UNICEF Guidance Note for CEE/CIS

on juvenile justice programming in the CEE/CIS region

1

UNICEF GUIDANCE NOTE FOR CEE/CIS On juvenile justice programming in the CEE/CIS region

This Guidance Note issued by the UNICEF Regional Office for CEE/CIS

(Central and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent

States) is primarily designed to assist UNICEF offices in the region in

dealing with juvenile justice programming.

The guidance is founded on relevant international standards and principles

and builds on the Critical Mass exercise of the CEE/CIS Regional Office.

March 2010

2

UNICEF Regional Office for Central and Eastern Europe and

The Commonwealth of Independent States (CEE/CIS)

March 2010

Cover photo:

UNICEF Albania/2008/Robert Few

3

3

Introduction

This guidance note is designed to reinforce the way in which UNICEF country

offices address juvenile justice system reforms, in line with international standards

on juvenile justice and in the broader framework of:

• National and sector-wide reforms, in particular those relating to the

police, the legislative and judicial spheres, social work, correctional

facilities, and the establishment of alternatives to detention and national

human rights mechanisms to which children have access; and

• Child-friendly justice principles enunciated in the UN Approach to

Justice for Children and draft Council of Europe Guidelines on child-

friendly justice.

When planning, developing and reviewing programming in juvenile justice,

UNICEF country offices should pay attention to:

1. Priority areas of juvenile justice intervention defined for the CEE/CIS region;

2. The rights-based principles upon which the juvenile justice system ought to

have been established;

3. Results-based management in juvenile justice programming;

4. The background typologies of juvenile justice systems;

5. The building blocks of juvenile justice reforms and related programme design;

6. The framework for peer review of UNICEF juvenile justice programmes.

4

4

1. Priority areas of juvenile justice intervention defined for the

CEE/CIS region

The UNICEF Regional Office for CEE/CIS has developed a concept of Critical

Mass (CM), whereby a group of countries that has developed experience and/or

momentum in a particular field is encouraged by UNICEF to work with a common

set of objectives and priorities; strengthen its approaches; actively document and

share its experience and lessons learned, drawing upon expertise as well as

networks; and use evaluation as a tool for course correction, for the benefit of all

countries working in the same field.

Through a consultative process

1 involving UNICEF colleagues, governmental and

non-governmental organization (NGO) partners from countries in Central and

Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States, a set of priorities

for juvenile justice reform work in the region has been defined for the Juvenile

Justice Critical Mass (JJ CM).

1 ’Technical Roundtable, July 2008’, <www.ceecis.org/juvenilejustice/technical_roundtable.html>,

UNICEF Juvenile Justice Reform CEE/CIS website

5

5

PRIORITIES FOR JUVENILE JUSTICE PROGRAMMING IN CEE/CIS

GOAL AND DESIRED RESULTS KEY INDICATORS FOR

MEASURING PROGRESS

Children in

conflict with the

law who are under

the minimum age

for prosecution as

a juvenile

The goal is the transformation of decision-

making structures for children under the

minimum age for prosecution as a juvenile.

Two key results are desired:

a) A reduction in the number of children

under the minimum age for prosecution as a

juvenile who are exposed to punitive

measures, including detention;

b) The development and dissemination of a

package of measures to assist children in

conflict with the law who are under the

minimum age for prosecution as a juvenile.

1) Non-punitive measures

available and in use (no

deprivation of liberty, no

administrative detention).

2) System of judicial review of

placement developed and applied.

3) As a minimum, the package of

services available should define

and develop standards of care.

Diversion The goal is to ensure that diversion is

established in law and enforced, in line with

international standards and global best

practice and to promote the best interests of

the child.

Two key results are desired:

a) The possibility of diversion established in

law and practice, in line with international

standards; and

b) Diversion services established.

1) Ensuring laws are in place over

the course of the first two years.

2) Thereafter an increased

proportion of children should be

diverted.

3) Continuous monitoring of the

availability and quality of

services.

Alternatives to

custodial sentences

The goal is to ensure that a range of services

to provide alternatives to detention for the

pre- and post-trial periods is in place and that

the quality of services is defined and

periodically measured.

Two key results are desired:

a) Standards of using deprivation of liberty

as a measure of last resort are upheld in law

and policy as well as in practice, and are

relevant to both the pre- and post-trial

periods; and

b) Range of alternative services for the pre-

and post-trial periods put in place and used,

and quality of services defined and

periodically measured.

1) Reversal and improvement of

the ratio of custodial sentences to

the use of alternative measures.

2) The availability, quality and

use of alternative services.

3) Decreasing rates/trends in

recidivism (inverse ratio of

increase in use of non-custodial

sentences to rates of reoffending).

Budgeting for

juvenile justice

reform

The goal is to ensure accurate costing and

adequate budget allocation for the range of

services needed to reform and improve the

juvenile justice system in any country.

Two key results are desired:

a) Juvenile justice system elements properly

costed; and

1) Costing studies conducted and

used to advocate for reform.

2) National budget reflects

allocations for juvenile justice

reform.

6

6

GOAL AND DESIRED RESULTS KEY INDICATORS FOR

MEASURING PROGRESS

b) Adequate allocation made for costed

elements of juvenile justice.

