Prevent problems, DASH failings and recognising honour-based abuse.
Three stories have pulled back the curtain on how our safeguarding system sometimes misses the mark: gaps in Prevent when violence isn’t ideological, problems with the DASH domestic-abuse tool, and a long-overdue legal recognition of honour-based abuse. Each exposes weaknesses but also gives us a clear starting point for practical improvements through better co-ordination, smarter tools and stronger professional practice.
Context & background
Prevent was set up to spot and stop ideological radicalisation. Recent cases show that people who are fixated on violence without a political or religious motive can fall outside the net. At the same time, DASH, the risk assessment used for years in domestic abuse, is being questioned for not spotting those most at risk. And finally, putting honour-based abuse into law gives professionals clearer ground to act and protects survivors more effectively.
Key developments explained
Prevent’s threshold problems: A case involving a 15-year-old attacker in Wales showed how worrying behaviour, fascination with Hitler, weapons and threats was noted by different agencies but not joined up. Conversations happened, but a Prevent referral wasn’t made and early help never took hold. The learning: fragmented information-sharing costs lives.
DASH under scrutiny: Ministers and practitioners now say DASH can be too blunt. Victims labelled “medium” or “standard” risk have later been killed, so forces are piloting alternatives like Dara and looking at how technology might help. Until a reliable replacement is in place, professionals must treat the tool as one part of an assessment not the whole picture.
Honour-based abuse becomes law: Giving this abuse a legal definition matters. It supports tailored training, better data collection and more confident action by teachers, police and health workers. The rise in reporting suggests more victims are coming forward but it also shows how much work remains.
What does this mean for safeguarding teams?
Think beyond ideology: Risk markers can be behavioural; don’t wait for a political motive before acting.
Use tools wisely: Assessment forms are useful, but combine them with professional judgement, context and multi-agency discussion.
Act on new legal clarity: Use the legal definition of honour-based abuse to update policies, training and local pathways.
Action points to consider
Strengthen information-sharing protocols so concerns raised in one agency trigger multi-agency review.
Pilot and evaluate alternatives to DASH and ensure staff training emphasises professional judgement.
Update training on honour-based abuse with culturally informed practice and survivor-centred responses.
Conclusion
These stories show clear gaps but also a moment for change. By improving how we share information, by treating assessment tools as part of a wider professional process, and by acting on the legal steps now in place, we can make safeguarding smarter and kinder. If you’d like help turning these points into policy, training or practical tools for your setting, visit http://www.bcssafeguarding.co.uk for tailored support.
Together we can change lives.
Leave a Reply