Workforce Survey Report Revision of UNHCR s Guidelines on Determining the Best Interests of the Child
Project Donors: Cover Photo UNHCR/Jiro Ose 1
Background UNHCR s Guidelines on Determining the Best Interests of the Child (the Guidelines ) were published in 2008, and have since been the key text for UNHCR staff and partners in implementing child protection case management procedures. The Field Handbook for the Implementation of the UNHCR BID Guidelines (the Handbook ) and an accompanying training package was published in 2011 as part of a joint UNHCR and IRC initiative. These products are the backbone of UNHCR s child protection case management work. They are used on a daily basis by UNHCR staff and partners alike to guide them in decision-making for children at risk. In the almost ten years since the publication of the Guidelines, UNHCR operations have continued to identify areas of work that require additional elaboration and clarification. Many operations have developed their own or used other guidance documents, training materials and tools to fill these identified gaps. These field-level initiatives include many excellent pieces of work that could be shared more widely in the organization, but also contribute to a wide variation in the application of best interests procedures from operation to operation. In addition, many essential UNHCR and external legal, policy and guidance documents have been produced or updated since 2008. The Guidelines therefore need to be updated to ensure that they continue to be relevant in the context of evolving protection policy and guidance. Given the above, UNHCR undertook a survey of UNHCR and partner staff in April 2017 to determine if a revision of the Guidelines and related materials was necessary, and to provide an indication of priorities for revised guidance products. 2
The Survey 3 UNHCR/Shabia Mantoo
Survey Objective The objective of the survey was to inform the revision of the Guidelines and related materials by helping to define: 1) Whether practitioners felt that the Guidelines, Handbook and related materials need to be revised; 2) Priorities for revision among practitioners in terms of content and format; and 3) Resources that have already been developed in the field that can be used in a revised and expanded guidance package. Design and Dissemination The design of the survey was meant to support a comprehensive review of existing practice, guidance, tools and training materials used in UNHCR operations. This process will help to identify resources that can be incorporated into the end products of the review, as well as to prioritise gaps in guidance that need to be addressed. This survey targeted people who have experience with working on UNHCR s Best Interests procedure (BIP) and child protection case management. The survey included 16 questions (10 structured, 6 free text), of which 9 (all structured) were mandatory. Respondents could also upload one file with documents or tools related to the best interests procedures from their contexts (not mandatory). The survey was estimated to take a minimum of 5 minutes and a maximum of 20 minutes to complete. The survey was opened on Monday 03 April 2017, and was closed on Thursday 20 April 2017. Dissemination was designed to target individuals within UNHCR, as well as externally, who have hands-on experience in implementing BIP. It was decided to take a targeted approach to dissemination, rather than a wider, more open approach. The target range was for 100-200 respondents with more extensive experience in child protection case management. It was sent to past and current Child Protection Learning Programme participants, Regional Child Protection Officers (for dissemination within their regions), and other key UNHCR staff members, including in Bureaux and other Divisions. It was also distributed to the Alliance for Child Protection in Humanitarian Action (the Alliance ) and the Child Protection Area of Responsibility of the Global Protection Cluster mailing lists, with a particular focus on members of the Case Management Task Force, and other child protection professional networks. 4
Respondents A total of 157 people responded to the survey, almost 2/3 of whom worked for UNHCR. Of those who were not working for UNHCR, 26% worked for other UN organisations, 36% worked for international NGOs, 22% worked for national NGOs, and 4% worked for governments. An additional 12% worked for none of the above. The low response rate by governments and national NGOs likely reflects both flaws in the dissemination process (outside of UNHCR, the report was mainly distributed through global NGO networks); however, it may also be indicative that these groups are less familiar with the Guidelines and related materials. Fig. 1: Breakdown of Respondents by Organization Types (Total Respondents: 157) UNHCR (103) Other UN agencies(14) International NGOs (19) National NGOs (12) National Governments (2) Others (7) Around 75% of respondents were based in either a country office or a sub or field office both for UNHCR and partners. It should be noted that since the survey questions were not limited to respondents current work but rather sought their opinions from their entire working experience there is no breakdown by region or country. Fig. 2: Breakdown of Respondent Locations (Total Respondents: 157) Global/HQ Office (8) At a regional office (20) At a country office (70) SO/Field Office (47) Other (12) 5
