Separated children and case management

1Unaccompanied and separated children

A separated child is separated from both parents or from their previous primary caregiver, but may be with another adult family member. An unaccompanied child is separated from both parents and other relatives and is not being cared for by any responsible adult.

Preventing separation is a priority: wristbands or tags for young children during movements, messages to families, gathering points. When a child is found alone: make them safe, register them with an authorised organisation, do not move them unnecessarily, and start family tracing and reunification (FTR). Adoptions must not take place during an emergency.

2Alternative care

While awaiting reunification, the child needs safe care. The order of preference: extended family or kinship care, then a vetted and monitored foster family, and only as a last resort and temporarily a residential care centre. Orphanages and large centres expose children to risks and complicate reunification.

Each placement is assessed, documented and monitored through regular visits. Siblings are kept together whenever possible.

3The steps of case management

Case management supports a child at risk or a child survivor, together with their family, in a structured way:

1. Identification and registration, with informed consent (or the child's assent).
2. Assessment of needs and risks, setting the risk level (high, medium, low).
3. Case plan developed with the child and the family.
4. Implementation: direct services and referrals (health, psychosocial support, education, assistance).
5. Follow-up and review of the plan.
6. Case closure when the goals are met and the child is safe.

A high-risk case (immediate danger, sexual violence, separation of a young child) is responded to within 24 hours.

4Best interests and data protection

For major decisions (placement, reunification, resettlement), a formal best interests determination is carried out, with a panel, listening to the child. For routine decisions, a best interests assessment is sufficient.

Case files contain highly sensitive information: they are kept under lock and key or in a secure system (such as CPIMS+ or Primero), using codes rather than names in communications, with access limited to those who need it.

5Responding to unaccompanied and separated children: the complete method

The response to unaccompanied and separated children (UASC) follows a sequence that must be ready before the crisis: identification, registration, interim care, family tracing, verification, reunification and follow-up. The Field Handbook on Unaccompanied and Separated Children (Alliance, 2017) and the Inter-Agency Guiding Principles (2004) set out the framework. CPMS Standard 13 makes it a priority risk.

Preparedness (before or at the very start of the crisis)

• Agreement within the coordination group on a lead agency for registration and tracing, on common forms and on a single information management system (CPIMS+ or equivalent).
• Prepositioning: rapid registration forms, identification wristbands, cameras reserved for tracing purposes, kits for transit points.
• Prevention messages disseminated to families before or during a movement: keep children close, teach them their full name and the name of their village, do not entrust a child to a stranger, report a separation at the information desk.
• Training of front-line teams (registration, distributions, health, site management) in identification and referral.

The first 72 hours after a child is identified

Family tracing methods

Verification and reunification

Before any reunification, the relationship and mutual willingness are verified: separate interviews with the child and the adult, cross-checking questions (names of siblings, details of the home, family events), documents if they exist, community witnesses, and observation of the child's reaction at a prepared first meeting. For young children who cannot confirm, verification relies on at least two independent sources. Risks within the family are also assessed (violence, exploitation, ability to care for the child). Where there is serious doubt, a formal best interests assessment is conducted.

The reunification itself is prepared (informing the child, agreement of the family, safe logistics, reintegration kit if planned) and documented with a signed form. Post-reunification follow-up generally includes a first visit within the month, then visits at about three and six months, more frequently if risks have been identified. The case is closed only after this follow-up.

The reunification rate is not the only indicator of success: an unverified or unmonitored reunification can deliver a child to an adult who exploits them. Evaluators look at the proportion of reunifications preceded by documented verification and followed by at least one visit.

6Organising case management: procedures, timeframes and caseloads

Quality case management rests on standard operating procedures (SOPs) common to all organisations in an area, on a shared risk classification, on explicit timeframes and on structured supervision. CPMS Standard 18 and the Inter-Agency Guidelines for Case Management and Child Protection (2014) are the references.

What case management SOPs contain

1. Principles, definitions and eligibility criteria (which children enter case management, which are covered by other services).
2. Classification of risk levels and response timeframes.
3. A detailed description of each step, with the corresponding forms.
4. Rules on consent and assent, and exceptions.
5. Referral pathways and service mapping, updated at least every three months.
6. Information management rules and the data-sharing protocol.
7. Roles and responsibilities: caseworker, supervisor, coordinator, authorities.
8. Specific procedures: sexual violence, children associated with armed forces and armed groups, detention, resettlement, mandatory reporting.
9. Arrangements for supervision, staff care and quality control.

Risk classification and timeframes (SOP example)

These timeframes are benchmarks commonly used in SOPs; each coordination group sets and revises them. The risk level is reassessed at every visit: a child can move from low to high risk overnight.

