Protesters at an anti-immigration demonstration in the UK Photo: Ayfer Belim
Ama-Rose Greaves

Ama-Rose Greaves
Senior Lecturer in Social Work, University of Hertfordshire; Qualified social worker (law & policy). UK

Emily Chetty

Emily Chetty
Senior Lecturer, University of Hertfordshire; Qualified social worker, UK

Balancing Politics and Protection: Social Work Advocacy in the Age Assessment Debate

Advocacy is central to Social Work’s commitment to human rights and justice and as outlined in the global definition of social work (IFSW, 2014). When working with unaccompanied asylum-seeking children (UASC), this commitment is challenged by the United Kingdom’s (UK) asylum practices that may exclude rather than protect vulnerable children. Social work must confront organisational practices that label these young people as less deserving of support and dismantle systemic barriers that undermine support (Haydock, 2023; Fliethmann, 2024).

In the year ending March 2025, 109,343 sought asylum in the UK; 3% were UASC (Home Office, 2025). Those arriving via irregular routes undergo screening interviews with Border Force Agency (BFA) officers. These interviews lack a child-focused approach and can take place soon after arrival, often after distressing journeys characterised by limited access to food, water and sleep.

Conducting interviews under such conditions risks compounding this distress and undermines the integrity of the interview process. Concerningly, it is also usual that individuals wait for prolonged periods without information about what is happening (ICIBI, 2025). This failure to communicate and support is not just inadequate; it is deeply harmful. It is essential that any system working with traumatised children treats them with dignity, compassion and respect.

During screening interviews, BFA officers may treat individuals as adults based on appearance and initial narratives when they believe these suggest they are over 18, often without social worker input. This can place children in adult provision, such as hotels. Critically, these decisions can be made by untrained staff who lack knowledge and experience of age assessments and of working with children from Global Majority backgrounds. This means that a child's future can hinge on subjective decisions based on assumptions about how a child “should” look or behave at certain ages (ICIBI, 2025).

There is a lack of professional curiosity within the Home Office where learning from errors related to overturned age assessments are not prioritised (ICIBI, 2025). In 2023, 73% of those who were age-disputed were assessed to be children (The Refugee and Migrant Children’s Consortium, 2025). The Home Office does not publish statistics on the number and outcomes of age-disputed children; it is crucial to consider whether this data would open the Home Office to further scrutiny. It is also essential, given rhetoric around asylum-seeking children, that the Home Office make this data accessible to prevent fuelling misleading narratives (Richards, 2022; Parker et al., 2022; Neylon, 2025). As a government organisation the Home Office is accountable to ensure transparency about the scale of the so-called “asylum problem”.

Initial age decision processes

Initial age decision processes have been described as “crude and cruel”, where young people feel “disbelieved and dismissed”, having an incredibly detrimental impact on mental health (ICIBI, 2025:3). Despite research showing that it is not possible to determine chronological age based on physical appearance or demeanour, the Home Office continues this approach. Physical appearance is shaped by life experiences including trauma, environment and ethnicity (Aynsley-Green et al., 2012). Yet, children are routinely excluded from support and protection based on visual assessments. ADCS guidance (2015) outlines ethical age assessments, rejecting reliance on appearance alone and encouraging practice aligned with Merton compliance (R (B) v London Borough of Merton, 2003), emphasising holistic, trauma-informed approaches.

Home Office officers have been observed making inappropriate comments and “jokes” in front of vulnerable individuals (ICIBI, 2025:6), reflecting a culture that contradicts the legal protections afforded to children. Social Work England standards require social workers to challenge poor practices (SWE, 2019), but when social workers are embedded within such systems, their ability to uphold this duty is compromised. BASW warns social workers against taking up employment with the National Age Assessment Board (NAAB) due to concerns that social work practice could be influenced by political priorities (BASW, 2023). A Community Care (2025) poll found 63% of social workers agreed.

Similarly, the current asylum-seeking process in the UK is inherently politically driven by border control strategies. When decisions are outsourced to the NAAB or entrusted to proposed AI facial-analysis tools (Eagle, 2025), professionals must recognise these as political instruments that risk obscuring context, amplifying racial bias and entrenching data colonialism (Arora et al., 2023).