35 Fig. 3: Number of responses by date 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Limitations While a large number of core child protection practitioners both within and outside of UNHCR were consulted, the survey cannot be considered representative of the views of the child protection workforce more generally, or of UNHCR or partners as organisations. The survey targeted specific networks of known users in order to try to garner feedback from those most involved with child protection case management. However, even within this group, there are gaps and limitations. It was not possible to distribute the survey in important languages such as Arabic, French or Spanish. This not only may have limited respondents within UNHCR and partner organizations, but may also have contributed to what is a noticeable gap in respondents from national NGOs and governments. It should also be noted that feedback was sought from individuals based on the full range of their experiences with the Best Interests procedure. This means that feedback cannot be unpacked with regards to specific issues by region, and that it represents the opinions of people, not organisations. In order to counteract these limitations, the revision process will combine the results of this survey with other sources of information and direction. A Reference Group consisting of UNHCR staff from different geographical regions and functional areas within protection has been established to guide the revision process. Consultations will also be organised in UNHCR operations as well as with other stakeholders at global and regional level, including the Case Management Task Force of the Alliance, which will serve as the main interagency forum for consultation on the revision. 6
Findings UNHCR/Francesco Malavolta 7
Use and relevance of the Guidelines and associated materials The Guidelines remain highly relevant for UNHCR, with 92% of UNHCR staff reporting that they use the Guidelines in their child protection case management work. Over 40% of UNHCR staff in the field who responded to the survey reportedly use the Guidelines all the time. Only 1% of all respondents (and no UNHCR respondents) indicated that they have never heard of the Guidelines, which also speaks to its success as the core document for UNHCR s child protection case management. The training materials were the least used resource, with almost 20% of survey respondents indicating that they have never heard of it. As with other resources, this was again more pronounced for partners than for UNHCR staff. However, almost 50% of respondents did indicate that they used the resource at least from time to time, which is, although less than other resources, still a sizeable proportion. How often do you use: Guidelines Handbook Training UNHCR Partner All UNHCR Partner All UNHCR Partner All I've never heard of it 0% 4% 1% 2% 12% 5% 17% 24% 19% I've heard of it but I don't 7% 17% 10% 14% 20% 16% 30% 28% 30% really use it I use it from time to time 56% 58% 56% 56% 57% 56% 38% 40% 39% I use it all the time 37% 23% 32% 28% 12% 23% 14% 8% 12% Table 1: Use of the Guidelines and Related Materials Usage amongst partners was high but not as consistent as for UNHCR staff. Of partners responding, almost 80% used the Guidelines and almost 70% used the Field Handbook. This is significantly more pronounced in terms of regular use, where, for example for the Field Handbook, UNHCR staff were two times more likely than partners to use the resource frequently. Nevertheless, in spite of the less favourable comparison, it is still notable that almost a quarter of partner respondents indicate that they used the Guidelines all the time. In addition, respondents identified a number of resources that are used in conjunction with the BIP guidance for child protection case management. Fig. 4: Other resources used in child protection case management None UNHCR Voluntary Repatriation Handbook Caring for Child Survivors of Sexual Abuse Guidelines InterAgency Child Protection Case Management Guidelines UNHCR Resettlement Handbook and Operational Guidance materials UNHCR SGBV Guidelines for Prevention and Response Child Protection Minimum Standard on Case Management 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 UNHCR Other UN International NGO National NGO Government Other 8
Need for revision The overwhelming majority of respondents felt that the Guidelines (83%) and the Field Handbook (75%) needed updating. This was consistent among field and headquarter/regional colleagues. It is also worth noting that, for UNHCR staff, opinion was almost equally split between whether the Guidelines and Handbook needed a thorough update as opposed to some tweaking. This supports the finding that, on the whole, the Guidelines and Handbook in particular are well known and utilized resources meaning that it could be a mistake to seek to change them too dramatically. In your opinion, does the following resource need: Guidelines Handbook Training UNHCR Partner All UNHCR Partner All UNHCR Partner All Nothing 7% 6% 6% 5% 4% 5% 6% 4% 5% A bit of tweaking / updating 40% 54% 45% 39% 42% 40% 17% 30% 22% A thorough update 43% 28% 38% 41% 25% 35% 44% 23% 37% A total rethink 3% 4% 3% 1% 9% 4% 3% 6% 4% I don't know 7% 9% 8% 14% 21% 16% 30% 38% 