Caseload and supervision

• Caseload: the Inter-Agency Guidelines recommend a maximum of about 25 active cases per caseworker; with a high proportion of high-risk cases, 12 to 15 cases is a more realistic order of magnitude.
• Supervision: one supervisor for five to eight caseworkers; an individual session at least every two weeks, a monthly case file review (for example 10% of active files drawn at random, plus all high-risk cases) and a weekly team case conference.
• Approval: the supervisor approves the risk level, the case plan and case closure.
• Staff care: debriefing after a difficult case, access to psychological support, limits on overtime, rotation of the heaviest cases.

Calculating staffing needs: an example

A project plans to follow 600 children over 12 months, with an average case duration of 4 months. The average number of simultaneously active cases is therefore about 600 multiplied by 4 and divided by 12, i.e. 200. With 30% high-risk cases, a target caseload of 18 cases per caseworker is used: 200 divided by 18 gives 11 caseworkers, rounded up to 12 to absorb absences and peaks. Two supervisors (one for every six) and one coordinator are then needed. A budget that provides for only four caseworkers for 600 children condemns quality, however committed the teams may be.

Overloaded case management produces incomplete files, missed deadlines and referrals that are never followed up. If resources do not allow the target caseload to be respected, the number of cases must be reduced, eligibility criteria tightened and the gap reported to the coordination group, rather than accepting all cases without being able to follow them.

7Worked example: case file KSV-0217, from first contact to closure

The following case is fictional and anonymised; it illustrates how a complete case management file is kept. The code KSV-0217 replaces the child's name in all communications.

Identification (day 0)

In the Kassavé displacement site, a teacher at the temporary learning space refers to the case management team a 13-year-old girl who arrived alone with her 7-year-old brother three weeks earlier. The two children live with a neighbour from their home village. The girl has not come to class for five days. The referral is made using the inter-agency form, with the girl's agreement, and handed in person to the focal point.

Initial assessment (day 1)

The caseworker meets the girl in a confidential space on the site, after obtaining the neighbour's agreement for the interview and the child's informed assent. She explains that the neighbour sends her to sell water at the market from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. and that a man at the market has offered to "marry" her in exchange for help for the host family. Her brother is left alone for part of the day. The parents were separated from the children during the attack on the village; according to a neighbour, the mother is believed to be alive.

The overall level is classified as high and approved the same day by the supervisor. An immediate safety plan is agreed with the girl: she does not go back to the market alone, she knows whom to contact on the site (focal point and helpline number), and the caseworker meets the neighbour the following day.

Case plan (day 3)

The plan is developed with the girl, who insists on staying with her brother and on finding her mother; it is explained to the host family.

Implementation and follow-up (weeks 1 to 10)

• Week 1: visits on D4 and D7; the neighbour agrees; the marriage proposal is rejected.
• Week 2: first transfer received; the girl no longer works at the market; both children attend the learning space.
• Week 4: risk level reassessed as medium and approved by the supervisor; follow-up every two weeks.
• Week 6: the mother is located by a partner organisation in a site 80 km away, thanks to list matching.
• Weeks 6 to 8: verification (separate interviews, cross-checking questions, supervised telephone contact), assessment of the mother's circumstances, preparation of the children; the girl clearly expresses her wish to join her mother.
• Week 8: reunification accompanied by both organisations, case file transferred to the partner organisation in accordance with the data-sharing protocol, with the mother's consent and the children's assent.

Closure (week 20)

The partner organisation conducts visits at one month and at three months. The children are in school and the mother receives livelihoods support. As the objectives of the plan have been achieved and no new risk has been identified, closure is proposed by the caseworker, approved by the supervisor and explained to the family, with information on how to contact the services again. The paper file is archived under lock and key and the electronic record is set to closed status, in line with the retention period set out in the SOPs.

What the example shows: a single signal (absence from school) revealed four linked risks; the plan combines direct services and referrals; every change in risk level and every important decision is approved and dated; closure takes place after post-reunification follow-up, not on the day of reunification.

8Assessing and determining the best interests of the child

UNHCR's Best Interests Procedure Guidelines (2021) distinguish two levels. The best interests assessment (BIA) accompanies routine case management decisions; it is conducted by the caseworker, documented and approved by the supervisor. The best interests determination (BID) is a formal procedure with stronger procedural safeguards, reserved for decisions that have a fundamental and lasting impact on the child's life.

When is a BID required?

• Identification of a durable solution for an unaccompanied or separated child (voluntary repatriation, local integration, resettlement to a third country), where the applicable principles require it.
• A decision to separate a child from their parents against their will, for example in cases of serious violence, where there is no competent national authority to rule on the matter.
• Situations where the evidence is contradictory and the decision has serious consequences, for example a dispute over the custody of a refugee child.

Where the national child protection system and the justice system are functioning, it is the competent authorities that take these decisions; humanitarian actors support them. The humanitarian BID procedure applies as a complement to that capacity or in its absence.