Building wider

support for

juvenile justice

reform

The goal is to build wider support for

juvenile justice reform based upon principles

of restorative justice and to ensure that this

support is embedded within the process of

justice sector reform as a whole.

Key desired result:

Wider justice sector reform takes account of

juvenile justice and justice for children

issues.

1) Existence of systems of

coordination of services within

the juvenile justice system.

2) Principles of restorative justice

incorporated in all training and

study curricula of key agencies

dealing with juvenile justice and

justice for children issues.

3) Evidence of partnerships

between those agencies and

government actors involved in the

juvenile justice system and

multilateral and government

agencies engaged in broader

justice sector reform.

Reinforcing the

use of existing

monitoring and

accountability

mechanisms

The goal is to ensure that systems of

monitoring and accountability are in place

and used, and that recommendations made

and actions suggested by the systems are

regularly followed up.

Four key results are desired:

a) Systems of routine data collection,

monitoring and analysis established;

b) Accountability mechanisms established

for professionals who work with children or

are responsible for ensuring the elimination

of violence against children;

c) Independent systems in place to conduct

regular inspections; and

d) Existence and use of complaints

mechanisms.

1) Information relating to global

juvenile justice indicators

collected, published and made

available for public scrutiny on a

regular basis.

2) Codes of conduct and/or child

protection policies established for

all professionals.

3) Existence of independent

inspection reports.

4) Record of following up

complaints lodged.

UNICEF offices in Albania, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kosovo, Moldova, the

former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Tajikistan,

Turkey and Ukraine volunteered to join the Juvenile Justice Critical Mass

exercise either on the basis of their active involvement in ongoing juvenile justice

reforms and their ability to achieve results, share experience and shape a regional

agenda; or because of their engagement via new, EU-funded programmes

(confirmed or pending approval) to be supported by the Critical Mass exercise.

Each of the countries is committed to conducting a comprehensive assessment of

its juvenile justice system according to the methodology developed by the

Regional Office for CEE/CIS, using the defined matrices to monitor progress and

tools to support consultations with children in contact with the law, etc. As well as

sharing these common tools, the 11 countries will use the expected results around

7

7

the defined priorities to foster the effective use of resources, strategic

engagement with national counterparts and focused reporting on results. In turn,

this will contribute to regional and global knowledge, foster innovation and

facilitate partnerships.

A review of the JJ CM clusters will be conducted every year (the first in 2010) and

it may be that CM leadership is rotated in the future depending upon the results

achieved by the countries involved.

The identification of needs and implementation of initiatives by JJ CM are country

driven, but at the same time there needs to be a compact between UNICEF country

offices and the Regional Office for CEE/CIS to ensure better monitoring of

progress, sharing of good practices, identification of high level technical assistance

and access to appropriate evaluation tools.

2. Rights-based principles

In keeping with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (Articles 37 and 40,

in particular) and the numerous other international and regional instruments

relating to juvenile justice2, UNICEF country offices should ensure that their

juvenile justice programmes both respect and promote the rights of children in

conflict with the law. The following checklist should be used to regularly review

how closely juvenile justice programmes are based upon children’s rights.

2 ‘Overview: International and regional human rights norms and standards’,

<www.juvenilejusticepanel.org/en/standardsoverview.html>, Juvenile Justice Panel website

8

8

RIGHTS-BASED PRINCIPLES

In contrast to juvenile justice

programming priorities, these

principles do not necessarily require a

special focus but should be present in

all components of the programme

IS THE JUVENILE

JUSTICE PROGRAMME

ADDRESSING THESE

RIGHTS? IF SO, HOW?

HOW CAN THE

PROGRAMME BE

REINFORCED TO ADDRESS

THESE RIGHTS?

Right to physical, mental, spiritual,

moral and social development.

Right to protection from discrimination,

including on the basis of sex, ethnicity

and financial means.

Due consideration of the best interests

of the child.

The child’s right to be heard and to be

given the opportunity to contribute as an

agent of change.

Right of the family to receive assistance

in raising children.

Promotion of the child's sense of dignity

and worth in an individualized manner

that takes into account his/her age,

specific characteristics and situation,

including protection from violence,

torture, degrading treatment and

punishment.

Deprivation of liberty as a last resort

and for the shortest appropriate period

of time, and protection from unlawful

and arbitrary deprivation of liberty.

Restorative principles and measures.

The core goals of juvenile justice,

including constructive, non-punitive

responses to enable the child to avoid

reoffending and to promote his/her

reintegration.

Availability and use of non-custodial

responses (both pre- and post-trial) and

diversion measures.

Due process or similar guarantees,

specially conceived measures, and the

right to challenge the legality of

deprivation of liberty as integral

elements of the response to underage

offenders.

Due process and specially conceived

measures for responding to offenders

above the minimum age for prosecution

as a juvenile.

Specific and coordinated legal

provisions, procedures and entities

applicable to children.

