RadicalizationNew counter-terror rules give GPs bizarre incentives to refer mental health patients as radicalization threat
Mental health trusts in England are now to play a vital role in processing the huge number of citizens referred under the government’s counter-terrorism strategy, known as Prevent. A new policy announced in November by the Home Office means urgent psychiatric care will now be provided by mental health trusts to those people with psychological problems who are referred to Prevent. But this will remove them from a pipeline of support under a program called Channel, aimed at those suspected of radicalizing. No one could possibly object to the provision of mental health care to those in need. But on deeper inspection, the integration of mental health trusts within the Prevent strategy reveals profound confusion within counter-terrorism policies. And the move could give health professionals perverse incentives to actually refer patients with mental health needs to Prevent – because they think it might get them help quicker.
Mental health trusts in England are now to play a vital role in processing the huge number of citizens referred under the government’s counter-terrorism strategy, known as Prevent. A new policy announced in November by the Home Office means urgent psychiatric care will now be provided by mental health trusts to those people with psychological problems who are referred to Prevent. But this will remove them from a pipeline of support under a program called Channel, aimed at those suspected of radicalizing.
No one could possibly object to the provision of mental health care to those in need. But on deeper inspection, the integration of mental health trusts within the Prevent strategy reveals profound confusion within counter-terrorism policies. And the move could give health professionals perverse incentives to actually refer patients with mental health needs to Prevent – because they think it might get them help quicker.
Debates in the media about the new policy have so far focused on the small percentage of Prevent referrals which end up receiving specialist Channel support – 5 percent of the 7,631 people referred between April 2015 and March 2016 – and the disproportionate number of Islamist-related referrals.
The government’s figures on outcomes for those referred to Prevent show that 36% of people were deemed unworthy of further action, meaning they were not at risk of radicalization. A further 50% of referrals received help from “other services” – not de-radicalization ones – which included education, health and social care.
But if in 50% of cases, radicalization can be prevented by fast-tracked access to education, healthcare and social support, the government should not be cutting funding for these very services. The government’s logic suggests that strong social services can prevent radicalization. So surely the reduction in availability of services, through government austerity cuts, is likely to increase the risk of radicalization. Reversing austerity would therefore reduce the number of people at risk of radicalization.
Relying on mental health
The NHS has been responsible for preventing terrorism since 2011, when Department of Health policy framed Prevent as a safeguarding measure. Since then, great efforts have
