtering product, while ensuring that academic freedom is not compromised.
The university has also ensured that the IT system includes a pop-up on blocked sites, directing users to contact the University Secretary’s office if this appears and they need access for approved research purposes.
The university is working with its IT team in a number of ways to maintain vigilance. A weekly spreadsheet of hits in the extremism category is provided to the University Secretary’s office. It is intended that one-off attempts to access these websites prompt an email to the user which explains why it was blocked and refers to the acceptable IT usage policy. Serial attempts to access blocked material will be treated as a concern under the university’s wider safeguarding policy.
Case study: University of Bristol
The University of Bristol is a large, research-intensive institution. As with many other providers, the decision on whether to implement web filtering was not taken in isolation but as part of a whole university approach to the duty. The university has formed a Prevent Compliance Group which includes representation from all key parts of the institution.
In considering whether to implement web filtering, the university consulted, ensuring staff and students had the opportunity to comment and to shape the institution’s approach.
The IT Services department identified and produced a statement on each of the themes presented in the duty, which included:
- policies for acceptable use and processes for managing misuse
- management of websites and social media by affiliated groups
- consideration of filtering and monitoring.
The university considered effectiveness and cost of blocking, use of social media, impact on network performance, and potential effects on academic freedom.
On the basis of the information gathered through this approach, the university has agreed to continue with its current approach and refine processes where necessary. The institution has, however, committed to becoming ‘filtering ready’.
Subsequently, the acceptable use policy and the social media policy were revised to include clear definitions of what is and is not permissible in relation to extremist-related material, the approval route if access is required for legitimate research, and the consequences of any breach.
The processes for managing legitimate research were also updated. The amendments were made in collaboration with the key parts of the university, including staff from Student Welfare, Legal Services, IT, Human Resources and the students’ union.
The university will continue to review its decisions and the available alternative options on a regular basis, and to engage with the university community as part of its decision-making process.
Arrangements for monitoring Prevent in franchise partners
Case study: Brunel University London
The university has worked closely with its franchise partner providers to ensure they are compliant with Prevent. The London Brunel International College (LBIC) is located at Brunel University London and has been in partnership with the university since 2003. In 2015 Brunel identified LBIC as an external partner for the purpose of Prevent.
The university has a close and effective working relationship with its partner. Since 2015, the following appropriate arrangements have been put in place with LBIC to safeguard students and ensure due regard to the Prevent duty:
- LBIC is a member of the university’s Prevent Working Group
- It signed the university’s ‘Prevent Information-Sharing Agreement’
- Its students and staff were consulted on the university’s Prevent Action Plan
- LBIC staff were trained by the university’s Prevent Coordinator
- Additionally, LBIC’s own Prevent policy was drafted in consultation with the university.
Case study: University of Sheffield
The university has a number of partners in delivering its educational activity and has invited a representative from each of its collaborative partners to participate in the University Prevent Working Group, to ensure effective communication and information-sharing.
The university has also delivered dedicated staff briefings setting out its role and responsibilities in relation to Prevent at its partner institutions.
By directly involving its partners in the approach being taken, the university has gained assurance and greater oversight of any potential risks in respect of its collaborative partnerships.
Download the themed case studies as PDFs
Download all case studies for welfare
Download all case studies for external speakers and events
Download all case studies for leadership and partnership
Download all case studies for engagement with students
Download all case studies for training
Download all case studies for IT
Download all case studies for arrangements for monitoring Prevent in franchise partners
Download all case studies as one PDF
HEFCE and its key partners have undertaken work to support the implementation of the Prevent duty. The summaries below think about ‘what works’ as part of HEFCE’s role in supporting continuous improvement and facilitating the sharing of effective practice with the sector.
Thinking about ‘What works’: IT
Thinking about ‘What works’: Welfare