9

9

3. Results-based management in juvenile justice programming

Information systems and research capable of reflecting trends in juvenile justice

It is essential that any UNICEF juvenile justice programme includes an element of

support for governmental data collection and analysis. In many cases, information

exists but is neither compiled nor analysed. Indicators and tools for data collection

should be modified, where necessary, to enable measurement of the impact of

changes in legislation, institutions and policy. For example, new provisions made

in regard to diversion and alternative sentencing should result in the creation of

indicators that reveal the ratio of diverted juvenile criminal cases, the ratio of

alternatives among the total number of convictions, and the breakdown by type of

alternatives, etc. More in-depth research must also be developed – for example, on

the trends and background to recidivism, provision of social services to children at

risk, and needs and views of key players – to ensure that the juvenile justice

system evolves in response to the changing needs of society.

Global indicators applied to CEE/CIS

An analysis of the availability and applicability of global indicators has been

conducted via in-depth assessments across five countries in 2008 and the

observation of UNICEF country office feedback on UNODC-UNICEF indicators.

This feedback is given in response to the inclusion of new indicators in the

TransMONEE database, as part of a self-assessment exercise and to provide

feedback to national statistical offices. Final conclusions are yet to be issued, but

preliminary guidance is for UNICEF country offices to:

• Support governments to record and publicize effective durations of pre-

and post-trial custody;

• Support governments to record and publicize effective rates and types of

diversion and non-custodial sentences;

• Support governments and partner with human rights monitoring bodies to

collect records of juvenile deaths in detention, and juvenile justice-related

complaints and complaint outcomes; and

• Research the social and family background of juveniles in conflict with

the law in order to challenge the current vacuum in prevention and

reintegration and to identify types of care and other services required,

particularly following the deprivation of liberty.

Evidence-based monitoring and evaluation

While UNICEF programmes should be assessed against outputs and outcome

indicators (e.g., training assessments, levels of implementation, etc.), their impact

upon children and professionals should ultimately be measured against existing

baseline goals:

10

10

• Rates of children and duration in all types of detention decline

significantly;

• The proportion of children diverted and given non-custodial sentences

increases;

• Contacts with family and aftercare for those deprived of liberty are

developed;

• Juvenile justice standards are not only integrated into policies and

legislation but also widely implemented and monitored; and

• The specialization of juvenile justice systems and professionals is

demonstrated through documented working processes, impact assessment

of training and surveys of ‘service recipients’ (i.e., feedback from

children in conflict with the law, from communities and from child

protection professionals).

4. Background typologies of juvenile justice systems

When developing a juvenile justice programme, the UNICEF country office must

have adequate awareness and understanding of the country’s past and present

approach(es) to juvenile justice (i.e., reference typologies), as well as those

promoted by donors, experts and/or international standards, in order to:

• acknowledge the historical, legal and technical value of the given

approach(es);

• unravel fundamental approaches from their technical

implications/implementation;

• address risks and gaps in the current approach(es) against the background of

international standards;

• promote complementary elements from other approaches against the

background of international standards; and

• avoid misunderstanding/disagreement when working with national and

international donors, partners or experts advancing different approaches.

The following table can be used as a programming, advocacy and training tool to

help generate such awareness and understanding.

11

11

J

uv

en

ile j

ust

ice a

pp

ro

ach

es

an

d s

yst

em

ty

po

log

ies

Ju

ven

ile j

ust

ice

ap

pro

ach

es/

syst

em

ty

po

log

ies

Fu

nd

am

en

tal

focu

s A

ge

Pro

cess

an

d s

en

ten

cin

g

Ma

in l

imit

ati

on

s a

nd

co

mm

on

crit

icis

ms

WE

LF

AR

E A

PP

RO

AC

H

•

Off

end

er

•

His

/her

fam

ily

an

d

soci

o-e

con

om

ic c

on

tex

t

•

Est

abli

shin

g

reh

abil

itat

ion

pla

n

•

Ed

uca

tio

nal

/

corr

ecti

on

al

par

adig

m

•

Ch

ild

as

ob

ject

of

care

Wo

rld

wid

e, t

he

min

imu

m a

ge

for

pro

secu

tio

n a

s a

juv

enil

e

var

ies

fro

m 6

to

16

.

A h

igh

min

imu

m a

ge

do

es n

ot

in i

tsel

f g

uar

ante

e ap

pro

pri

ate

serv

ices

; it

on

ly g

uar

ante

es

that

ch

ild

ren

un

der

th

at a

ge

wil

l h

ave

no

cri

min

al r

eco

rd.

Info

rmal

pro

cess

bu

t fo

rmal

dec

isio

ns.

In

det

erm

inat

e

sen

ten

cin

g (

as l

on

g a

s is

nec

essa

ry t

o e

ffec

t

reh

abil

itat

ion

).

Hig

h d

egre

e o

f d

iscr

etio

n

giv

en t

o t

he

jud

icia

ry a

nd

to

the

edu

cati

on

al p

erso

nn

el.

Mu

ltid

isci

pli

nar

y

inte

rven

tio

ns

are

fav

ou

red

(ju

dic

ial,

ed

uca

tio

nal

,

psy

cho

soci

al).

Ch

ild

off

end

ers

and

ch

ild

ren

un

der

pro

tect

ion

mea

sure

s

may

sh

are

serv

ices

an

d

faci

liti

es.

