Summary
In short
- In fiscal year 2025 the Wage and Hour Division resolved 976 cases involving child labor violations, covering the illegal employment of more than 5,200 minors, of whom 773 were employed in violation of hazardous occupation orders.
- Civil money penalties for child labor violations totalled $37,215,327 in FY2025, and in 2026 the maximum penalty is up to $16,035 for each minor who was the subject of a violation.
- The FLSA hazardous occupation orders are a federal floor. Several states have changed their own standards in recent years, in both directions, so state compliance and federal compliance are no longer the same question.
- Some states have removed youth work permit systems entirely, which means the employer no longer has an external check confirming age and permitted hours.
- Assessment must address inexperience and risk perception, not only the task. A control adequate for an experienced adult may not be adequate for someone doing the job for the first time.
- Where a young worker is also new, agency-supplied or working in a second language, the exposures compound and the assessment should say so.
What it is
What it is
What is a young worker risk assessment?
An assessment of the risks to a worker under 18, addressing both the prohibited and restricted work that applies by age, and the factors specific to youth: inexperience, incomplete risk perception, physical and psychological maturity, and susceptibility to pressure from older colleagues. It is required explicitly in several jurisdictions and is good practice everywhere.
What is oppressive child labor under the FLSA?
The FLSA prohibits, with exceptions, the employment of anyone under 16 in any occupation and anyone under 18 in occupations declared hazardous by the Secretary of Labor. Those declarations are the hazardous occupation orders, and there are separate sets for agricultural and non-agricultural employment.
When to use it
When to use it, and when not to
This assessment addresses workers under 18. It sits alongside the task assessment rather than replacing it.
Use it for
- Before any worker under 18 starts, and again when their tasks change
- Work experience, apprenticeship and placement arrangements, which are not exempt from the hazardous occupation orders
- Seasonal and summer intake where young workers arrive in numbers and stay briefly
- Any change to equipment, process or shift pattern affecting a young worker's role
- Where a young worker moves between departments and the applicable restrictions change
Not for
- The general task risk assessment, which this supplements with age-specific factors
- Employment eligibility and work permit checks, which are a separate administrative requirement
- New and expectant mother assessment, which is its own named duty with different factors
- Training records, which evidence the competence this assessment may require
- Safeguarding arrangements, which address a different set of risks to young people at work
Standards
What it is built against
Young worker protection combines an employment statute setting prohibited work with a safety duty requiring assessment of age-specific factors.
| Clause | Requirement | Where it lands |
|---|---|---|
| FLSA child labor provisions | Prohibition on employment under 16 in any occupation and under 18 in hazardous occupations, with exceptions | Prohibited and restricted work |
| 29 CFR 570 Subpart E | Hazardous occupation orders for non-agricultural employment, including power-driven machinery and specified equipment | Prohibited and restricted work |
| 29 CFR 570 Subpart E-1 | Agricultural hazardous occupation orders, which differ from the non-agricultural set | Prohibited and restricted work |
| HSE Management Regs reg.19 | Protection of young persons, with assessment addressing inexperience, immaturity and lack of awareness | Factors specific to age |
| HSE Management Regs reg.3(5) | Risk assessment before a young person starts, considering specified factors including equipment and exposure | Header |
| EU Directive 94/33/EC | Protection of young people at work, implemented nationally with prohibited work lists | Prohibited and restricted work |
| ISO 45001 cl.6.1.2 | Hazard identification considering human factors including capability and experience | Factors specific to age |
| State child labor statutes | Hours, permits and restrictions varying by state, applying where stricter than federal | Header |
What it does not cover
- The general task risk assessment, which this supplements rather than replaces.
- Work permit and age verification, which is an administrative requirement and, in several states, no longer exists.
- New and expectant mother assessment, a separate named duty with entirely different factors.
- Training and competency records, which evidence the controls this assessment specifies.
- Safeguarding policy, which addresses risks to young people beyond occupational safety.
Filling it in
Filling it in well
Two halves: what the law prohibits, and what inexperience makes riskier. Most assessments do the first and stop.
Build the prohibited and restricted list from the hazardous occupation orders as a floor, then add any state requirement that goes further. Do not derive the list from state law alone, because several states have relaxed provisions that sit below the federal standard, and the federal standard continues to apply regardless.
Incomplete risk perception, unfamiliarity with the environment, reluctance to ask questions or to stop work, and susceptibility to pressure from older colleagues. These are the factors the safety regulations name, and they change what counts as an adequate control. A machine safe for an experienced operator may need additional supervision, restricted access or a different task allocation for a young worker.
A young worker who is also new, agency-supplied, in a second language, or on a night shift carries several elevated exposures at once. Each is separately recognised and together they concentrate risk in the population least likely to raise a concern. The assessment should identify where those overlap.
Restrictions are task-specific rather than person-specific, so a move between departments changes what is permitted. Where a young worker covers a different area during absence or at peak, that is a change requiring reassessment rather than an operational detail.
