The Children’s Commissioner, Dame Rachel de Souza’s warning about the Government’s Prevent strategy should concern every school leader. Her recent analysis, Children referred to the Prevent programme (CRP, August 2026), shows that Prevent, which purports to protect communities from extremism, is drawing thousands of vulnerable children into investigations they should never have been subject to. The implications of her criticism for schools, safeguarding practice and children’s welfare are profound.
Prevent is one strand of the UK’s counter‑terrorism strategy, CONTEST. Introduced after the 7/7 attacks, it was intended to identify individuals at risk of radicalisation in order to intervene early. Over time, its scope has expanded dramatically. Schools, colleges, universities, NHS services, social workers and police were all given a statutory duty to report concerns – meaning teachers and school leaders are legally required to refer pupils if they believe they may be vulnerable to extremist influence. This duty places significant pressure on schools, often without the specialist training needed to interpret complex childhood behaviour.
Civil liberties organisations have long raised concerns about Prevent’s impact on children. Liberty argues that the duty creates a ‘climate of fear’ and encourages over‑referral without clear evidence. The Open Society Justice Initiative’s Eroding Trust report (2016) found that Prevent’s risk indicators ‘lack a scientific basis’ and that the duty leads to ‘over‑cautious reporting’ driven by conscious or unconscious bias. These findings highlight how easily Prevent can misfire when professionals feel compelled to act defensively.
The Children’s Commissioner’s analysis shows the scale of the problem. More than 6,000 children were referred to Prevent last year (CRP, p. 4), including over 1,600 under the age of 14 (CRP, p. 4). Staggeringly, more than half of all Prevent referrals were children (CRP, p. 3) and of those, 16% were autistic, compared to 3% of the general population (CRP, p. 6). This shows that autistic children are much more likely to be referred to Prevent.
Perhaps autistic children sometimes display behaviours that can be misinterpreted by adults who lack specialist training: literal language, intense interests in topics like military history or weaponry, repeating phrases without understanding their meaning, difficulty navigating social cues, or rigid thinking and unusual communication patterns. These are normal expressions of neurodivergence, yet Prevent has repeatedly treated them as signs of ideological danger. As de Souza warns, ‘We are seeing vulnerable children swept into a system that was never designed for them.’ (CRP, p. 2).
The consequences are serious. The report reveals that hundreds of children were formally questioned by police as part of Prevent investigations (CRP, p. 7), despite having committed no crime. De Souza warns that children are being drawn into ‘high‑stakes interventions that they cannot understand and should never have been subjected to’ (CRP, p. 8). Families described being frightened when police arrived at their homes, and some children were left distressed or confused after being interviewed about topics they barely comprehended. For autistic children, who may already struggle with unfamiliar adults or high‑pressure situations, these encounters can be traumatising.
The human cost is clear. Children have been questioned by police, placed under multi‑agency scrutiny, or monitored in ways that left families frightened and confused (CRP, pp. 7–9). Some were too young to understand what was happening. Others were left anxious, ashamed or mistrustful of adults who were supposed to protect them. Prevent referrals can follow a child through their education, shaping how teachers perceive them and how support services respond.
The findings point to a system that is not equipped to safeguard vulnerable children. Prevent needs structural reform, not minor adjustments. Training must be rebuilt so professionals can distinguish neurodivergent behaviour from genuine ideological risk. Referral thresholds must be tightened to prevent children being drawn into counter‑terrorism processes unnecessarily. Safeguarding frameworks must be strengthened so that children’s welfare – not institutional caution – drives decision‑making. And crucially, the voices of families and neurodivergent young people must be central to future policy design.
The future of Prevent cannot look like its past. If the programme is to retain public trust, it must evolve into a system that protects children rather than frightens them, supports families rather than alarms them, and recognises vulnerability as a need for help – not a marker of risk. De Souza’s report has illuminated the scale of the problem. The responsibility now lies with Government, policymakers and safeguarding leaders to deliver the change children deserve.
ParentPower Team
ppadmin