•

Lac

k o

f d

ue

pro

cess

•

Intr

usi

ve

and

pat

ern

alis

tic

•

No

tim

e li

mit

to

cu

sto

dy

and

oth

er m

easu

res

•

Inco

nsi

sten

cies

an

d

po

ten

tial

dis

crim

inat

ory

trea

tmen

t

•

Res

po

nsi

bil

itie

s b

etw

een

just

ice

and

ch

ild

pro

tect

ion

are

blu

rred

•

Lim

ited

rec

og

nit

ion

of

chil

dre

n’s

leg

al r

igh

ts

•

Lim

ited

mo

nit

ori

ng

•

Clo

sed

ed

uca

tio

nal

sett

ing

s, s

om

etim

es l

ess

mo

nit

ore

d t

han

pen

al

cust

od

y

•

No

t eq

uip

ped

to

dea

l

wit

h p

ersi

sten

t o

ffen

der

s

JUS

TIC

E A

PP

RO

AC

H

•

Off

ence

•

Ind

ivid

ual

•

Res

po

nsi

bil

ity

•

Dis

po

siti

on

(p

un

ish

men

t

or

reh

abil

itat

ion

)

Min

imu

m a

ge

for

pro

secu

tio

n

is k

ey.

Bel

ow

th

at a

ge

the

chil

d i

s n

ot

dea

lt w

ith

by

th

e

juv

enil

e ju

stic

e sy

stem

; ab

ov

e

that

ag

e h

e/sh

e m

ay b

e

Fo

rmal

pro

cess

, o

ften

lo

ng

and

in

vo

lvin

g p

re-t

rial

det

enti

on

.

Au

tom

atic

sen

ten

cin

g i

n

cert

ain

sit

uat

ion

s (e

.g.,

•

Th

e le

gal

isti

c ap

pro

ach

off

ers

gu

aran

tees

bu

t ca

n

also

ju

stif

y v

ery

rep

ress

ive

po

lici

es

thro

ug

h t

he

stri

ct

12

12

Ju

ven

ile j

ust

ice

ap

pro

ach

es/

syst

em

ty

po

log

ies

Fu

nd

am

en

tal

focu

s A

ge

Pro

cess

an

d s

en

ten

cin

g

Ma

in l

imit

ati

on

s a

nd

co

mm

on

crit

icis

ms

pro

po

rtio

nat

e to

th

e

off

ence

an

d t

o t

he

age

and

mat

uri

ty o

f th

e ch

ild

•

Ch

ild

a s

ub

ject

of

leg

al

and

hu

man

rig

hts

, as

wel

l as

cri

min

al

resp

on

sib

ilit

y

dep

riv

ed o

f li

ber

ty i

n a

corr

ecti

on

al f

acil

ity

.

reci

div

ism

).

Rig

ht

to a

pp

eal.

Jud

icia

l in

terv

enti

on

s an

d

edu

cati

on

al f

oll

ow

-up

un

der

the

auth

ori

ty o

f th

e ju

dic

iary

.

app

lica

tio

n o

f cr

imin

al

law

•

Lit

tle

reco

gn

itio

n o

f th

e

nee

ds

of

the

off

end

er,

vic

tim

an

d w

ider

com

mu

nit

y

•

Rh

eto

rica

l co

mm

itm

ent

to t

he

imp

ort

ance

of

reh

abil

itat

ion

•

Mo

re f

reed

om

an

d l

ess

pre

ven

tio

n d

ue

to

red

uce

d e

du

cati

on

inte

rven

tio

ns,

mea

nin

g

mo

re r

esp

on

sib

ilit

y,

and

har

sher

co

nse

qu

ence

s,

for

dee

ds

that

may

hav

e

mac

ro c

ause

s

RE

ST

OR

AT

IVE

AP

PR

OA

CH

•

Rel

atio

nsh

ips

(aro

un

d

the

vic

tim

, o

ffen

der

s,

wid

er c

om

mu

nit

y a

nd

har

m d

on

e)

•

Acc

ou

nta

bil

ity

•

Rep

arat

ion

•

Cit

izen

s an

d c

om

mu

nit

y

acto

rs

•

Dia

log

ue

and

neg

oti

atio

n

•

Imp

ort

ance

of

faci

lita

tor

Min

imu

m a

ge

for

pro

secu

tio

n

is n

ot

rele

van

t to

th

e p

roce

ss.

It m

ay,

ho

wev

er,

be

rele

van

t

to i

ssu

es s

uch

as

crim

inal

reco

rd,

som

e n

ego

tiat

ed

sen

ten

ces

(e.g

.,

com

mu

nit

y

serv

ice

ord

ers)

or

fin

anci

al

com

pen

sati

on

pay

able

on

ly

abo

ve

a ce

rtai

n a

ge.

Info

rmal

pro

cess

bu

t fo

rmal

dec

isio

ns.

Imp

ort

ance

of

mo

nit

ori

ng

rec

idiv

ism

.

Mai

nly

co

mm

un

ity

inte

rven

tio

ns.

