Age assessments for unaccompanied asylum seeking

Age assessments for unaccompanied asylum seeking DISSERTATION Age assessments for unaccompanied asylum seeking children: Policy, law and implications for social work. Abstract Methodology Literature Review Chapter One – Introduction Chapter Two – Unaccompanied Asylum Seekers Chapter Three – Age Assessment Policy, Legislation and Practice Chapter Four – Conclusion and Recommendations. Unaccompanied asylum seeking children arrive in the UK seeking refuge from often-horrific events in their home countries. The response of both national government and local authorities to this influx has been largely unsatisfactory with campaigners arguing that the focus has been on cutting costs and removing young asylum seekers rather than providing them with the care that they are entitled to. This study suggests that policy and practice around age assessment is central to this argument. There is significant evidence that local authorities are pressurising social workers to age assess children as older than they are in order to save them money. The haphazard way in which age assessments have usually been carried out only serves to encourage this behaviour. Even without financial pressure, the lack of a standard approach to age assessment is also leading to inconsistencies when age assessments are put into practice The focus of this dissertation has been to analyse how, why and when age assessments are used in processing unaccompanied asylum seekers and examine whether the process is fair and consistent. The methodology has primarily to adopt secondary sources and evaluate evidence from as wide a range of viewpoints as possible. The dissertation has been aimed towards a conclusion that the current process is unsatisfactory and has attempted to deliver recommendations that could improve the process. Literature for this dissertation has been gathered from a combination of academic books and journals, government publications, reports produced by independent agencies and articles from newspapers and magazines including The Guardian and Community Care. One of the most detailed reports on the subject of assessment is the 2007, When is a child not a child? Asylum, age disputes and the process of age assessment by Crawley. Much of the factual detail about the actual mechanics of age assessment has been gathered from this source. Of academic journals, the articles written by Kohli have been most useful as they delivering the results and analysis from a wide range of studies around unaccompanied asylum seekers. Each year, approximately 3000 unaccompanied children and young people arrive in the UK to seek asylum.[1] Many of these are subject to age assessment to clarify that they are entitled to services available to vulnerable children in the UK. The age of people claiming to be children can be disputed by a range of professionals, from immigration officers to police and social workers. It is important to define what an age assessment actually is at the beginning of this study. An age assessment is he method used by either the UK border and Immigration Agency or local authority social services departments to assess the age of an asylum seeker.[2]There is currently no method that is capable of defining the exact age of a child and the accuracy of the assessment will often be produced within a range of two years over or below the assessment age.[3] Some commentators have argued that many local authorities have proactively looked to avoid the cost of looking after young asylum seekers in need and have set up control measures to keep children aged 16-18 out of the territory.[4] One of the mechanisms for doing this has been attempts by social workers to stop classifying unaccompanied minors as children. There have been suggestions that many social workers became preoccupied with attempting to assess the age of applicants rather than providing services and that such an assessment was crude exercise based on the individual opinion of a single social worker. As Kohli writes â€Å"studies reported a growing disbelief in respect of those claiming to be under 18 and the treatment of anyone over 16 years as a de facto adult allowed access to food and shelter but little else.†[5] Professionals working in the highest echelons of childcare have expressed similar concerns, for example the Children’s Commissioner Sir Al Aynsley Green has stated: â€Å"Although Home Office Policy is for the immigration officer to apply the ‘benefit of the doubt’ in favour of the applicant in borderline cases, the evidence suggests that in practice this is frequently not adhered to. The result is that a substantial number of asylum seekers who are in fact unaccompanied children are excluded from the protection of domestic care regimes†¦Ã¢â‚¬ [6] Government policy from the early part of the decade has been to work in partnership with local authorities and disperse asylum seekers of all ages around the country. The Home Office negotiated contracts with a number of authorities to receive and accommodate asylum seekers.