Social Workers conducting age assessments of young people claiming asylum. (25/05/09)

Dear Sir or Madam,

The recent court ruling A v London Borough of Croydon, WK v Kent
Borough Council [2009] EWHC 939 (Admin), 8 May 2009, [1] makes a
number of references to the practice of two Social Workers
conducting age assessments of young people claiming asylum.

In view of the fact that the Care Standards Act 2000 (Chapter 14
(part 1V) section 61) contained provisions for the protection of
the professional title of "Social Worker" and that anyone using
this Title has to be registered on one of the UK Social Care
Registers, (since 01 April 2005) can you Confirm or Deny the
following:

1) Age assessments are always conducted by at least two Social
Workers?

1.1 If they are not always conducted by at least two Social
Workers, can you provide information that explains this apparent
anomaly and provide details of the job Titles of those who
currently conduct age assessments.

2) That since 01 April 2005 you have always used at least two
Social Workers?

2.1) If you have not always used two Social Workers, since 01 April
2005, please provide details of the job Titles of those who
currently conduct age assessments.

3) During said Court case a Helen Johnson, Refugee Council's
Children's Panel, questioned the assertion by a Ms Janet Patrick,
senior manager of the Croydon Council's Unaccompanied Minors' Team,
that Council's are routinely advising applicants that they can have
an adult present to give support during their age assessment.

Therefore can you provide copies of any information you hold, such
as policies, memos, notes and guidance, (showing dates
issued/written/drafted) as given to Social Workers, the applicants
or anyone else, that Confirms or Denies that applicants are
routinely advised that they can have an adult present to give
support.

4) Please provide copies of any age assessment guidance or training
material you hold.

Relevant quotes:

"The social workers involved in the decision making process who are
employed by the local authorities in these cases have had training
and do have substantial experience in assessing the age of UASCs.

My conclusion is that age determination, being part of broader
questions relating to the provision of accommodation, and being but
one of the many responsibilities for local authorities to provide
support for children and families under Part III, are decisions
which fall squarely within the social field of child care and are,
therefore, customarily and properly entrusted to the social workers
to decide.

This is based partly on the contention that their judgment can be
no better than that of the experienced social worker...

It is said that her opinions in a number of cases show a consistent
disagreement with the social workers' factual observations always
in favour of the individual in question.

While recognising and indeed supporting the use of social workers
and other professionals he records concerns that financial
pressures can influence the assessment of age since the particular
age of an individual will require a greater or lesser expenditure
on him.

But the real question in these cases is whether a report from a
paediatrician which reaches a conclusion contrary to that found by
experienced social workers means that the assessment must be varied
in the UASC's favour.

It is Dr Stern's view that a paediatrician is unlikely to be able
to reach a conclusion which is superior to that reached by an
experienced social worker, provided, of course, that the social
worker is properly trained and experienced and conducted the
necessary interview in an appropriate fashion.

Thus I do not think that the existence of a report from Dr Birch
can generally attract any greater weight than the observations of
an experienced social worker. In order to comply with the
Hillingdon and Croydon guidelines, the assessments of social
workers will be made by two working together and based upon
interviews and observations over a far greater time period than
that available to Dr Birch or indeed any paediatrician instructed
by a UASC representative.

All this presupposes that the authority's decision is made by
properly trained and experienced social workers in accordance with
the guidelines approved by Stanley Burnton J in B v Merton.

Each authority has put before the court evidence of the training
given to and the experience of the social workers who have to deal
with age assessment.

She is satisfied from her experience that the reports of Drs Michie
and Birch do not raise matters which cast doubt on the reliability
of the decision reached by the two social workers."

etc

Reference:

[1] A Claimant - and - London Borough of Croydon - and – Secretary
of State for the Home Department Defendant Interested Party And WK
Claimant - and - Secretary of State for the Home Department First
Defendant - and - Kent County Council Second Defendant
[2009] EWHC 939 (Admin), 8 May 2009
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admi...

: Your correspondence :

Please ensure that any of your general correspondence,
acknowledgements or holding letters etc are included or
cut-and-pasted into the body of the email messages, using plain
text, rather than as attachments. As this will mean your
correspondence is much easier to access, read and respond to.

: Accessibility :

When providing any information disclosures please provide it in the
original unrestricted format such as:

a. MS Word .doc or Rich Text Text .rtf format or equivalent
(suitable for disclosure of email messages)

b.Spreadsheets in MS Excel .xls format or equivalent

c.Presentations in MS Powerpoint .ppt format or equivalent

or converted to Portable Document Format (PDF), ONLY if none of the
above formats are available

if you only have a paper version (hard copy) available, please
provide a Digital Photo Copier Scanned version in PDF format. If
you do provide disclosures in PDF from a Digital Photo Copier Scan,
please state that you have done so because no other format, such as
a, b or c above, are available.

If you need to redact text elements of any disclosure can you
please ensure that the rest of text based information remains
accessible to a Screen Reader.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screen_reader>

Please ensure any electronic disclosures are absolutely free of any
Document Restrictions and Encryption or Passwords, as this is
likely to render them less usable on a general basis and more
specifically, inaccessible to Assistive Technology.

Please do not send any information in compilation archive formats,
such as .zip.

Providing correspondence and disclosed information via these means
will help ensure that text based information is accessible for use
with a Screen Reader or a Magnifier for none text based information
and will prevent any further and separate representations under the
Disability Discrimination Act. If you are unable to meet these
reasonably practicable accessibility requests please state why and
provide a copy of any internal information, such as a policy relied
upon that would explain such a decision

Yours faithfully,

Cassidy, J

Dear Gillian Hollowell,

This request is currently overdue a response from Northamptonshire
County Council. By law, the response had to be prompt but no later
than 23 June 2009

Yours sincerely,

Cassidy, J

Dear Mr Cassidy

Please see attached an acknowledgement to your recent request which
has
been given a reference of FR1319.

Kind regards

Gillian Hollowell

Senior Freedom of Information/Data Protection Officer

Legal and Democratic Services

Northamptonshire County Council