•

Imp

lies

ag

reem

ent

of

vic

tim

s an

d/o

r

com

mu

nit

y a

cto

rs t

o b

e

inv

olv

ed

•

Imp

lies

th

e ef

fect

ive

avai

lab

ilit

y o

f

com

mu

nit

y-b

ased

op

tio

ns

MIX

ED

AP

PR

OA

CH

•

Har

m d

on

e, o

ffen

der

,

vic

tim

•

Ch

ild

as

sub

ject

of

rig

hts

Min

imu

m a

ge

for

pro

secu

tio

n

sho

uld

no

t b

e se

t to

o l

ow

(lo

wes

t ac

cep

tab

le a

ge

is 1

2)

–

Dec

isio

ns

mu

st b

e fo

rmal

(ju

dic

ial)

so

as

to p

rese

rve

leg

al g

uar

ante

es a

nd

du

e

•

No

t cl

earl

y d

efin

ed

•

Co

nfu

sin

g

13

13

Ju

ven

ile j

ust

ice

ap

pro

ach

es/

syst

em

ty

po

log

ies

Fu

nd

am

en

tal

focu

s A

ge

Pro

cess

an

d s

en

ten

cin

g

Ma

in l

imit

ati

on

s a

nd

co

mm

on

crit

icis

ms

wit

h e

vo

lvin

g c

apac

itie

s

(acc

ou

nta

bil

ity

) an

d a

rig

ht

to p

rote

ctio

n

•

Rep

arat

ion

to

th

e

com

mu

nit

y a

nd

to

sel

f

•

Rei

nte

gra

tio

n

this

wil

l av

oid

ch

ild

ren

bei

ng

sub

ject

ed t

o c

orr

ecti

on

al

mea

sure

s to

o e

arly

in

th

eir

dev

elo

pm

ent.

Gu

aran

tees

sho

uld

als

o b

e m

ade

that

un

der

age

off

end

ers

wil

l b

e

adeq

uat

ely

ser

ved

by

th

e ch

ild

pro

tect

ion

sy

stem

.

pro

cess

.

Dis

cret

ion

of

the

jud

icia

ry

sho

uld

all

ow

fo

r d

iver

sio

n

pri

or

to c

ou

rt p

roce

edin

gs

bei

ng

in

itia

ted

, b

ut

foll

ow

a

stri

ct p

roce

ss i

n o

rder

to

av

oid

dis

crim

inat

ion

an

d c

orr

up

tio

n.

Dep

riv

atio

n o

f li

ber

ty a

s a

last

reso

rt i

mp

lies

th

at j

ud

ges

exp

lore

all

oth

er a

vai

lab

le

op

tio

ns.

Th

e p

erio

dic

rev

iew

of

pla

cem

ents

is

man

dat

ory

.

14

14

5. Building blocks of juvenile justice reforms and related

programme design

The following strategic and thematic ‘building blocks’ of juvenile justice reform

are based for the most part upon Critical Mass benchmarks determined at the May

2008 Regional Management Team meeting:

• Policy development and legal reform, including data collection and analysis,

allocation of government resources and budgeting for juvenile justice reform;

• Knowledge and awareness, including social mobilization and monitoring of

juvenile justice reform;

• Institutional capacity-building, including local coordination and civil society

involvement, e.g. in delivering accountability mechanisms;

• Taking into consideration children’s views, skills and empowerment;

• Secondary prevention through targeted interventions by non-juvenile justice

actors (social services, education, community-based programmes, etc.) as well

as individualized tertiary prevention of reoffending through the coordinated

actions of all sectors, including juvenile justice;

• Diversion and alternatives to custodial measures, including adequate follow-

up of offenders receiving non-custodial measures and children under the

minimum age for prosecution as a juvenile;

• Protection and reintegration of children in custody, including systematic

independent monitoring of custodial settings and the provision of post-release

support; and

• Due process.

Capacity-building is an important, cross-cutting issue that applies to all building

blocks of juvenile justice reform. Not only does it concern training, but also

resources, stability and motivation of staff. Quality of services is important.

Multidisciplinary networks of professionals must be developed and monitored to

see how they acquire information about deprivation of liberty. Training needs must

be assessed and changes in practice monitored; capacity-building is not just about

the number of courses delivered or manuals developed. Systems to accredit good

programmes should be encouraged and recognized.

Each UNICEF country office must monitor and support its country’s progress and

challenges under each building block (through the juvenile justice reform

assessment-of-progress matrix). In addition, all country offices involved in JJ CM

must report on the specific results defined for the six areas of JJ CM in order to

build a comprehensive picture of progress across the region. The tools will be

improved and updated each year in line with country office needs and insights.

15

15

Each juvenile justice country programme should be a strategic response by

UNICEF to this documented situation. Country office staff must therefore ask

themselves the following questions:

• Are the benchmarking tools, indicators and processes in place to monitor

progress in each area?

• Which juvenile justice reform building blocks and processes corresponding to

regional priorities can UNICEF influence?

• Which key institutional juvenile justice structures in the country context

require support? What windows of opportunity and incentives exist for

UNICEF to support them?

• How can UNICEF complement and supplement the actions and programmes

of other international and national partners?

These questions should help UNICEF staff to make the transition from a project

approach to sector-wide and/or programme-based approaches3. Sector-wide and

programme-based approaches must promote the national ownership of policies and

strategies by supporting a government-owned policy and strategy; by promoting

coherence between policy, budgeting and actual results; and by reducing externally

financed technical assistance over the medium- to long-term.

