UNICEF Guidance note on juvenile justice programming in the CEE/CIS region
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

UNICEF Guidance note on juvenile justice programming in the CEE/CIS region

on

  • 2,493 views

UNICEF Guidance note on juvenile justice programming in the CEE/CIS region

UNICEF Guidance note on juvenile justice programming in the CEE/CIS region

June 2010

Statistics

Views

Total Views
2,493
Views on SlideShare
2,490
Embed Views
3

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
43
Comments
0

3 Embeds 3

http://www.slideshare.net 1
http://www.unicef.org 1
http://users.unjobs.org 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

UNICEF Guidance note on juvenile justice programming in the CEE/CIS region UNICEF Guidance note on juvenile justice programming in the CEE/CIS region Document Transcript

  • UNICEF Guidance Note for CEE/CIS on juvenile justice programming in the CEE/CIS region
  • 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 1
  • 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 2
  • 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. 3 3
  • 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 process1 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 4 4
  • PRIORITIES FOR JUVENILE JUSTICE PROGRAMMING IN CEE/CIS GOAL AND DESIRED RESULTS KEY INDICATORS FOR MEASURING PROGRESS Children in The goal is the transformation of decision- 1) Non-punitive measures conflict with the making structures for children under the available and in use (no law who are under minimum age for prosecution as a juvenile. deprivation of liberty, no the minimum age Two key results are desired: administrative detention). for prosecution as a) A reduction in the number of children 2) System of judicial review of a juvenile under the minimum age for prosecution as a placement developed and applied. juvenile who are exposed to punitive 3) As a minimum, the package of measures, including detention; services available should define b) The development and dissemination of a and develop standards of care. package of measures to assist children in conflict with the law who are under the minimum age for prosecution as a juvenile. Diversion The goal is to ensure that diversion is 1) Ensuring laws are in place over established in law and enforced, in line with the course of the first two years. international standards and global best 2) Thereafter an increased practice and to promote the best interests of proportion of children should be the child. diverted. Two key results are desired: 3) Continuous monitoring of the a) The possibility of diversion established in availability and quality of law and practice, in line with international services. standards; and b) Diversion services established. Alternatives to The goal is to ensure that a range of services 1) Reversal and improvement of custodial sentences to provide alternatives to detention for the the ratio of custodial sentences to pre- and post-trial periods is in place and that the use of alternative measures. the quality of services is defined and 2) The availability, quality and periodically measured. use of alternative services. Two key results are desired: 3) Decreasing rates/trends in a) Standards of using deprivation of liberty recidivism (inverse ratio of as a measure of last resort are upheld in law increase in use of non-custodial and policy as well as in practice, and are sentences to rates of reoffending). 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. Budgeting for The goal is to ensure accurate costing and 1) Costing studies conducted and juvenile justice adequate budget allocation for the range of used to advocate for reform. reform services needed to reform and improve the 2) National budget reflects juvenile justice system in any country. allocations for juvenile justice Two key results are desired: reform. a) Juvenile justice system elements properly costed; and 5 5
  • GOAL AND DESIRED RESULTS KEY INDICATORS FOR MEASURING PROGRESS b) Adequate allocation made for costed elements of juvenile justice. Building wider The goal is to build wider support for 1) Existence of systems of support for juvenile justice reform based upon principles coordination of services within juvenile justice of restorative justice and to ensure that this the juvenile justice system. reform support is embedded within the process of 2) Principles of restorative justice justice sector reform as a whole. incorporated in all training and study curricula of key agencies Key desired result: dealing with juvenile justice and Wider justice sector reform takes account of justice for children issues. juvenile justice and justice for children 3) Evidence of partnerships issues. 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 The goal is to ensure that systems of 1) Information relating to global use of existing monitoring and accountability are in place juvenile justice indicators monitoring and and used, and that recommendations made collected, published and made accountability and actions suggested by the systems are available for public scrutiny on a mechanisms regularly followed up. regular basis. Four key results are desired: 2) Codes of conduct and/or child a) Systems of routine data collection, protection policies established for monitoring and analysis established; all professionals. b) Accountability mechanisms established 3) Existence of independent for professionals who work with children or inspection reports. are responsible for ensuring the elimination 4) Record of following up of violence against children; complaints lodged. c) Independent systems in place to conduct regular inspections; and d) Existence and use of complaints mechanisms. 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 6 6