[7] There also is evidence to support this. Central government has since 2005 looked to change the role of social work teams at ports of entry to work practically as adjuncts to the Border and Immigration Agency, deliberately narrowing the gap between immigration and social services functions. There is clearly a financial motivation for this – in 2005 the 6000 unaccompanied asylum seeking children offered services by local authorities comprised less than 10% of cases yet used up approximately 25% of the Home Office budget.[8]Social work teams have been set targets in terms of turning away age disputed asylum seekers and assessing clients claiming to be 15 as older.[9] This study looks at how the UK deals with unaccompanied asylum seekers and in particular examines policy and practice around age assessment. Chapter two focuses on the legislation in place and policy around it whilst chapter three looks more specifically at the age assessment processes and the general failings of the system in the UK. Chapter four concludes with recommendations on improving the system Unaccompanied asylum seeking children arrive in the UK for a number of reasons. A recent study of 218 arrivals found that half came from countries undergoing armed conflict or serious disturbances and over two fifths were victims of direct or indirect persecution. Deprivation, poverty or trafficking for exploitation were other primary reasons for seeking asylum.[10] Dealing with asylum seeking children, either with or without their families is a growing area of social work practice yet one in which there is relatively little understanding of the needs or circumstances of such children.[11] In legislative terms, legislation such as The Children’s Act 1989 and The Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need and their Families remain central to issues around assessment and care for asylum-seeking children and they should also be included under the remit of the Every Child Matters agenda. The Children and Young People’s Plan 2005 for example makes reference to joint working between housing and social care bodies to meet the housing needs of unaccompanied asylum seekers. [12] For local authorities, there is a duty to provide services necessary to safeguard and promote the well-being of any children deemed to be in need under the Children Act 1989. Due to the absence of their parents, unaccompanied children are classed as vulnerable and therefore in need. The Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 also reinforces the local authority duty to support unaccompanied minors. It is helpful to have a clear definition of what an unaccompanied asylum seeker actually is. The Immigration and Nationality Directorate definition is a young person under the age of 18(or who appears to be if there is no proof); who is applying for asylum in his or her own right; and who has no adult relative or guardian to turn to within the UK.[13] The age of an unaccompanied asylum seeker has historically been an important factor in respect of the Special Grant that the Home Office made available to unaccompanied minors. Prior to 2004 there were two levels of support available, with those supported under the age of 16 receiving a higher level and those first supported at age 16 or 17 receiving half that amount.[14] However, a judicial review – the Hillingdon Judgement – carried out in 2004 has significantly increased the impact on local authorities. The judgement ruled that, except in exceptional cases, all asylum-seeking children must be treated under section 20 of the Children’s Act 1989 which classes them as looked after children. [15] There is clearly an impact on service provision for both national and local government. Watters writes that â€Å"the arrival of significant numbers of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children through the port of Dover thus presented very significant challenges to social care, health and education providers in the south east.† [16] Asylum seekers who after the assessment process became looked after children would be entitled to foster or residential placements, an allocated social worker and financial support. They may also have qualified for the benefits of leaving care status up to the age of 21, a further financial burden on local authorities. The question of age then is a crucial issue for local authorities. Many young people seeking asylum do not have official papers or documentation confirming their age so practitioners in both social services and immigration have difficult decisions to make. It can be difficult to draw information from asylum seeking children – research shows that when they are asked about reasons for their asylum request, they try and fit their stories into the narrow format that they believe are acceptable in their given country.[17]This in turn can lead to scepticism amongst officials and social workers, the same research reported instances of social services personnel being cynical about young Kosovan and African males claiming to be younger than they looked and thus worrying that their services were being exploited and their resources drained.[18] Ultimately, age assessment is a crucial tool for immigration officials and social workers. There are asylum seekers who try to abuse the system, so a method of asserting age is required. When the current practices serve this purpose will be discussed in chapter three. When and Why Most age disputes in asylum cases occur when an asylum seeker first applies for asylum, normally at their port of entry.