3 The following are among the recognized weaknesses of separate projects:

• The ability of donors to force their own priorities upon governments and to insist upon specific

management requirements and implementation procedures, thus undermining the ownership of

policies and programmes by national authorities;

• Multiple projects do not favour the development of coherent national sector policies, leading to

fragmentation, duplication of effort and loss of coherence between actions funded by domestic and

external sources of revenue;

• The funding by donors of multiple investments that lack overall vision and priorities has led to

unbalanced sectoral development (at geographical and subsectoral level) and a tendency to

generate imbalances between recurrent and capital budgets;

• A large number of externally funded projects and a multitude of donors, each with their own

reporting schedules, leads to situations where the transaction costs of delivering projects become

unacceptably high;

• Extensive reliance on parallel, non-governmental project management structures and staffing

arrangements seriously undermines the effectiveness of government systems, resulting in negative

effects across government;

• Donor-specific mechanisms of accountability corrode normal structures of democratic

accountability.

16

16

6. A framework for peer review of juvenile justice programmes

1. Policy development and legal reform

2. Knowledge and awareness

3. Institutional capacity-building

4. Prevention

5. Alternatives

(diversion and non-custodial sentencing)

Is there a viable cross-cutting or sector programme

in place, whether a justice sector commitment to

juvenile justice system reform and/or multi-sector

juvenile justice policy?

1. Determine whether it can be meaningfully

supported by UNICEF

2. Determine how UNICEF can secure support from

other UN bodies to give further attention to children in

rule of law initiatives

3. Assess and rank risks, identify likely impact of risks

(e.g., public opinion, resistance from professionals,

etc.), and identify measures for mitigation.

Yes No

What do other donors

provide?

How does UNICEF add

value?

What is the government

preference for the

modality of UNICEF support?

How will

UNICEF:

1. Promote a

cross-cutting or

sector approach?

2. Engage in

policy dialogue?

3. Align with a

system or sector-

wide approach?

How will UNICEF

facilitate and manage

change?

6. Protection and

reintegration of children in custody

Peer review blocks Review questions

17

17

ANNEXES

Annex 1: From juvenile justice to justice for children

Juvenile justice programmes should be part of a broader, sector-wide approach aimed at improving all justice system policies and practices concerning children (‘child-friendly justice’) and/or increasing awareness of the impact upon children of – and the need to respect children’s rights in – all justice policies and decisions (‘justice for children’). Both approaches acknowledge the potential systemic, legal and practical overlap between juvenile justice for offenders and judicial responses to child victims and witnesses (some victims of juvenile offenders are themselves children or adolescents), although the extent to which there is an overlap will depend upon how closely the two tracks are linked in any given national justice system. While juvenile justice and child-friendly justice programmes fall within the traditional scope of child protection (specialized professionals, cooperation with child care and education sectors), the justice for children approach focuses on the rule of law and emphasizes the need to better integrate child justice standards in broader justice and security reforms. This has implications not only for child protection programming but also for any social, judicial or human rights policy development. It is anticipated that country-level partnerships will be generated through justice for children. UNICEF country offices should promote and actively take part in the cooperative relationships that will be created between the European Union, Council of Europe, Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, World Bank, UN Country Teams and bilateral donors, and between embassies, universities and civil society at the national level.

Education Children’s rights Child care Human rights Rule of law Security

For JJ CM it has been agreed that it is important to consider wider justice reform but focus on juvenile justice results; this will allow UNICEF to be part of wider justice reform initiatives, such as the reform of the justice systems of the European Union and the child-friendly justice agenda of the Council of Europe.

CHILD

PROTECTION

and

judicial protection

measures for children at risk

Juvenile

justice

JUSTICE

FOR CHILDREN

18

18

Annex 2: Standard juvenile justice programme description

Part A: Overview of the national juvenile justice system

Length: One page (based upon self-assessment matrix and juvenile justice

indicators)

• Country and political context: Recent history of the juvenile justice and

criminal justice system; developments pertaining to justice and child

protection sector reforms; rule of law, security and human rights. Socio-

economic factors contributing to offending (e.g., poverty, family breakdown,

substance abuse, school enrolment/drop-out rates, etc.). Political commitment

to and national coordination of juvenile justice reform.

• Key players in reform (both specific to juvenile justice and in the wider

justice system, with actual or potential impact upon juvenile justice):

Main reform channels and players, implementers, donors.

• General characteristics: Trends, factors and forecasts in offending, arrest,

custody/detention (including deprivation of liberty) and other responses to

offenders below the minimum age of criminal responsibility. Diversion

practice and use. Sentencing, including availability and use of alternatives to

imprisonment. Conditions in detention, and rehabilitation, monitoring and

accountability standards and mechanisms.

• Inter-sectoral collaboration: Cooperation between social services and the

judiciary. Shifts in responsibility from interior to justice sectors, and from

administrative to judicial bodies. Inclusion of civil society organizations as

service providers, etc.

• Budget and administration: Institutional structures for budget formulation;

strategies and preparation; management and decentralization.