33% Table 2: Need for revision of the Guidelines and related materials The Best Interests procedure training materials appear to be the most in need of updating. Not only had almost half of respondents either not heard of it or not used it, but, of those who were familiar with the resource, 60% felt it needed substantial work. In terms of audiences, respondents felt that case workers should be prioritized in consideration of training materials, followed by case managers and BID panel members. In the qualitative feedback, however, participants emphasized that all staff who are involved in child protection should have training in the BIP. In addition to wanting training for different audiences, the feedback also suggested that there should be different options for training in terms of length and style. Fig 5: Audience for which BIP training is most needed Child protection managers Community volunteers BID Panel members Case managers Weighted average Case workers 0 1 2 3 4 5 The most frequently prioritised areas where respondents felt existing guidance was lacking was in relation to national child protection systems and simplified best interests procedures (see Figure 8 below). This reflects many of the overarching comments, which emphasised the need for a more holistic approach to the Best Interests procedure, and for more user-friendly, practical tools. 9
Recommendations for revision Ensure that the Guidelines and accompanying materials reflect a comprehensive approach to case management Respondents indicated the need to consolidate the BIP guidance as a holistic and comprehensive approach to case management for all children at risk. Importantly, 86% of UNHCR respondents thought that the Best Interests procedure represented a comprehensive or integral part of case management. This was very much reflected in the qualitative feedback, which strongly emphasized the need to complete the guidance with additional material, especially related to situations other than durable solutions and unaccompanied and separated children. The feedback captures the current thinking and culture in UNHCR, as is reflected in the Framework for the Protection of Children, which embraces a comprehensive child protection systems approach. Indeed, UNHCR s understanding and approach to child protection including the BIP has outstripped the existing guidance and materials. The Guidelines present BIA/BID too much as a separate or stand-alone process or tool, while it should only be understood as part of a wider child protection system and case management services. A key theme in the qualitative feedback was the need to ensure an adequate balance in the BIP guidance between UASC and other children at risk. In particular, it was suggested that more specific guidance should be provided on the Best Interests procedure for other children with specific needs, such as child spouses, child parents, LGBTI children, CAAFAG, children in conflict with the law, child survivors of violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation, and other common situations not currently covered in detail by the BIP guidance. Some respondents even suggested that BID triggers be expanded to include additional situations for children at risk. However, it was also noted that given a more expansive interpretation of the BIP guidance, there is also a need to be realistic in terms of capacity. Given extremely high numbers of children who meet BID triggers, more concrete guidance is needed on prioritization of cases, and perhaps a redrawing of some of the bottom lines for BIDs. The shift in thinking about the BIP as reflective of comprehensive case management was not, however, necessarily mirrored in the inputs from partners. Only 24% of partners felt that the BIP represented a comprehensive approach to case management, compared with 43% of UNHCR staff. This resonates with the qualitative feedback, whereby respondents felt that more needed to be done to involve partners in the BIP. 10
Fig.6: "In your opinion, best interests procedures are..." 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 UNHCR 15 10 Partners 5 0 A comprehensive approach to case management for children at risk An integral part of case management for children at risk A specialised component of case management for children at risk A small part of case management for children at risk The issue of the engagement of partners related not only to the need to involve partners further in the BIP at field and global level, but also to provide more guidance on how to coordinate Best Interest procedures in practice. In particular, it was felt that there should be more provision for NGOs, UNICEF, government (see below) and other stakeholders to be involved at country-level. There was a desire expressed for a more concrete position on the extent to which UNHCR should seek to engage partners in different aspects of the BIP and on the roles of other stakeholders. On a practical level, one respondent also requested specific guidance on the criteria for selecting partners to participate in Best Interests procedures. Given the heavy caseloads in some operations as mentioned above, there were also concerns expressed in relation to resourcing, both financial and human, for UNHCR to establish the BIP as comprehensive case management. Finally, there was also a strong desire for the BIP guidance to