[19]There is little in the way of formal assessment at this point, age disputes will be lodged primarily based on the basis of appearance, demeanour and documentation. Another issue of contention is the range of individuals or professionals that might dispute the age of an asylum seeker – this can include immigrations officials, social workers or police officers. Social workers may even dispute the age of a child who had not been queried by immigration officials. Age disputes may happen several months or even years after a child has entered the country. Crawley quotes a case study of a young girl who had been brought into the country at a young age to be used as a domestic slave. When immigration officials became aware of her five years later – still under the age of 16 – she was age disputed before eventually taken into the care of a social services department.[20] In contrast, many young people, perhaps some who are over 18, slip through the net and are classed as minors. Many social services departments simply do not have the resources to undertake formal age assessments and have concerns about the impact of multiple interviews and assessment on young asylum seekers. As such, decisions are made not to query age. Policy and Legislative framework Home Office policy in terms of unaccompanied minors is set out in policy documents including Policy bulletin 33, Guidance from processing applications from children and Guidance on age disputed cases 3rd ed which lays out specific procedures for professionals who dispute a claimant’s age and believe that it is an adult claiming to be a child. One of the most interesting aspects of policy and perhaps the most controversial in the light of what appears to be happening is that the INDs guidance on age disputed cases states clearly that when there is an age dispute â€Å"a claimant must be given the benefit of the doubt with regards to their age unless their physical appearance strongly suggests that they are aged 18 or over†.[21]It seems that this is not the case currently in practice – local authorities certainly are encouraging social work team to dispute age more regularly. Other aspects of the IND guidance can be confusing and it is not surprising that there are inconsistencies in practice. For example there is no actual duty for immigration officers to refer age disputed cases to the appropriate local authority, rather this is something that should be done in principle, a situation that can only complicate things for social workers further down the line. Overall, the current system seems disjointed and variable. As Crawley writes: â€Å"There is evidence of a significant gap between what is supposed to happen and to what happens in practice†[22] and some of the issues involves at age assessment units around the country highlight this: A general lack of care, including a lack of food and water, for young people waiting to be screened A failure to use the privacy of separate interview rooms Difficulties with microphones meaning conversations held through the glass screen in the public area are either overheard or not heard at all No responsible adult being present to support young person[23] Clearly age assessment is not a simple matter. All children vary in development, maturity and natural growth and there can be a wide range of supposed ‘normal findings’ at various ages. It is extremely difficult to accurately gather a young persons age and things such as race, ethnicity and local conditions such as disease and malnutrition have to be considered in any assessment. Whether children’s social workers are qualified to do this is questionable The organisation Youth Support which assists young refuges reports that in its own age assessment process it includes as many factors as possible including â€Å"height, weight, body mass, shoe size, developmental factors such as skin care and teeth, sexual development; mental and emotional age estimates including thought processes and general concepts. Also of great importance is the history and social milestones which the young person might have experienced – again talking culture and religion into consideration.†[24] There is clearly inconsistency in the process nationwide. Michie argues that one of the problems in the UK has been that a diversity of systems and guidelines has developed in assessing the age of unaccompanied minors, involving a combination of history collection, physical anthropometry and radiographs. He writes: â€Å"Their lack of uniformity identifies an underlying difficulty: there is no method by which chronological age can be precisely estimated in this age group. Paediatricians in the United Kingdom care for small numbers of individuals in late adolescence and early adulthood in graduate outpatient services, but often have little experience in this area.†[25] There are some success stories. At Heathrow Airport for example, Hillingdon Social Services have used a number of strategies to deal with large volumes of unaccompanied asylum seekers. These have included use of a dedicated police officer for child protection, a specific questionnaire for staff working at terminal 3 and the development of a specifics age assessment tool combined with specific training,.