A new scheme to detect people who are obsessed with violence before they kill, such as the Southport attacker Axel Rudakubana, should be considered by the government, an official report will say.

The report into Prevent, the controversial programme intended to stop people from becoming terrorists, will also find repeated “failings” in the case of the man who went on to assassinate the MP Sir David Amess, the Guardian understands.

It has been compiled by David Anderson KC, the interim reviewer of Prevent.

Anderson’s report was first ordered by the home secretary, Yvette Cooper, in January after revelations in the Guardian that the Southport attacker had been referred three times to Prevent and rejected each time because officials believed he was not motivated by any clear terrorist ideology.

Anderson was later asked to examine blunders in how the scheme handled the case of Ali Harbi Ali in the years before he stabbed Amess to death as the MP held a constituency surgery in 2021, in what has been classed as a terrorist attack.

The findings are likely to intensify the campaign by the family of the murdered veteran Tory MP that there should be a public inquiry into what the authorities knew about the dangers posed by Amess’s killer, and whether he could have been stopped. The government has so far resisted that call.

The Amess family want an inquiry similar to that into the Southport atrocity, which started hearings this week.

Rudakubana, then 17, stabbed three young girls to death at a summer holiday dance class in July 2024 in Southport, and attempted to murder eight other children and two adults who tried to protect them.

Rudakubana’s case was rejected three times by Prevent because, while there was concern about his interest in violence, there was no sign it was driven by a terrorist ideology.

As well as those driven to violence by such an ideology, police and the government are concerned about young men consuming a “pick and mix” of horror online and showing levels of interest in violence considered to be worrying.

Anderson’s report, expected to be published imminently, is the first official report after the Southport case to say a new anti-violence scheme needs to be considered for those thought to pose a threat, but where no terrorist ideology is detected.

Any new anti-violence scheme would be in addition to Prevent and possibly even include it as a specific element to deal with those where ideology, such as Islamist or far right, is present.

Multiple sources told the Guardian that while a new anti-violence scheme may be needed, a lack of money may thwart its setting-up.

The number of people potentially needing to be covered by it could dwarf the average of 6,000-7,000 referred to Prevent annually.

Anderson suggests a review should take place into whether the new anti-violence scheme should be set up.

Rudakubana’s conviction last year led to a usually secret internal review by Prevent into his case to be published, followed by one into the Amess case.

Anderson finds Prevent has made improvements after those reviews and revelations about failings. But issues remain, including about how the state deals with those fixated with violence, who are mainly young men, and assessing who will go on to attack.

Those with knowledge of the Southport public inquiry expect it to hear allegations of deficiencies in other agencies’ handling of Rudakubana during the years leading up to his atrocity.

Speaking about the Southport case, Cooper said in January: “This terrible case comes against a backdrop over a series of years in which growing numbers of teenagers have been referred to Prevent, investigated by counter-terror police, or referred to other agencies amid concerns around serious violence and extremism. We need to face up to why this has been happening and what needs to change.”

Later, explaining why the Anderson review was needed, Cooper said: “His first task will be to conduct a thorough review of the Prevent history in this case to identify what changes are needed to make sure serious cases are not missed, particularly where there is mixed and unclear ideology.”

Rudakubana was referred three times to Prevent for an interest in knives and mass atrocities, in December 2019 and twice in 2021.

Ali was convicted of Amess’s murder in 2022, when he was 26. He had been referred to Prevent in 2014 by his school and his case was adopted amid concerns he could have an interest in violent Islamism.

His case was closed in 2016 after he had been referred to the Channel scheme for those deemed most at risk of radicalisation.

He tricked the scheme into thinking he was not a terrorist threat, known as “disguised compliance”, but far from being deradicalised, Ali went on to consume Islamic State propaganda.

A year after being cleared by Prevent and Channel, he had wanted to travel to join IS in Syria. Having been thwarted in that aim, he started researching and hunting for an MP to murder.

In October 2021, Ali attacked Amess, 69, stabbing him with a knife 21 times as he held a Southend West and Leigh constituency surgery in a Leigh-on-Sea church. Ali told an onlooker he was doing it for Syria.

Ali is serving a whole-life tariff for murder. Rudakubana is serving a life sentence with a minimum tariff of 52 years.

Prevent is the official national programme to identify those feared to be falling for terrorist ideologies and turn them away from carrying out violence. Children and adults referred to the scheme are assessed and, if they are deemed to pose sufficient risk, work is done to reduce that danger.