Confidential research used by the government as the basis for identifying radicalisation in the controversial Prevent programme relies on flawed science, a group of academics has claimed.

The study, conducted by psychologists at the prison service, identified 22 “risk factors” for gauging whether individuals are vulnerable to engaging with terrorist groups or posing a security risk.

The risk factors, which have become known as the Extremism Risk Guidance 22+, form the basis for the “vulnerability assessment framework” carried out under Channel, a strand of the Prevent programme that aims to identify and engage with people believed to be at risk of radicalisation.

Referrals to Channel can come from teachers, social workers, healthcare workers and police. Last year, nearly 4,000 people were referred for assessment, including children younger than nine.



The exact contents of the study have been deemed classified by the government, and the Ministry of Justice has previously refused to release it when asked by the Guardian. An official claimed that releasing the details of the 22 risk factors would compromise the assessment.



However, the study’s authors, psychologists Monica Lloyd and Christopher Dean in the National Offender Management Service, published an article about their methodology in an academic journal last year.

Referrals can come from teachers, social workers, healthcare workers and police. Photograph: Alamy

A review of that article, released on Thursday by Cage, an advocacy group for people affected by the war on terror, and reviewed by 19 academics, raises concerns over the study’s methodology and the lack of a recognised peer-review process or oversight from the broader psychology community.

The “Science of Pre-crime” report has prompted more than 140 academics and experts, including Noam Chomsky, to sign an open letter protesting against the lack of transparency and scrutiny of the science that underpins key aspects of the government’s domestic counter-terrorism strategy.



“We are concerned that tools that purport to have a psychology evidence base are being developed and placed under a statutory duty while their ‘science’ has not been subjected to proper scientific scrutiny or public critique,” they write.

They add: “Several dozen children have been directly affected through the courts based on assessments using the tool – the impact is significant and cannot be emphasised enough.”

The Royal College of Psychiatrists recently also raised concerns about the secrecy shrouding the evidence base for the risk assessment. “Public policy cannot be based on either no evidence or a lack of transparency about evidence,” the college wrote in a position statement. “The evidence underpinning the UK’s Extremism Risk Guidance 22+ and other data relating to this guidance, should be comprehensively published and readily accessible.”

Lloyd told the Guardian the original study was “not an academic piece of work” but instead was an internal report by practitioners that was “done to the highest standard it could be done”.

She said there was nothing in the study that had not been included in the published report, which had been peer-reviewed blind. “It still met the standards for publication in an academic journal,” she said.

The original study relied on observations of 20 convicted offenders who had some relationship to Islam. Lloyd and Dean wrote: “Some had a clear intent to offend that can be deduced from their actions; others are clearly engaged with a group, cause or ideology but do not intend to contribute to or perform an act of terrorism.”

The psychologists report that due to problems in interviewing prisoners, “the methodology could not be developed through a conventional academic approach”. Some offenders would not speak to them, while others changed their minds about cooperating “at the last minute”.

Cage’s review raises concerns about whether the findings of a “small-scale, qualitative study” on a narrow group can be extrapolated to the wider population. The authors also note that there does not appear to have been any attempt to replicate the study.

Lloyd said: “This is the only evidence base that there is at the moment: it’s what has happened to those who are already in prison … it’s incontrovertible evidence for how people became engaged in extremism but then crossed the threshold [into violence].” She added that it had been used to help officials decide which prisoners posed a threat, and which did not.

David Miller, a sociology professor at the University of Bath, told the Guardian: “This is secret research, and we can’t interrogate what the process was that led to the material in the original report. It’s not academic research, it’s not social science – it’s an internal report and not in any way a sound basis for making any kind of policy.”

The Home Office said: “The guidance that is used was based on a peer-reviewed study, carried out to meticulous academic guidelines and published in two publicly available academic journals.

“It informed part of the process used by independent experts to assess a person’s vulnerability to being drawn into terrorism, and the support which would most benefit them to stop this happening.”