more explicitly link to and build on other guidance related to child protection case management for example, those resources already commonly used (see Fig. 4 above). Of the structured options, the Minimum Standard for Child Protection on Case Management was the most frequently used, followed by UNHCR s SGBV Guidelines and Resettlement Handbook, and the InterAgency Child Protection Case Management Guidelines. Other resources mentioned in the qualitative feedback include the Inter Agency Handbook on Working with Separated and Unaccompanied Children and related forms and resources, and the CRC General Comment on the best interests of the child. Major questions and decision points: Should UNHCR expand the BID triggers to reflect a broader view of child protection case management? Or rather, given the operational realities of BIP for all children at risk, should UNHCR narrow or nuance them? How can UNHCR better include all relevant operational partners in the implementation of the BIP and coordination mechanisms? How should the BIP guidance relate to other existing materials on child protection case management and best interests procedures? 11
Provide additional guidance on working with national child protection systems One of the most frequently recurring themes in qualitative feedback was related to working with national child protection systems. This was also the most frequently chosen priority issue for the revision of the guidance (see Fig. 8 below). In unpacking the feedback, several sub-themes emerge. For example, several respondents expressed the need for guidance on supporting the development of specific national procedures related to age assessment, guardianship and BIAs/BIDs. Respondents also requested more guidance on how to involve governments in the Best Interests procedure in a constructive way, in particular in contexts where the existing child protection system may not be well adapted to children of concern. UNHCR s role in relation to host governments was felt to require additional clarification, in particular in terms of advocacy, capacity building and technical and financial support. The feedback in some ways indicates a desire for clarification on the extent UNHCR should provide support and guidance beyond its specific persons of concern i.e. to what extent is UNHCR s role to strengthen national child protection systems more broadly, where this would also impact persons of concern. This question becomes particularly pertinent when considered in conjunction with feedback related to UNHCR s involvement in best interests procedures in IDP settings (see below). In general, it was noted that there is a need for concrete guidance on how to engage with particular aspects of a national system such as juvenile courts and related institutions, and guardianship and alternative care procedures. There were also several questions raised on how to engage in systems work in different contexts with varying levels of national system strength. It was noted that the approach may have to be very different in a weak national system compared to in a stronger system, which begs the question of how the BIP guidance should address adaptation to different contexts (see below) as well as how to integrate systems strengthening concepts more broadly. In relation to weaker systems, or in countries where governments have little interest in being involved in BIP, respondents mostly expressed the need for more practical strategies for UNHCR to support systems-strengthening. In relation to stronger systems, some of the concerns that emerged were around how UNHCR could influence or input into existing procedures. In both cases, UNHCR s role in legislative and policy agendas related to case management procedures was questioned, and a desire for more practical guidance on how UNHCR can influence these agendas was expressed. A tension that respondents appeared to struggle with was how to maintain the balance between advocating for the creation of parallel procedures that are adapted to the needs of children of concern vs. integration with domestic procedures and caseloads. In particular, it was noted that while of course it is desirable for governments to integrate refugee and asylum-seeking children into their procedures, there may be areas which need to be adapted for refugee children specifically or for other children of concern to UNHCR. In some cases, respondents expressed concern that integration within national procedures and/or the domestic caseload may result in a lower standard of care or even decisions that are not in the best interests of UNHCR s children of concern. In such circumstances, there were also questions related to the legal validity of UNHCR s own BIP and the extent to which it can substitute for national procedures. This was felt to be particularly relevant in countries where, given the legal 12