• Summary of risks and challenges: Based upon the above.

Part B: UNICEF country-based juvenile justice programming strategy

Length: One page

Defining a strategy sets the general direction in which juvenile justice

programming will grow, develop and become incorporated into the operations of

the UNICEF country programme. A country-based juvenile justice programming

strategy should cover:

• Justification: Set out the reason(s) why UNICEF involvement is necessary or

desirable as well as the opportunities and potential obstacles that may affect

the successful outcome of that involvement.

• Objective: Identify the strategy’s clear objective to help the country office

cope with political and technical turbulence around juvenile crime; maintain

19

19

relevance; and define the scope, focus and purpose of partnerships with

government, international partners and civil society actors around juvenile

justice.

• Thematic approach: Decide upon the themes that must be incorporated into

the strategy. Carefully consider a selection of themes that reflects both the

national context and regional priorities. Irrespective of themes, the strategy

must explain how the UNICEF country programme will support

improvements and enhance the results of juvenile justice policies and services.

• Scope: Ensure that the specific scope of the strategy sits well alongside the

overall objective and purpose of the government’s justice and child protection

systems and their interaction with rule of law, security and human rights.

• Focus: Clearly state the focus of the juvenile justice programming strategy,

how it has been arrived at and what it does not cover.

Part C: Programme proposal

Length: Two pages

The proposal needs to:

1. Indicate how UNICEF will engage with the challenges described above and

specify how the programme will address specific gaps and omissions in the

policy environment;

2. Specify a goal, a statement of purpose and a clearly specified set of results and

outputs supported by verifiable indicators, means of verification and

assumptions based upon risks in the policy/programme environment

3. Specify the activities that will be undertaken within each specified output

4. Link the outputs with activities and specific inputs (human and financial

resource requirements);

5. Delineate how UNICEF will work with government partners and

complement/supplement the activities of other international donors

6. Delineate how the programme will improve service delivery outcomes that

preserve and promote the rights of children;

7. Specify the external consultancy requirements for programme delivery, the

likely skills mix required and the approach that will be used to procure such

skills.

20

20

Part D: Logical framework

Narrative

summary

[NS]

Objective

verifiable

indicators

[OVIs]

Means of

verification

[MOV]

Important

assumptions

Super goal:

Goal:

Purpose:

Output 1:

Output 2:

Output 3:

Part E: Risk, impact and probability assessment

Length: Half a page

The risk assessment must take account of risks associated with specific outputs

and macro-level risks associated with the purpose level.

Part F: Annual cost estimates of the programme proposal and programme

duration

Length: 1 page

21

An

nex

4:

G

LO

BA

L U

NO

DC

-UN

ICE

F IN

DIC

AT

OR

S

Ind

icat

or

Def

init

ion

A

pp

licat

ion

in C

EE

/CIS

Reg

ion

Qu

anti

tati

ve in

dic

ato

rs

1 C

hild

ren

in c

on

flic

t w

ith

th

e la

w

•

Num

ber

of c

hild

ren

arre

sted

du

ring

a 12

-mon

th p

erio

d pe

r 10

0,00

0 ch

ild p

opul

atio

n

Tra

nsM

ON

EE

dat

abas

e in

dica

tors

of j

uven

ile c

rime

and

child

ren

take

n in

to p

olic

e cu

stod

y ar

e pr

efer

red

(i.e.

def

initi

ons

of a

rres

t var

y).

2 C

hild

ren

in d

eten

tio

n (

CO

RE

) •

Num

ber

of c

hild

ren

in d

eten

tion

per

100,

000

child

pop

ulat

ion

To

be u

sed

but i

n co

njun

ctio

n w

ith T

rans

MO

NE

E

indi

cato

r of

juve

nile

s de

priv

ed o

f lib

erty

in a

ll ty

pes

of e

duca

tiona

l/cor

rect

iona

l fac

ility

.

3 C

hild

ren

in p

re-s

ente

nce

det

enti

on

(C

OR

E)

•

Num

ber

of c

hild

ren

in p

re-

sent

ence

det

entio

n pe

r 10

0,00

0 ch

ild p

opul

atio

n

Goo

d in

dica

tor

– co

llect

ion

and

anal

ysis

to b

e re

info

rced

at

cou

ntry

leve

ls.

4 D

ura

tio

n o

f p

re-s

ente

nce

det

enti

on

•

Tim

e sp

ent i

n de

tent

ion

by

child

ren

befo

re s

ente

ncin

g

5 D

ura

tio

n o

f se

nte

nce

d d

eten

tio

n

•

Tim

e sp

ent i

n de

tent

ion

by

child

ren

afte

r se

nten

cing

Goo

d in

dica

tors

– c

olle

ctio

n an

d an

alys

is to

be

rein

forc

ed

at c

ount

ry le

vels

, and

ave

rage

dur

atio

n to

be

com

plem

ente

d by

max

imum

dur

atio

ns r

ecor

ded.

6 C

hild

dea

ths

in d

eten

tio

n

•

Num

ber

of c

hild

dea

ths

in

dete

ntio

n du

ring

a 12

-mon

th

perio

d, p

er 1

,000

chi

ldre

n de

tain

ed

Goo

d in

dica

tor

– co

llect

ion

and

anal

ysis

to b

e re

info

rced

at

cou

ntry

leve

ls.

