New RMCC Briefing Raises Concerns About the National Age Assessment Board (NAAB)

Each year, more than 3,000 children arrive in the UK unaccompanied, seeking safety and protection. For many of these young people, having their age accepted is a critical first step in accessing appropriate care and safeguarding. However, the Home Office frequently disputes the age of these children – and in most cases, they turn out to be exactly the age they have claimed.

Assessing age is fundamentally a safeguarding function – it is about making sure children are treated as children by all public bodies. Traditionally it is done by local authorities, with independent and expert social workers conducting the review.

However, the Home Office, a border enforcement agency, has now setup its own age assessment body – the  National Age Assessment Board (NAAB) – in effect taking over local authorities’ safeguarding duties as regards children, and twisting them to fit immigration enforcement targets.

A new briefing published by the Refugee and Migrant Children’s Consortium (RMCC) highlights significant concerns about this approach.

The RMCC briefing draws together evidence from court judgments, inspection reports and frontline practitioners to outline systemic problems with the NAAB’s assessments, including questions about their independence, quality and impact on children. Here are some key concerns

• High Costs and Harmful Methods: According to the RMCC, each NAAB age assessment costs around £20,000. This represents a substantial use of public funds, particularly when considered alongside the ample evidence that the assessment methods used cause harm to children seeking asylum. These funds could be much better used in supporting local authorities’ independent social workers.
• Delays and Lack of Accountability: Only 14% of NAAB assessments were completed within the Home Office’s 28‑day target, with an average completion time of 54.6 days – nearly double the intended timeframe. While local authorities face financial penalties if they do not meet the 28‑day deadline, no equivalent consequences apply to the NAAB. Meanwhile, children suffer as they wait for clarity.
• Wider Concerns About Capacity and Transparency: These concerns are consistent with findings from the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, who in 2025 reported challenges relating to the NAAB’s capacity, transparency and quality assurance processes.
• Recommendations for a Child‑Centred Approach: The RMCC sets out a series of practical, child‑centred recommendations aimed at improving safeguarding, transparency and accountability within the age assessment process. They warn that the NAAB risks undermining local authority expertise, misusing confidential asylum information and operating without adequate public scrutiny.