[26] Guidance for Social Work Practice Age assessment is clearly a difficult area for social work practitioners. There is little experience in this type of work and relatively little in the way of practice guidelines. The guidance drawn up by the Children’s Legal Centre is perhaps the most useful document for social workers to refer to when carrying out age assessments. Some of the points included are: Taking account of ethnicity, culture and customs of the person being assessed and well as the level of trauma, tiredness, anxiety and bewilderment present The asylum seeker may have had coaching prior to arrival. It is important for the social work to engage with the person in a process sometimes known as ‘joining’. The assessment framework should be led by open, non-leading questions The practitioner should note the verbal and non-verbal (body language) behaviour of the person A useful indicator is if the person seems uncomfortable talking to an adult A detailed family tree with ages of parents and siblings can help assessing likely age Questions about the activities and roles a person was involved in prior to entering the UK can be a good indicator Social workers may consider arranging for the person to be put in a social situation with people of the age stated and observing interaction Gaining detailed accounts of educational history can be a valuable source of information in making an accurate age assessment Assessment of life skills is useful – does the person have any experience of living independently, managing money etc[27] All of the above can be done in conjunction with opinion and input from other sources including foster carers, teachers, doctors, interpreters and residential workers. It is useful also to have input from paediatricians, dentists or optician although a social worker should take into account advice from paediatricians that there can be a five year error in age assessments.[28] Just as important is information and best practice sharing between professional involved in this type of work. A uniform approach to age assessment across the UK should be a shared objective. There are clearly huge improvements necessary in the way that social service departments across the country deal with unaccompanied asylum seekers. This includes both the process for age assessment and the subsequent services provided. Evidence shows that staff in the various agencies dealing with these children lack knowledge about the services available and how to deal with the emotional trauma that many of these children will have experienced.[29]Social workers dealing with age assessments are clearly lacking in the skills to do so accurately. One reported when surveyed: â€Å"We do them (age assessments) but we can be wrong five years either side – it matters a lot doesn’t it? They can end up with many dates of birth – social services, Home Office, their own..†[30] Practitioners need such understand the vulnerability of the young people they are dealing with and avoid taking a cynical approach. As Michie concludes: â€Å"The fairness, legality and ethical base of any national framework for age assessment has to take into account legal history, jurisprudence as well as the paediatric wisdom, â€Å"What if this were my child?†, Although it may be difficult to quantify the inadequacies of the current system, it clearly compounds abuse to a vulnerable group of children. We must do better.†[31] The are some positives in examining the UK response to unaccompanied asylum seekers . The more holistic approach developed in recent years seems to be more efficient are more aware of the sensitivities of the issues than for example the US and Australian governments. Bhaba et al write of the UK: â€Å"It has made extensive efforts to identify children in genuine need at the earliest possible stage and to institute programmes to target trafficking in children through training of in country border officials and the instigation of research. [32]This is a pleasing sign, yet problems still occur when age is disputed. Recommendations: There are a number of steps that can be taken to improve the way in which young asylum seekers are treated to ensure consistency. Protection of vulnerable children is crucial, yet it is also important that age assessments can be used to identify asylum seekers over the age of 18 who seek to abuse the system. The EU’s reception directive states that unaccompanied children seeking asylum should be appointed a legal guardian[33] and this should be adopted by the UK Helping vulnerable children through the process would be a welcome improvement. Trained, skilled age assessors should be employed at ports of entry. These may well be social workers, experienced in dealing with this age group, accountable to a child protection team with paediatric expertise open to them in some form. Another option would be to establish fully trained multi agency teams based in regional assessment centres, something that would produce holistic and better-informed outcomes. Ideally age assessors should be financially independent