7 S

epar

atio

n f

rom

ad

ult

s •

Per

cent

age

of c

hild

ren

in

dete

ntio

n no

t who

lly s

epar

ated

fr

om a

dults

Not

fully

rel

evan

t for

CE

E/C

IS r

egio

n, w

here

det

entio

n

with

you

ng a

dults

sen

tenc

ed a

s ju

veni

les,

or

with

wom

en

for

girls

, can

in s

ome

case

s be

in th

e be

st in

tere

sts

of

juve

nile

s. In

dica

tor

is m

ost r

elev

ant t

o po

lice

and

pre-

tria

l cu

stod

y.

22

Ind

icat

or

Def

init

ion

A

pp

licat

ion

in C

EE

/CIS

Reg

ion

8 C

on

tact

wit

h p

aren

ts a

nd

fam

ily

•

Per

cent

age

of c

hild

ren

in

dete

ntio

n w

ho h

ave

been

vi

site

d by

, or

visi

ted,

par

ents

, gu

ardi

an o

r an

adu

lt fa

mily

m

embe

r in

the

last

3 m

onth

s

Goo

d in

dica

tor

– co

llect

ion

and

anal

ysis

to b

e re

info

rced

at c

ount

ry le

vels

, and

com

plem

ente

d by

res

earc

h on

ju

veni

les’

soc

ial a

nd fa

mily

bac

kgro

und

(i.e.

, no

visi

ts d

ue

to d

eten

tion

syst

em o

r la

ck o

f fam

ily?)

.

9 C

ust

od

ial s

ente

nci

ng

(C

OR

E)

•

Per

cent

age

of c

hild

ren

sent

ence

d re

ceiv

ing

a cu

stod

ial

sent

ence

10

Pre

-sen

ten

ce d

iver

sio

n (

CO

RE

) •

Per

cent

age

of c

hild

ren

dive

rted

or

sen

tenc

ed w

ho e

nter

a p

re-

sent

ence

div

ersi

on s

chem

e

Goo

d in

dica

tors

– c

olle

ctio

n an

d an

alys

is to

be

rein

forc

ed

at c

ount

ry le

vels

.

11

Aft

erca

re

•

Per

cent

age

of c

hild

ren

rele

ased

from

det

entio

n re

ceiv

ing

afte

rcar

e

Tot

al v

acuu

m in

afte

rcar

e –

to b

e re

sear

ched

and

pr

omot

ed a

s an

are

a of

ref

orm

(no

nee

d to

col

lect

dat

a at

th

is s

tage

as

it is

clo

se to

nil)

.

Po

licy

ind

icat

ors

12

Reg

ula

r in

dep

end

ent

insp

ecti

on

s •

Exi

sten

ce o

f a s

yste

m

guar

ante

eing

reg

ular

in

depe

nden

t ins

pect

ion

of

plac

es o

f det

entio

n •

Per

cent

age

of p

lace

s of

de

tent

ion

that

hav

e re

ceiv

ed a

n in

depe

nden

t ins

pect

ion

visi

t in

the

last

12

mon

ths

The

se in

dica

tors

are

ess

entia

l but

sug

gest

ed

defin

ition

s/m

easu

rem

ent t

ools

are

inad

equa

te.

Reg

ular

and

offi

cial

ly in

depe

nden

t ins

pect

ions

as

wel

l as

prov

isio

ns fo

r co

mpl

aint

mec

hani

sms

exis

t in

mos

t CE

E/C

IS c

ount

ries,

but

thei

r im

plem

enta

tion

is q

uest

iona

ble

and

thei

r im

pact

ne

eds

to b

e as

sess

ed v

ia in

-dep

th e

valu

atio

ns.

23

Ind

icat

or

Def

init

ion

A

pp

licat

ion

in C

EE

/CIS

Reg

ion

13

C

om

pla

ints

mec

han

ism

•

Exi

sten

ce o

f a c

ompl

aint

s sy

stem

for

child

ren

in d

eten

tion

•

Per

cent

age

of p

lace

s of

de

tent

ion

oper

atin

g a

com

plai

nts

syst

em

One

pos

sibl

e in

dica

tor

coul

d be

the

num

ber

of

com

plai

nts

rece

ived

and

thei

r ou

tcom

es.

14

Sp

ecia

lized

juve

nile

just

ice

syst

em

(CO

RE

) •

Exi

sten

ce o

f a s

peci

aliz

ed

juve

nile

just

ice

syst

em

15

Pre

ven

tio

n

•

Exi

sten

ce o

f a n

atio

nal p

lan

for

the

prev

entio

n of

chi

ld

invo

lvem

ent i

n cr

ime

The

se in

dica

tors

are

com

plex

and

mul

tifac

eted

. The

R

egio

nal O

ffice

for

CE

E/C

IS h

as d

evel

oped

a m

atrix

and

30

indi

cato

rs to

ref

lect

on

thes

e.

24

UNICEF

Regional Office for CEE/CIS Palais des Nations CH 1211 Geneva 10 Switzerland

www.unicef.org/ceecis

© The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF)