Inconsistency in how safeguarding concerns relating to extremism are recorded is hampering councils' ability to tackle the threat, a damning review has concluded.

A serious case review (SCR) into how two teenage brothers travelled to fight in Syria in 2014 warned that local authorities, Whitehall and their partners must improve and standardise their recording of safeguarding concerns to maximise the effectiveness of anti-extremist programmes such as Prevent.

The review, published by Brighton & Hove's Local Safeguarding Children's Board (LSCB), revealed how public agencies missed opportunities to spot the radicalisation of brothers Abdullah and Jaffar Deghayes.

Both teenagers, who died fighting for an Al-Qaeda-affiliated group in Syria, were known to social services officials, the police, education and youth services personnel – and had been subject to a protection plan until 2010 due to a traumatic childhood that may have made them vulnerable to exploitation.

In one incident in 2012, Jaffar threatened to kill a shopkeeper and later told officers that ‘judgement day' would come to all ‘who did not follow Allah'.

The review found public bodies' failure to share key information meant their radicalisation was not spotted.

It read: ‘Both locally and nationally there is inconsistency in how safeguarding concerns relating to extremism are recorded. In terms of reporting and monitoring, the Prevent duty requires all agencies to record Prevent safeguarding concerns even if they do not refer to the police.

‘In some areas there is a system in place which highlights if a family member is referred to Prevent, but this is not consistent across the country. This becomes more problematic if families move between local authorities. The LSCB agrees there needs to be improved oversight of this issue, both locally and nationally.'

The SCR also revealed a ‘perception that counter-terrorism police officers have insufficient understanding and experience of child safeguarding to know when to share information' with Prevent officers.

While the review focuses primarily on the Deghayes' case it makes key observations about the wider effectiveness of anti-terror and anti-extremism programmes.

Chair of the Brighton & Hove LSCB, Graham Bartlett, said: ‘The findings relate mainly to the challenges for professionals in providing effective help and support to children who have suffered trauma in their early childhood, which can provide the context for children becoming vulnerable to exploitation.'

One expert told The MJ the SCR was already being viewed as a ‘blueprint' for public bodies striving to strengthen their anti-extremism work following the terror attacks in Manchester and London this year.

The source added: ‘Public bodies need to develop a seamless information sharing regime.'

In June, the Local Government Association (LGA) revealed its programme of anti-terror, anti-extremism and community cohesion work for 2017/18, including the development of ‘toolkits' to help councils tackle Islamist and right-wing extremism.

Chair of the LGA's safer and stronger communities board, Cllr Simon Blackburn, said: ‘Preventing people from being drawn into terrorism is a key priority for councils. Local authorities are working with communities to identify those at risk of radicalisation, including assessing local risks, holding regular safeguarding meetings, establishing multi-agency boards to oversee local action plans and putting processes in place to ensure the support vulnerable individuals need is offered. However local authorities' work needs to be properly funded over the long-term and the review of the counter-terrorism strategy, announced in the Queen's Speech, needs to draw on councils' experience.'