Inspection of the Home Office’s use of Age Assessments

Introduction

The Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration (ICIBI) has completed an inspection into the Home Office age assessments, both at the initial stage through entry points into the UK and with the National Age Assessment Board (NAAB).

This report is the outcome of that inspection.

Background

The inspection set out to “understand how far the Home Office went to ensure that its assessments were sufficiently mindful of the difficulty of getting it right and of the consequences of getting it wrong. Inspectors looked for evidence that processes were methodical, fairly and consistently applied, and child-sensitive; that decisions were balanced and reasonable; and that those involved were open to learning from others and from their mistakes”

What does the report say?

In our opinion, the report makes for very concerning reading, especially in light of the way the Home Office is treating people at the border. The report is 126 pages long and we would recommend that practitioners read the whole document, however the below are some of the things that stood out to us.

• At the port, interpreters are not always used, and some staff are using gestures to communicate with new arrivals “inspectors saw examples of staff gesturing for young people to remove their outerwear, or to raise their head”
• Over two days, inspectors observed 570 people arrive, and noted that there was no interpreter for any of the triage process. Young people were not told that they were being assessed, nor why, and conversations were happening in close proximity to other young people resulting in potential breaches of confidentiality.
• Some staff were having conversations about/in front of young people without an interpreter which meant they could not understand what was being said, resulting in them potentially feeling intimidated and uncomfortable
• Lines of questioning were at times adversarial
• Concerns have been raised about young people feeling pressured into signing a “statement of age” form that confirms they are an adult and that there were no clear protocols or policies in place to ensure this was done ethically and safely. For example, it is not clear if young people are fully aware of what they are being asked to sign.
• Alarmingly, inspectors found that senior managers at the border “did not accept that there was any learning to take from assessments by local authorities that found individuals to be children when the initial age decision was that they were an adult…the lack of curiosity suggests either complacency or resignation, neither of which is good enough.”
• On the NAAB, inspectors observed age assessment interviews that were more akin to a substantive interview than an age assessment.
• Social workers employed at the border were observed to make generalised comments such as how people from Vietnam “didn’t have the same ageing process” and “did not show signs of aging” which is nothing short of racial profiling.
• “In a further example, a young female Vietnamese national had been directed to wait in the family section of the waiting room. The CIO and a social worker conducted the triage, which was cursory. The staff asked her to remove her hat and commented on her neckline. They spoke between themselves about her while in front of her, without engaging her. She appeared 34 frightened and withdrawn and nothing was done to reassure her. They reiterated to inspectors that Vietnamese women did not show signs of ageing and that they disputed her claimed age, so she went on to have an interview”.
• Inspectors observed staff taking inconsistent approaches to assessing body language, for example, maintaining eye contact = confidence versus avoiding eye contact = lying. (This is something that we also found in our research here)
• Home Office staff were critical of local authority age assessment processes, stating that “a change in outcome (to an initial over 18 screening decision) was not an indicator that the initial assessment was wrong, because both were a matter of opinion”
• There was no requirement for social workers employed by the Home Office to have any experience in age assessment and many did not have this prior to commencing their employment.

 

These are just some of the concerns raised by the inspection and we would encourage social work staff to read the whole report, however there was also some good practice observed;

• Inspectors observed appropriate questioning in some of the interviews; “In one of the files inspectors examined, the interview note recorded that the IO explained to the young person why they were being interviewed, reassured them it was “normal procedure” and that they were safe. The IO continued to offer reassurances to the young person throughout the interview. At one stage they said: “Sorry to hear about this, it sounds terrible.”
• Inspectors were able to observe training by the NAAB that was well received by the local authority.

 

What are the recommendations

The inspection produced 8 recommendations, all of which have been accepted by the Home Office. In summary these are:

1. Map and engage stakeholders across all stages:
2. Evaluation and enhance training for initial age decisions
3. Issue clear guidance on “age admit” statement of age process
4. Set minimum quality standards for initial age decisions
5. Share data with local authorities
6. Secure funding and structure of the Home Office UASC team
7. Align NAAB’s workforce and business plan and engage with stakeholders
8. Upgrade NAAB’s digital and IT capabilities

 

Next steps

• It’s important to read this inspection and monitor the quality of decisions being made, reporting these to your regional SMP leads to highlight areas of good/poor practice.
• We recommend employing caution when considering decisions made at the border as they are, in our opinion, not always reliable due to
  • Being based on physical appearance (unreliable) and taken at the port (when people are tired/exhausted/traumatised/stressed) when people are likely to look older
  • Interpreters are not always used (always best to check) meaning that the information gathered may not be that reliable

 

---

---