Crenshaw’s intersectionality (1989) reveals more about racial bias showing how policy discourses construct some children as deviant or unworthy of protection. For example, Black boys are disproportionately judged as adults—adultification (Davis & Marsh, 2020). Statistically, asylum-seekers in the UK are more likely to be from the Global Majority, therefore more likely to be subjected to adultification (Home Office, 2025).

The UNCRC (1989) makes clear that every child's rights to protection, voice and belonging are non-negotiable, including UASC. The Children Act 1989 demands actions in children’s best interests. Age assessment's purpose should focus on the needs and welfare of the child rather than meeting political agendas (BASW, 2023).

Politics, practice and moral distress

Social workers engage in impactful local work, but change must extend beyond individual interventions to contest political logics that produce harm. Practitioners need time, resources and institutional support to occupy public and political spaces with their concerns. The Illegal Migration Act 2023 risks violating children’s rights; and changes (Feb 2025) to the “Good Character Guidance” mean those who entered “illegally” (including UASC) will “normally” be refused British citizenship, raising concerns for future stability—despite the scarcity of safe and legal routes.

Working under such conditions that jeopardise a child’s welfare can provoke moral distress (Sen et al., 2022). These are public indicators of structural tensions between social work’s ethics and political environments. A resurgence of right-wing rhetoric and sensationalised coverage of Channel crossings has sparked moral panics that manifest across UASC experiences (Richards, 2022; Dobbernack, 2025), including protests outside hotels housing asylum seekers (often with age-disputed UASC).

In this hostile environment, practitioners face heightened scrutiny and pressure to prioritise control over care. Professional standards demand that anti-immigration sentiments never compromise a child’s right to protection or access to services. A pressing question emerges: which political views are acceptable in practice, and how can practitioners ensure decisions remain child-centred and free from ideological bias? What does collective mobilisation look like in the face of systematic marginalisation of asylum-seeking children?

References

  1. Arora, A., Barrett, M., Lee, E., Oborn, E., & Prince, K. (2023). Information and Organization, 33(3), 100478.
  2. Aynsley-Green, A., Cole, T. J., Crawley, H., Lessof, N., Boagi, L. R., & Wallace, R. M. M. (2012). Medical, statistical, ethical and human rights considerations in age assessment.
  3. BASW (2023). BASW Statement: National Age Assessment Board.
  4. Community Care (2016). Expecting only social workers to do age assessments is setting them up to fail.
  5. Community Care (2025). Should the Home Office’s social work service be abolished?
  6. Crenshaw, K. W. (1989). Stanford Law Review, 43.
  7. Davis, J., & Marsh, N. (2020). Critical and Radical Social Work, 8(2), 255–259.
  8. Dobbernack, J. (2025). International Political Sociology, 19(1).
  9. Eagle, D. (2025). Age assessment checks – HCWS885.
  10. Fliethmann, A. (2024). Framing Refugees’ (Un-)Deservingness.
  11. Haydock, J. (2023). Doctoral dissertation.
  12. Home Office (2025). How many people claim asylum in the UK? gov.uk
  13. ICIBI (2025). An inspection of the Home Office’s use of age assessments. gov.uk
  14. IFSW (2014). Global definition of the social work profession. ifsw.org
  15. Neylon, A. (2025). Law, Culture and the Humanities.
  16. Parker, S., Bennett, S., Cobden, C. M., & Earnshaw, D. (2022). Critical Discourse Studies, 19(4), 348–363.
  17. R (B) v London Borough of Merton [2003] EWHC 1689 (Admin). bailii.org
  18. Refugee and Migrant Children’s Consortium (2025). Lost childhoods. helenbamber.org
  19. Richards, V. (2022). The Independent.
  20. Sen, P., et al. (2022). Medicine, Science and the Law, 62(3), 165–167.
  21. UK Government (2023). Illegal Migration Act 2023. legislation.gov.uk
  22. UK Visas and Immigration (2025). Good character: Nationality policy guidance. gov.uk
  23. UNICEF UK (1989). UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. unicef.org.uk