New analysis finds age assessments vary greatly, and too often lack fairness, nuance and good reasoning
Young Roots, a charity that supports young refugees, this week published a report that examines in detail how age assessments of asylum seekers are being determined by local authorities in England.
The 45-page report, Good Decision-Making in Age Assessments, can be downloaded here. It was produced in collaboration with Immigration Social Work Services (ISWS) and the Public Law Project (PLP).
The Refugee Council says the report is vital reading for everyone committed to child protection.
Using a sample of age assessment reports alongside a survey of social workers, Young Roots found that the practice of age assessment varied greatly, and too often the sample assessments that were examined lacked fairness, nuance and good reasoning.
The report sets out its key findings as follows:
- In the sample of age assessment reports, the physical appearance of the young person was the most noted and relied-upon factor for assessing age, and some methods of assessing appearance lacked validity.
- The assessment reports showed an under-utilisation of evidence: 66% of all the potential age indicators gathered and recorded by Social Workers were not used to draw any conclusions.
- 'Demeanour' was heavily relied upon in the assessment reports, despite the meaning of the term being unclear and there being questions about its reliability as a basis for decisions.
- Observations of child social and behavioural development were under-explored.
- Age indicators were sometimes oversimplified and not explored holistically.
- The impact of trauma was routinely missed, minimised or inappropriately assessed.
- Timelines and chronologies were underused.
- Objective sources to back up parts of the assessment were underused and where references were used, a significant number served an unclear purpose; there was also evidence of inappropriate use of references.
- Consultation often did not involve all the relevant people at the right time, and methods for requesting information and views on a young person's age were not consistent or transparent. A lack of curiosity and conscientiousness in consultation was observed in some of the assessment reports.
- While there were some examples of good reasoning, the reports reviewed in the research included frequent errors of reasoning such as overconfidence in conclusions and a lack of consideration of alternative conclusions.
- Assessments of credibility seemed to be searching for deficiencies, reports included negative framing of the young person's behaviour, and there were some worrying examples of prejudiced language.
- Approaches to report writing varied in length and style and some came across as critical and lacking compassion. Most were not written in a style that would be accessible to the young person concerned.
- Social workers reported being somewhat confident in conducting age assessments but those who didn't feel confident noted the challenges of uncertainty, complexity, changes in case law, the impact of their decisions, feelings of responsibility, time pressures and worries about legal challenge. Their main request was the need for extra resources to help with analysis.
Pages 8 to 14 of the report explore the findings in more detail. Young Roots adds that its findings indicate a potential blurring of the boundaries between immigration control and social work, particularly where there were incidents of hostile questioning and negative framing of the young person.
As the report notes, age assessment remains an inaccurate process that is potentially damaging for children and young people, and stressful for social workers. Based on its analysis, Young Roots sets out very comprehensive recommendations to improve the consistency and quality of decision-making, and the experiences of young people and social workers throughout the process.
Young Roots said: "Given the complexity of determining age, and the serious consequences if a decision is wrong, we need a return to the established principle and practice of only conducting age assessments when there is a significant reason to doubt a young person's age. When age assessments are required, we hope the recommendations in this report will enable better quality decision-making, greater transparency and accountability, and a fairer experience for all involved."