The elements to be considered

How a BID is conducted

1. The supervisor confirms that a BID is needed and appoints a qualified staff member, if possible different from the child's usual caseworker.
2. Information gathering: interviews with the child (at least two, a few days apart), with parents or relatives, foster families, teachers and health professionals; review of case files; family tracing completed or documented as exhausted.
3. Drafting the report: facts, the child's views, analysis of each option against the elements above, reasoned recommendation.
4. Review by a panel of three to five people with child protection expertise (agencies, NGOs, possibly authorities) with no conflict of interest; the panel may approve, reject or request additional information.
5. A written, reasoned decision, communicated to the child in an age-appropriate way, with the possibility of requesting a review.
6. Implementation and follow-up through case management.

Errors that invalidate a BID during an audit: the child's views missing or summarised in a single line; family tracing not documented; alternative options not analysed; recommendation drafted by the same person who sits on the panel; panel members' signatures and dates missing.

9Managing case management information safely

Case management files contain some of the most sensitive data in humanitarian action. A leak can expose a child to reprisals, stigmatisation or recruitment. The IASC Operational Guidance on Data Responsibility in Humanitarian Action (2023) and the Handbook on Data Protection in Humanitarian Action (ICRC and Brussels Privacy Hub) set the general framework; CPMS Standard 5 specifies how it applies.

The information system

CPIMS+, built on the Primero platform with the support of UNICEF and partners, makes it possible to register cases, manage referrals between organisations, track timeframes and produce aggregated statistics, with role-based access rights. For gender-based violence, the dedicated GBVIMS+ system applies, and the two systems are linked for adolescent girl survivors according to local agreements. Where the electronic system is not deployed, a secure paper-based system remains acceptable: a well-managed locked filing cabinet is better than an unprotected shared spreadsheet.

Minimum rules

The information-sharing protocol

Signed between the organisations of the coordination group, it specifies: the purposes of sharing, the categories of data shared (personal data for individual referrals, aggregated data for coordination), the modalities (channels, formats, encryption), the responsibilities of each signatory, the procedure in the event of a data breach, and how requests from authorities are handled. Any request for a list of names from an authority, an armed force or a donor is refused, unless there is a legal obligation reviewed by senior management and in the child's best interests; aggregated data is offered instead.

In the event of a data incident

1. Contain: recover or block access, change passwords, wipe remotely if possible.
2. Assess within 24 hours: what data, how many children, what risks.
3. Protect: inform the caseworkers concerned, reassess the risk for each child, adapt safety plans.
4. Notify in accordance with the internal procedure, the data-sharing protocol and contractual obligations.
5. Learn lessons and correct the procedure.

Common mistake: using a group instant messaging app to coordinate referrals, with photos of forms. Even when encrypted, messaging apps store content on personal phones that can be lost, seized or viewed by third parties.

10Common mistakes, contextual variations, interview questions and references

Common mistakes and how to avoid them

Variations by context

• Sudden influx: rapid registration limited to essential information, interim care in the community, full registration deferred by 48 to 72 hours; priority to under-5s and unaccompanied children.
• Protracted crisis: linkage with State social services, gradual transfer of cases to national social workers, strengthening of the alternative care framework in line with the United Nations Guidelines for the Alternative Care of Children (2009).
• Urban setting: dispersed children, families who avoid services for fear of eviction; drop-in sessions in trusted locations, discreet home visits, case management by telephone for follow-up of low-risk cases.
• Remote management: remote case management is possible for follow-up and support, with precautions: verifying the identity of the person on the line, choosing a time when the child is alone and safe, code words in case of danger, no sensitive information in written messages; high-risk cases require a physical presence by a trained partner.
• Insecurity and armed groups: community-based tracing is suspended for children who may be sought; files are kept to the strict minimum and a data evacuation plan is ready.
• Partners with limited capacity: case management is handed over gradually, starting with low- and medium-risk cases, with intensive accompaniment and shared supervision.

Interview questions

Key references

• ICRC, UNHCR, UNICEF, IRC, Save the Children, World Vision, Inter-Agency Guiding Principles on Unaccompanied and Separated Children, 2004.
• Alliance for Child Protection in Humanitarian Action, Field Handbook on Unaccompanied and Separated Children and Toolkit on Unaccompanied and Separated Children, 2017.
• Case Management Task Force, Inter-Agency Guidelines for Case Management and Child Protection, 2014.
• UNHCR, Best Interests Procedure Guidelines: Assessing and Determining the Best Interests of the Child, 2021.
• United Nations General Assembly, Guidelines for the Alternative Care of Children, 2009.
• Alliance for Child Protection in Humanitarian Action, Minimum Standards for Child Protection in Humanitarian Action, 2019, Standards 5, 13, 18 and 19.
• IASC, Operational Guidance on Data Responsibility in Humanitarian Action, 2023.
• ICRC and Brussels Privacy Hub, Handbook on Data Protection in Humanitarian Action.
• CPIMS+ documentation and user guides (Primero platform).