framework, decisions related to procedures such as alternative care and custody may be divergent from the outcome of a UNHCR BID (e.g. decisions in relation to custody in some frameworks, issues concerning LGBTI children). Major questions and decision points: What should UNHCR s role be in strengthening best interests procedures in national systems in different contexts? How can UNHCR provide practical guidance to support this in the BIP guidance? When and to what extent should UNHCR s BIP be established in parallel to national best interests procedures, and what is the winning formula for integration? What should UNHCR do when national legislation and procedures may result in outcomes that may not be in the best interests of an individual child of concern to UNHCR? Provide additional guidance on contextualization of the Guidelines in different settings A third major theme in the qualitative feedback on the survey was the need to expand guidance around use of UNHCR s BIP in non-refugee settings. This likely reflects the reality that many respondents are in fact already using or have used the Guidelines and associated materials in other contexts. Of those responding to the survey, 17% indicated that they had used the Guidelines in IDP contexts, and 13% in returnee and statelessness contexts. A few (9%) respondents had also used the Guidelines with host communities. In addition, 12% of respondents said they used them in other contexts which included: deportees, migrants and in a development context, for example. 100 90 Fig. 7: Number of respondents by organisation type to have used BIP guidance in different contexts 80 70 60 50 40 30 UNHCR Other UN International NGO National NGO Government Other 20 10 0 Refugee and Asylum Seekers Internally displaced people Returnees Stateless people Host communities None 13
There was a very clearly expressed need for more guidance on the use of UNHCR s BIP in IDP contexts in particular, but also with other children of concern to UNHCR, such as returnees and stateless children. It was also mentioned that UNHCR s involvement of other partners such as UNICEF and governments would also need to be specifically clarified for IDP contexts, given the difference in coordination structures and accountabilities (see above). In addition, there were a number of comments about the need to provide practical guidance and examples as to how to adapt the BIP to different country and regional contexts. Some respondents also noted the existence of some good regional or national guidance on the implementation of the Best Interests procedure, which could be drawn upon as examples of contextualization. It is very refugee focused, which reflects UNHCR s core mandate. However, in light of the growing protection role that UNHCR has in IDP contexts and in mixed migration flows, it would be important to integrate some guidance on how to adapt these tools to these populations. Some tension remains about the extent to which the Guidelines and related materials should be prescriptive, and the extent to which they should leave room for adaptation to local contexts, needs and capacities. In general, there appeared to be a great thirst for additional detail and specificity in the BIP guidance. For example, many respondents requested specific guidance on issues and scenarios that have been relevant in their operational experience, such as children associated with armed forces and armed groups, children involved in transactional sex, or who are subject to deportation or refoulement, child marriage, teenage pregnancies, working children, children with disabilities, etc. These are all areas which have different complexities and specificities when it comes to child protection case management and best interests procedures. However, at the same time, the extent to which the BIP guidance should be designed to provide all of the technical details related to case management for children in different situations should be questioned. Major questions and decision points: What is UNHCR s position on the use of the BIP (and indeed UNHCR s overall role in child protection case management) in IDP, stateless and returnee contexts in particular? Which contexts require additional guidance and what should this guidance look like (e.g. stand-alone additional material or references integrated into other areas of the guidance)? How does UNHCR best provide guidance on how to contextualize the BIP? 14
Make the guidance more practical and user-friendly, and develop additional guidance on the how to of procedures Much of the qualitative feedback centred around the need for the BIP guidance to be more practical and user-friendly. This was common feedback on the materials in general, as well as in relation to specific chapters or sections. Several respondents suggested providing summary documents, revising forms, templates and visuals in the guidance and training materials, and including more case examples. It was also suggested that the materials should be more explicitly linked to each other, as well as to other related resources and tools, such as the Resettlement and Voluntary Repatriation Handbooks, and progres (UNHCR s software for registration, documentation and case management). There were also some suggestions that more how to guidance is needed on aspects of BIP such as completing BIAs, including a gender-equality approach, and information management related to BIP. There were some specific procedural aspects which clearly require additional elaboration on the practical aspects. In terms of structured inputs, the areas most prioritized for additional guidance, in addition to national systems strengthening (see above), were simplified BID procedures, age assessment, information management systems and BIP in emergencies (see Fig. 4 below). In particular, those most frequently cited in the qualitative