  • 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 7 7
  • RIGHTS-BASED PRINCIPLES In contrast to juvenile justice IS THE JUVENILE HOW CAN THE programming priorities, these JUSTICE PROGRAMME PROGRAMME BE principles do not necessarily require a ADDRESSING THESE REINFORCED TO ADDRESS special focus but should be present in RIGHTS? IF SO, HOW? THESE RIGHTS? all components of the programme 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. 8 8
  • 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: 9 9
  • • 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. 10 10
  • Juvenile justice approaches and system typologies Juvenile justice Fundamental focus Age Process and sentencing Main limitations and approaches/ common criticisms system typologies WELFARE APPROACH • Offender Worldwide, the minimum age Informal process but formal • Lack of due process • His/her family and for prosecution as a juvenile decisions. Indeterminate • Intrusive and socio-economic context varies from 6 to 16. sentencing (as long as is paternalistic • Establishing A high minimum age does not necessary to effect • No time limit to custody rehabilitation plan in itself guarantee appropriate rehabilitation). and other measures • Educational/ services; it only guarantees High degree of discretion • Inconsistencies and correctional paradigm that children under that age given to the judiciary and to potential discriminatory • Child as object of care will have no criminal record. the educational personnel. treatment Multidisciplinary • Responsibilities between 11 interventions are favoured justice and child (judicial, educational, protection are blurred psychosocial). • Limited recognition of Child offenders and children children’s legal rights under protection measures • Limited monitoring may share services and • Closed educational facilities. settings, sometimes less monitored than penal custody • Not equipped to deal with persistent offenders JUSTICE APPROACH • Offence Minimum age for prosecution Formal process, often long • The legalistic approach • Individual is key. Below that age the and involving pre-trial offers guarantees but can • Responsibility child is not dealt with by the detention. also justify very • Disposition (punishment juvenile justice system; above Automatic sentencing in repressive policies or rehabilitation) that age he/she may be certain situations (e.g., through the strict 11
  • Juvenile justice Fundamental focus Age Process and sentencing Main limitations and approaches/ common criticisms system typologies proportionate to the deprived of liberty in a recidivism). application of criminal offence and to the age correctional facility. Right to appeal. law and maturity of the child Judicial interventions and • Little recognition of the • Child a subject of legal educational follow-up under needs of the offender, and human rights, as the authority of the judiciary. victim and wider well as criminal community responsibility • Rhetorical commitment to the importance of rehabilitation • More freedom and less prevention due to reduced education interventions, meaning more responsibility, and 12 harsher consequences, for deeds that may have macro causes RESTORATIVE • Relationships (around Minimum age for prosecution Informal process but formal • Implies agreement of APPROACH the victim, offenders, is not relevant to the process. decisions.Importance of victims and/or wider community and It may, however, be relevant monitoring recidivism. community actors to be harm done) to issues such as criminal Mainly community involved • Accountability record, some negotiated interventions. • Implies the effective • Reparation sentences (e.g., community availability of • Citizens and community service orders) or financial community-based actors compensation payable only options • Dialogue and negotiation above a certain age. • Importance of facilitator MIXED • Harm done, offender, Minimum age for prosecution Decisions must be formal • Not clearly defined APPROACH victim should not be set too low (judicial) so as to preserve • Confusing • Child as subject of rights (lowest acceptable age is 12) – legal guarantees and due 12
  • Juvenile justice Fundamental focus Age Process and sentencing Main limitations and approaches/ common criticisms system typologies with evolving capacities this will avoid children being process. (accountability) and a subjected to correctional Discretion of the judiciary right to protection measures too early in their should allow for diversion • Reparation to the development. Guarantees prior to court proceedings community and to self should also be made that being initiated, but follow a • Reintegration underage offenders will be strict process in order to avoid adequately served by the child discrimination and corruption. protection system. Deprivation of liberty as a last resort implies that judges explore all other available options. The periodic review of placements is mandatory. 13 13
  • 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. 14 14
