Channel’s 22-factor vulnerability framework rests on unvalidated pseudo-science

Evidence

An essential element of Prevent is ‘Channel’, which now operates under the CTSA. Channel is a multi-agency programme to assess the extent of vulnerability to radicalization of a person referred by the police, and, where appropriate, draw up a (de-radicalization) support plan or refer the person to health or social care services. Some uncertainty exists regarding the requirement for consent before intervention or sharing of personal information by Channel. The assessment of vulnerability by Channel is based on a framework comprising 22 factors, grouped under ‘engagement’, ‘intent’ and ‘capability’ (HM Government 2012b), which may or may not apply to a referred person. The lack of reliable evidence to support the validity of this assessment, which is applied to children and adults referred by non-specialists via the police, gives rise to real doubts regarding the integrity of the process. While there has been little academic research conducted on Channel (not least because of a lack of transparency and openness from government in terms of data), a study by Coppock and McGovern (2014) argues that it is ‘ill-conceived’, relies on ‘pseudo science’ and, through its reliance on untested cognitive behavioural therapies, may in fact cause harm to its recipients. — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia, 409

Categorization

• QUESTION: Worth chasing: what exactly are the 22 Channel factors, and has any independent validation been attempted since 2014?
• XREF: connects to: Predictive threat-detection rests on epistemologically fragile assumptions — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 198

Related

• Britain’s Channel de-radicalization programme rests on an unvalidated, potentially harmful assessment framework. (similarity 0.91)

Broader Connections

• Predictive threat-detection rests on epistemologically fragile assumptions #expands (0.82) — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 198