Audit findings
Common audit findings
Findings here concentrate on the gap between the legal list and the actual work performed.
| Finding | Clause | What fixes it |
|---|---|---|
| Restricted list built from state law where state provisions sit below the federal floor. | FLSA | Use the hazardous occupation orders as the floor and apply state rules where stricter. |
| Assessment addresses the task but not inexperience or risk perception. | Management Regs reg.19 | Assess the age-specific factors the regulations name, not only the physical hazard. |
| Young worker operating or cleaning power-driven equipment covered by an order. | 29 CFR 570 Subpart E | Check the specific order; cleaning and maintaining covered equipment is frequently included. |
| Work experience or apprenticeship placements treated as exempt. | FLSA | Placements are not generally exempt from hazardous occupation orders; check the specific exemption before relying on it. |
| No reassessment when the young worker moved department or covered another area. | Management Regs reg.3(5) | Restrictions are task-based; a move changes them. |
| Age verification absent where the state permit system has been removed. | FLSA | Verify age directly; the external check some states previously provided no longer exists. |
| Supervision arrangement stated but not defined. | ISO 45001 cl.6.1.2 | Name who supervises, how closely, and for how long; supervised is not a control by itself. |
| Compounding factors not identified where the worker is also new or agency-supplied. | ISO 45001 cl.6.1.2 | Record the overlap; these exposures concentrate rather than substitute. |
| Hours worked exceeding the applicable limit during peak periods. | FLSA / state law | Build the limit into rostering rather than checking it afterwards. |
| Assessment not reviewed on the worker's eighteenth birthday. | Management Regs reg.3(5) | Restrictions lapse; the assessment and the task allocation should both be revisited. |
Worked case
Case in point: the enforcement picture behind the assessment
In fiscal year 2025 the Wage and Hour Division resolved 976 cases in which employers were found to have violated the FLSA child labor provisions. Those cases involved the illegal employment of more than 5,200 minors, including 773 employed in violation of the Secretary's hazardous occupation orders, and produced civil money penalties totalling $37,215,327.
The figures for cases and for hazardous occupation violations were higher than in recent years. In 2026 the maximum civil penalty is up to $16,035 for each minor who was the subject of a violation, with higher amounts where a violation causes serious injury or death.
Over the same period, state child labor statutes have moved in both directions. Some states strengthened penalties and protections; others relaxed hours, removed youth work permit systems, or altered restrictions on particular work. Where a state provision falls below the FLSA, the federal standard governs.
Definitions
Definitions and key terms
- Oppressive child labor
- Under the FLSA, employment of a minor under 16 in any occupation, or under 18 in a hazardous occupation, subject to exceptions.
- Hazardous occupation order
- A declaration by the Secretary of Labor that an occupation is too dangerous for workers under 18. Separate sets exist for agriculture and non-agriculture.
- Youth work permit
- A state-issued document confirming age and permitted employment. Several states have removed the requirement in recent years.
- Risk perception
- The ability to recognise and weigh a hazard, which is less developed in younger and less experienced workers and is a named assessment factor.
- Compounding exposure
- Where several elevated-risk characteristics coincide: young, new, agency-supplied, working in a second language or on nights.
- Work experience placement
- A short educational placement, which is not generally exempt from hazardous occupation restrictions.
- Federal floor
- The minimum standard set by the FLSA, which applies regardless of a less protective state provision.
- Task-based restriction
- A restriction attaching to the work rather than the person, so it changes when the worker's tasks change.
FAQ
Frequently asked questions
Can we rely on state child labor law?+
Only where it is at least as protective as the FLSA. Several states have amended their statutes recently in both directions, and where a state provision sits below the federal standard, the federal standard continues to apply. A policy derived from state law alone risks being compliant locally and in violation federally, which is why the hazardous occupation orders should be the baseline.
What does the enforcement picture look like?+
In fiscal year 2025 the Wage and Hour Division resolved 976 child labor cases involving more than 5,200 minors, of whom 773 were employed in violation of hazardous occupation orders, with penalties totalling $37,215,327. In 2026 the maximum civil penalty is up to $16,035 per minor subject to a violation, with higher amounts where serious injury or death results.
Are work experience placements exempt?+
Not generally. Specific and narrow exemptions exist, including certain student-learner and apprenticeship arrangements meeting defined conditions, but the default is that hazardous occupation orders apply to placements as they do to employment. Relying on an exemption requires checking that the specific conditions are met rather than assuming educational purpose is sufficient.
What age-specific factors must the assessment cover?+
Inexperience, incomplete awareness of risk, physical and psychological immaturity, the layout of the workplace, exposure to agents and processes, and the extent of training and supervision. Several jurisdictions name these explicitly. The practical point is that a control adequate for an experienced adult may be inadequate for someone doing the task for the first time.
What happens when several risk factors overlap?+
They compound. A young worker who is also new, agency-supplied and working in a second language is elevated on four separate counts, each independently recognised, and is among the least likely to raise a concern or stop work. The assessment should identify that overlap explicitly rather than treating each factor in a separate document.
The agents
What the agents do with it
The assessment has a legal half and a human half. What fails is the department move nobody reassessed and the state policy that drifted below the federal floor.
Holds the restricted task list against the federal orders with state additions, and reassesses when a young worker's tasks or department change.
Tracks the additional training and supervision the assessment specifies, and confirms it is delivered before the task rather than during it.
Flags where several elevated-risk characteristics coincide on one person, since those exposures compound rather than substitute.
Covers agency-supplied young workers, where the age check and the assessment both frequently fall between two employers.
This template lives in KnowSafe — safety and compliance. Incidents, hazards, permits, inspections and the critical controls behind them.
Meet KnowSafe→Sources
Sources
- Fair Labor Standards Act child labor provisions, and CRS report R44548 with FY2025 enforcement data
- 29 CFR Part 570, child labor regulations including hazardous occupation orders, US DOL
- Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, regulations 3(5) and 19 (GB)
- Council Directive 94/33/EC on the protection of young people at work
- ISO 45001:2018 clause 6.1.2, hazard identification including human factors