of local authority social services – this would limit the chance of pressure being put upon assessors to reach targets for the number of age assessments found to be 18+. The lack of statutory guidance on the process of age assessment should also be addressed – this would help alleviate some of the inconsistencies in the process. A final recommendation, supported by Crawley, would be for the age assessment process to be overlooked by an independent age assessment panel which could provide support and guidance, help with the auditing process and make it less likely that decisions could be challenged or influence by those holding the local authority purse strings. The most important thing is that age assessment is done fairly and consistently, and that young asylum seekers are treated in the same way, regardless of port of entry or the local authority overseeing them. At present this is not the case and there is work for legislators, policy makers and practitioners to do if this is to be rectified. Bibliography Bhaba J, Finch N, Crock M Schmidt S, Seeking Asylum Alone, Themis Press 2006 Chase e, Emotional Well-being of asylum seeking children, http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2008/07/29/108994/well-being-of-asylum-seeking-children.html accessed 15 October Children’s Legal Centre, Practice Guidelines for age assessment of young unaccompanied asylum seekers, http://www.childrenslegalcentre.com/NR/rdonlyres/BAA6E134-7810-42C1-9634-2AC500D326DE/0/PracticeNotesKarenGoodman.pdf accessed 15 October Crawley, H, When is a child not a child? Asylum, age disputes and the process of age assessment, Immigration Law Practitioners Association, May 2007 DFES 2005, Guidance on the Children and Young People’s Plan, Hayes D, Humphries B, Cohen S, Social Work, Immigration and Asylum, Jessica Kingsley Publishers 2004 Kelly A, Minors Conflict, The Guardian Jan 31 2007 http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/jan/31/asylum.guardiansocietysupplement1 accessed 16 October Kohli R, The Comfort of Strangers: social work practice with unaccompanied asylum-seeking children and young people in the UK, child and Family Social Work ,vol 11 2006 Kohli R, The Sound of Silence: Listening to What Unaccompanied Asylum-seeking Children Say and Do Not Say, British Journal of Social Work vol 36 2006 Michie CA, Age Assessment: time for progress? Archives of Disease in Childhood, 90(6) June 2005 Mitchell F, The social services response to unaccompanied children in England, Children and Family Social Work, vol 8 August 2003 Watters C, Refugee Children, Routlege 2008 http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/jan/05/immigration.immigrationandpublicservices accessed 15 October Asylum seekers and unaccompanied minors, http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/jan/05/immigration.immigrationandpublicservices accessed 16 October http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/policyandlaw/asylumprocessguidance/specialcases/guidance/disputedagecases.pdf?view=Binary accessed 15 October www.everychildmatters.com accessed 14 October http://www.ilpa.org.uk/infoservice/Info%20sheet%20Age%20Disputes%20%20Age%20Assessment.pdf accessed 16 October 1 [1] Chase e, Emotional Well-being of asylum seeking children, http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2008/07/29/108994/well-being-of-asylum-seeking-children.html [2] http://www.ilpa.org.uk/infoservice/Info sheet Age Disputes Age Assessment.pdf [3] http://www.ilpa.org.uk/infoservice/Info sheet Age Disputes Age Assessment.pdf [4] P2 Kohli R, The Comfort of Strangers: social work practice with unaccompanied asylum-seeking children and young people in the UK, child and Family Social Work ,vol 11 2006 [5] p2 Kohli 2006 [6] p4 Crawley 2007 [7] p85 Watters 2008 [8] p84 Watters C, Refugee Children, Routlege 2008 [9] p84 Watters C, Refugee Children, Routlege 2008 [10] p179 Mitchell F, The social services response to unaccompanied children in England, Children and Family Social Work, vol 8 August 2003 [11] p132 Hayes D, Humphries B, Cohen S, Social Work, Immigration and Asylum, Jessica Kingsley Publishers 2004 [12] p22 Guidance on the Children and Young People’s Plan, DFES 2005 [13] P179 Mitchell 2003 [14] p179 Mitchell 2003 [15] Kelly A, Minors Conflict, The Guardian Jan 31 2007 http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/jan/31/asylum.guardiansocietysupplement1 [16] p85 Watters 2008 [17] p711 Kohli R, The Sound of Silence: Listening to What Unaccompanied Asylum-seeking Children Say and Do Not Say, British Journal of Social Work vol 36 2006 [18] p718 Kohli 2006 [19] p14 Crawley 2007 [20] p16 Crawley 2007 [21] p43 Crawley 2007 [22] p44 Crawley 2007 [23] p47 Crawley 2007 [24] Asylum seekers and unaccompanied minors, http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/jan/05/immigration.immigrationandpublicservices [25] p612 Michie CA, Age Assessment: time for progress?Archives of Disease in Childhood, 90(6) June 2005 [26] p613 Michie 2005 [27] Childrens Legal Centre, Practice Guidelines for age assessment of young unaccompanied asylum seekers, http://www.childrenslegalcentre.com/NR/rdonlyres/BAA6E134-7810-42C1-9634-2AC500D326DE/0/PracticeNotesKarenGoodman.pdf [28]