Age assessments are meant to identify children in need of safeguarding. But in practice, they operate as a racialised immigration control tool that routinely misidentify children as adults, exposing them to serious harm and denying them their statutory rights. Age assessments should only exist to protect children, not exclude them from protection.
What are age assessments?
An age assessment is the process used to decide whether an individual is under or over 18. Children under 18 are entitled to specific protections under the Children Act 1989 and local authorities have a legal duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children, including providing accommodation and care.
What is the age assessment process?
Age assessments first occur at the border where Home Office officers make an initial decision when an individual claims asylum. Decisions are often based on little more than appearance or demeanour, despite guidance requiring a Merton-complaint approach that is holistic and fair. Officials may accept the individual’s claimed age, dispute it, or decide the person is “significantly over 18”. If deemed an adult, the individual is excluded from child safeguarding systems.
A second assessment may be conducted by local authorities if an individual is referred to children’s services by the Home Office, a legal representative, or an organisation providing assistance. If the young person is found to be under 18, they must be put into the care of the local authority and their asylum claim treated accordingly.
Under the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, the Government created the National Age Assessment Board (NAAB) within the Home Office. This has been widely criticised, including by the British Association of Social workers, for undermining the independence required in child safeguarding decisions.
Systemic issues with age assessments
The scale of error in decision-making evidences deeper systemwide failures. In 2022, nearly 60% of unaccompanied children had their age disputed. Meanwhile, a recent inspection by the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration found that the immigration officers making these decisions are not experts and most have not received specialised training.
Organisations including Refugee Council, Helen Bamber Foundation, and the Greater Manchester Immigration Aid Unit have each uncovered data showing startlingly high rates of children being misidentified as adults. A 2022 Refugee Council report revealed that 94% of the young people they support had initially been deemed adults by the Home Office, only to later be correctly identified as children by local authorities
Age disputes can take months or years to resolve, during which children are denied safeguarding, access to key educations services, and specialist support. This can cause profound harm to their physical and mental wellbeing.
Racism embedded in age assessment process
Age assessments operate through a racialised lens of disbelief. The Nationality and Borders Act 2022 authorised so-called “scientific methods” such as X-rays of teeth and bones and MRIs of skeletal features. These methods are dehumanising, unreliable, and rooted in racist assumptions.
Academic research shows wide variations in development due to genetics, cultural backgrounds, responses to stress and trauma, and other factors. Yet children in the age dispute process are often routinely judged against Eurocentric standards of childhood that do not reflect lived realities.
Analysis of age assessment reports by academic researchers, and the experiences of our own casework staff at HIAS+JCORE, indicate that hostile and degrading language is used to describe the young people interviewed. The reports contain discourse about the demeanour and personality of the young people, insinuating that features such as a “strong jawbone”, growth of facial hair, or “confident” mannerisms indicate unequivocal proof of a person’s age. Meanwhile, cultural considerations, trauma responses, and language barriers are largely disregarded.
AI and facial age estimation
In July 2025, the Government announced plans to introduce facial age estimation technology. While this would replace the very problematic use of X-rays and MRIs, it risks further entrenching discrimination, not removing it.
Evidence consistently shows that AI systems are known to reproduce bias, racist attitudes, and profiling, which will only complicate a system that is already highly sensitive. Replacing human bias with algorithmic bias does not fix the problem, but will create further barriers to transparency and accountability.
What should the Government do instead?
- Ensure that age assessments are conducted only by properly trained, independent social workers.
- Abolish the use of pseudo-scientific and AI-based age assessment methods.
- Require transparent publication of data on all age disputes and outcomes.
- Ensure age assessments are child-led, trauma informed, and non-routine.
- Embed anti-racism and trauma-informed practices into all safeguarding decisions and trainings.
