Prevent Duty: Updated Guidance for DSLs
The Department for Education updated its practical Prevent guidance for Designated Safeguarding Leads on 2 October 2026. The guidance updated practical Prevent guidance for Designated Safeguarding Leads provides useful clarification for DSLs about identifying and responding to concerns where a learner may be susceptible to radicalisation.
Prevent as Core Safeguarding Practice
Since its inception, Prevent Duty has sat parallel to the safeguarding remit as a thematic topic however the new guidance aims to embed the duty within core safeguarding practice. The new guidance is clear, Prevent Duty is key part of everyday safeguarding.
Radicalisation should not be regarded as an issue sitting separately from a school's wider safeguarding responsibilities. The guidance states that concerns should be addressed through established safeguarding processes, although Prevent retains a specific referral route where specialist assessment and support may be required.
For DSLs, this means applying many of the same principles that underpin effective safeguarding practice: knowing the child, remaining professionally curious, bringing information together and avoiding conclusions based on one incident or behaviour.
Understanding Susceptibility and Context
The guidance is clear that there is no single profile of a learner who may be susceptible to radicalisation. Nor is there one behaviour that tells us radicalisation is taking place. DSLs need to use professional judgement, consider the available evidence and understand the wider context of concerns.
Whilst there may be factors affecting a learner's susceptibility, such as isolation, bullying or discrimination, trauma, unmet emotional or social needs, feelings of grievance or injustice, significant life changes, harmful online influences or vulnerability to other forms of exploitation, none of these, on their own, mean that a learner is being radicalised. A child experiencing bullying, for example, is not automatically at risk of radicalisation. What matters is the wider picture: their behaviour, circumstances, relationships, changes over time and the protective factors around them. This is where effective safeguarding practice and professional curiosity matter.
Roles of Staff and DSLs
Staff don't need to make decisions about whether a learner should be referred to Prevent. They do, however, need enough knowledge to recognise when something may be wrong and understand how to report a concern.
The guidance states that staff should be alert to concerning changes in behaviour, understand their safeguarding responsibilities, report concerns through the setting's safeguarding procedures and undertake appropriate Prevent training.
Once a concern is reported, the DSL should then consider the information available, looking at the wider contextual picture. This includes gathering and reviewing information, speaking with the pupil and, where appropriate, parents or carers, and considering vulnerabilities alongside risk and protective factors, in order to decide on the most appropriate response. This distinction is important - a concern does not automatically equal a Prevent referral.
Listening to Learners and Working with Families
One of the strengths of the updated guidance is the attention it gives to speaking with learners. When a concerning statement, behaviour or change is identified, context matters. Listening to the learner may help the DSL understand what sits behind it rather than making assumptions based solely on what has been observed or reported.
Parents and carers may also hold important pieces of that wider picture, and the guidance includes specific advice about working with them. This is recognisable safeguarding practice. We gather information, listen, question appropriately and try to understand the child's circumstances before reaching conclusions.
SEND and Neurodiversity
The position around SEND and neurodiversity also needs careful consideration. Depending on their individual circumstances, some learners with SEND or those who are neurodivergent may experience vulnerabilities that could be exploited by others. However, SEND and neurodiversity are not indicators of radicalisation and should not be treated as risk factors in themselves. The guidance says assessments should be based on the individual learner's circumstances, behaviour and needs.
That distinction matters. Additional needs should never become a shortcut to making assumptions about why a child is behaving in a particular way.
Online Influences
The guidance recognises that radicalisation can occur online as well as offline. It identifies online activity and influences as part of the context professionals may need to explore when concerns arise. As so often in safeguarding, the fuller picture matters. An online incident that seems relatively isolated may take on greater significance when viewed alongside changes in behaviour, relationships or other safeguarding concerns.
Concerning Behaviours and Wider Context
The updated guidance has also added material relating specifically to fixation with weaponry or explosives and antisemitism within the guidance on concerning behaviours. This needs careful interpretation.
A fixation with weaponry or explosives, without an otherwise reasonable explanation, may form part of a concern. But it should still be considered alongside patterns of behaviour, changes over time and the wider context. One behaviour alone does not demonstrate radicalisation.
The guidance is equally careful in relation to antisemitism. It states that antisemitism, in itself, is not a Prevent concern. However, where antisemitic beliefs, rhetoric or behaviour form part of a wider extremist worldview that may contribute to radicalisation or support for terrorism, a Prevent referral may be appropriate.
These can be complex judgements, which is why context and professional curiosity are so important.
Embedding Prevent in Safeguarding Policy
Finally, the guidance states that schools do not need to create a separate Prevent policy. Prevent considerations should instead be embedded within relevant safeguarding policies, which returns us to the underlying message of the update:
Prevent is not about trying to spot a particular type of child or reacting automatically to an isolated statement or behaviour. It is about effective contextual safeguarding practice.
Conclusion
Ultimately, effective Prevent practice rests on the same foundations as effective safeguarding: knowing the child, remaining professionally curious and responding to concerns early.
SSS Learning Safeguarding Director
29 October 2026