  • 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. 15 15
  • 6. A framework for peer review of juvenile justice programmes Peer review blocks Review questions 1. Policy development Is there a viable cross-cutting or sector programme and legal reform 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 2. Knowledge and supported by UNICEF awareness 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, 3. Institutional etc.), and identify measures for mitigation. capacity-building Yes No What is the government How will preference for the UNICEF: modality of UNICEF support? 1. Promote a 4. Prevention cross-cutting or What do other donors sector approach? provide? 5. Alternatives 2. Engage in (diversion and non- policy dialogue? custodial sentencing) How does UNICEF add 3. Align with a value? system or sector- 6. Protection and How will UNICEF wide approach? reintegration of facilitate and manage children in custody change? 16 16
  • 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 CHILD PROTECTION JUSTICE Juvenile FOR CHILDREN and justice judicial protection measures for children at risk 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. 17 17
  • 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 18 18
  • 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. 19 19
  • Part D: Logical framework Narrative Objective Means of Important summary verifiable verification assumptions [NS] indicators [MOV] [OVIs] 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 20 20
  • Annex 4: GLOBAL UNODC-UNICEF INDICATORS Indicator Definition Application in CEE/CIS Region Quantitative indicators 1 Children in conflict with the law • Number of children arrested TransMONEE database indicators of juvenile crime during a 12-month period per and children taken into police custody are preferred 100,000 child population (i.e. definitions of arrest vary). 2 Children in detention (CORE) • Number of children in detention To be used but in conjunction with TransMONEE per 100,000 child population indicator of juveniles deprived of liberty in all types of educational/correctional facility. 3 Children in pre-sentence detention • Number of children in pre- Good indicator – collection and analysis to be reinforced (CORE) sentence detention per at country levels. 21 100,000 child population 4 Duration of pre-sentence detention • Time spent in detention by Good indicators – collection and analysis to be reinforced children before sentencing at country levels, and average duration to be 5 Duration of sentenced detention • Time spent in detention by complemented by maximum durations recorded. children after sentencing 6 Child deaths in detention • Number of child deaths in Good indicator – collection and analysis to be reinforced detention during a 12-month at country levels. period, per 1,000 children detained 7 Separation from adults • Percentage of children in Not fully relevant for CEE/CIS region, where detention detention not wholly separated with young adults sentenced as juveniles, or with women from adults for girls, can in some cases be in the best interests of juveniles. Indicator is most relevant to police and pre-trial custody.
  • Indicator Definition Application in CEE/CIS Region 8 Contact with parents and family • Percentage of children in Good indicator – collection and analysis to be reinforced detention who have been at country levels, and complemented by research on visited by, or visited, parents, juveniles’ social and family background (i.e., no visits due guardian or an adult family to detention system or lack of family?). member in the last 3 months 9 Custodial sentencing (CORE) • Percentage of children Good indicators – collection and analysis to be reinforced sentenced receiving a custodial at country levels. sentence 10 Pre-sentence diversion (CORE) • Percentage of children diverted or sentenced who enter a pre- sentence diversion scheme 22 11 Aftercare • Percentage of children Total vacuum in aftercare – to be researched and released from detention promoted as an area of reform (no need to collect data at receiving aftercare this stage as it is close to nil). Policy indicators 12 Regular independent inspections • Existence of a system These indicators are essential but suggested guaranteeing regular definitions/measurement tools are inadequate. independent inspection of Regular and officially independent inspections as places of detention well as provisions for complaint mechanisms exist • Percentage of places of in most CEE/CIS countries, but their detention that have received an implementation is questionable and their impact independent inspection visit in needs to be assessed via in-depth evaluations. the last 12 months
  • Indicator Definition Application in CEE/CIS Region 13 Complaints mechanism • Existence of a complaints One possible indicator could be the number of system for children in detention complaints received and their outcomes. • Percentage of places of detention operating a complaints system 14 Specialized juvenile justice system • Existence of a specialized These indicators are complex and multifaceted. The (CORE) juvenile justice system Regional Office for CEE/CIS has developed a matrix and 15 Prevention • Existence of a national plan for 30 indicators to reflect on these. the prevention of child involvement in crime 23
  • 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)