feedback were: aspects of the BIP relating to resettlement, practical aspects relating to BID Panels, procedural requirements in the context of family tracing and reunification, BID expiry and follow-up and the validity and applicability of BIDs in relation to custody decisions. In particular, some of the procedural elements related to BID panel composition, management, decision-making, and follow-up were felt to need further clarification. In addition, the process post BID was also felt to be too vague in places, with many questions around BID expiry and follow-up of BIDs, as well as when to re-open a BID. There were also a number of comments about BID and BIA forms, and the need to improve or streamline existing forms. In addition, in terms of documents submitted, a number of respondents provided examples of locally adapted forms. Fig. 8: Issues prioritised for additional / updated guidance Voluntary repatriation and BIP Simplified BID procedures Resettlement and BIP Roles and responsibilities of staff Participation of children/families in BIP National systems strengthening and BIP Information management for BIP BIP in IDP situations Feedback and right to appeal on BIDs BIP for family reunification BIP in emergencies BID review / expiry Forms Age assessment Aging out UNHCR Partner 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 15
The choice of priority themes very much reflects the qualitative feedback that there is a need for more how to guidance in terms of implementation of specific aspects of the Guidelines. However, it should also be noted that additional specificity should not become too prescriptive, or it may limit applicability or durability. In relation to user-friendliness of the resources, several recommendations were made by respondents on the format of the Guidelines and associated materials. Overall, most respondents prioritized the production of an interactive electronic document (PDF), closely followed by a web-resource format. A smartphone application was the lowest priority. However, in the qualitative feedback, several respondents did suggest better integration with digital tools and platforms that UNHCR already uses, such as KoBo Toolbox (for example, for BIA forms), the intranet (or other) web platform, and document sharing platforms such as Google Drive or One Drive. 3 Fig. 9: Respondents' preferences for resource format 2.5 2 1.5 Weighted average 1 0.5 0 Interactive PDF Web resource Hard copy Smartphone app Major questions and decision points: What needs to be changed in the tone and presentation of the existing guidance to make it more accessible and practical? How can additional materials best support usability? How can UNHCR best achieve the balance between providing sufficient and useful guidance on procedural aspects without being overly prescriptive? What would be the best way to provide accessible, interactive content to UNHCR and other users? 16
Conclusion The Guidelines on Determining the Best Interests of the Child and related guidance materials are clearly well-used and well-established resources for child protection case management for UNHCR and partners. The success of the Guidelines in establishing a clear framework that addresses the specific needs of UNHCR s children of concern and harmonises practice in relation to child protection case management across UNHCR operations should not be underestimated. However, in the 10 years since the launch of the Guidelines, the conceptualization of child protection work in UNHCR has changed. The results of this survey suggest that UNHCR staff in particular feel there is a need to update the Guidelines and associated materials to reflect the current thinking in UNHCR, as expressed in the Framework for the Protection of Children (UNHCR 2012). The revision therefore needs to be focused on making the Guidelines and related materials more consistent with a comprehensive approach to child protection case management grounded in a child protection systemsstrengthening framework. The revision should specifically consider the extent to which guidance can be provided on how to contextualize and adapt for use in different settings. The survey also made a specific effort to reach out to partner staff working on the BIP. This engagement has been positive, and has highlighted the need for the Guidelines and related materials to more explicitly address the roles and responsibilities of different partners in the BIP. There is clearly a desire from both partners and UNHCR staff to have guidance documents that meet the needs and have the buy in of partners. The revision will have to ensure an inclusive process as well as a final product that explicitly addresses the issue. At the same time, there is a clear call for guidance that is practical, short and accessible. Essentially, there is a need for UNHCR to find the balance between providing actionable and sufficient guidance without writing itself into a corner. The drafted materials need to build on and link to what already exists, to be designed in an accessible and interactive format, and support flexible and practical implementation at the field-level. 17
18
PUBLISHED BY: UNHCR Child Protection Unit Please send your comments, questions and suggestions for future revisions to hqchipro@unhcr.org 94 Rue de Montbrillant Geneva 1202 Switzerland www.unhcr.org UNHCR/Tina Ghelli 19