Child protection programmes: complex cases, quality and coordination

1Designing a programme in line with the CPMS

A quality programme starts from a child protection needs assessment (often joint and coordinated), which identifies risks, the capacities of families and communities and existing services. It combines prevention and response: strengthening families, community-based child protection mechanisms, case management, psychosocial support, and mainstreaming in other sectors.

The CPMS serve as the reference for objectives, indicators and key actions. Children, girls and boys of different ages, including those with disabilities, are consulted at every stage.

2Complex cases and supervision

Some cases require particular expertise: child sexual abuse, children associated with armed forces and armed groups, children in detention, resettlement. They involve specific procedures, best interests panels and close collaboration with health, legal and specialised services.

Regular supervision of caseworkers (case file reviews, coaching, emotional support) ensures quality and prevents burnout. A reasonable caseload per caseworker (often 15 to 25 active cases, depending on complexity) is a common benchmark.

3Measuring quality and reporting

Quality indicators track response times, the proportion of case plans developed with the child, effective referrals, successful reunifications and cases closed with goals met. Feedback from children and families, collected in age-appropriate ways, completes the analysis.

Data are managed according to an information-sharing protocol agreed between organisations, with aggregated data for reports and regular audits of information management systems.

4Coordination and advocacy

The coordination group sets common tools, service mapping, geographic priorities and advocacy messages. Advocacy addresses grave violations (recruitment, attacks on schools and hospitals, sexual violence), reported notably through the United Nations Monitoring and Reporting Mechanism (MRM), under strict procedures.

It also addresses funding: child protection often remains among the least-funded sectors. Solid, anonymised data and common messages increase impact.

5Designing a child protection programme: from analysis to logframe

A sound child protection programme can be recognised by a continuous logical thread: priority risks drawn from the analysis, an explicit theory of change, a combination of prevention and response activities at several levels of the socio-ecological model (child, family, community, society), indicators taken from the CPMS and the response plan, appropriately sized human resources and a consistent budget. CPMS Standard 4 and Standard 14 (socio-ecological approach) set out the requirements.

Step 1: start from the risks and their causes

For each priority risk, a simple problem tree is built: effects on the child, the risk, immediate causes, underlying causes, structural causes. Then, at each level, the existing capacities (families, community committees, State services, schools) are identified, to be strengthened rather than replaced.

Step 2: formulate the theory of change

It fits into a few verifiable sentences: "If families at risk receive economic support and parenting support, if girls stay in school and if community leaders publicly commit against child marriage, then the number of child marriages will decrease in the targeted areas, provided that security allows school attendance." The assumptions (here, security) are monitored and included in the risk matrix.

Step 3: combine levels of intervention

Step 4: choose useful indicators

A distinction is made between outcome indicators (change for children), output indicators (services delivered) and process indicators (quality). Institutional donors propose standard indicators: the European Commission (DG ECHO) uses key outcome indicators for protection and for education in emergencies, and USAID's BHA sets mandatory indicators by sub-sector in its application guidelines. These are used as they stand where they apply, and supplemented with contextualised indicators drawn from the CPMS.

Step 5: size the human resources

Human resources typically account for 50 to 65% of a child protection programme budget. The basic ratios are: 1 caseworker for 15 to 25 active cases, 1 supervisor for 5 to 8 caseworkers, 1 facilitator for 15 to 20 children per session, and 1 information management officer for the whole programme as soon as the volume exceeds a few hundred cases. A classic mistake is to budget for facilitators but not for supervision, information management, ongoing training and staff care.

Consistency test to run before submitting a proposal: does every priority risk in the analysis have at least one prevention activity and one response activity? Does every activity have an indicator, a person responsible and a budget line? Is the number of cases announced compatible with the number of caseworkers budgeted?

6Worked example: the programme proposal for Malenga district

The following case is fictional. It shows how a 12-month proposal for an institutional donor is built on the basis of a joint analysis.

The context and priorities

Malenga district hosts 65,000 internally displaced persons, including about 35,000 children, in four sites and host communities. The sub-group's joint analysis identified three priority risks: family separation (estimated at 700 unaccompanied and separated children, of whom 410 are registered), child marriage (an increase reported in 9 of 12 focus group discussions) and psychosocial distress (no structured services in two sites). The 4W shows that another NGO already covers group activities in two sites; the organisation therefore positions itself on case management for the whole district and on group activities in the two sites that are not covered.

The simplified logframe

Sizing

Planned volume: 900 children in case management over 12 months, with an average duration of 4 months, i.e. about 300 simultaneously active cases. With a target caseload of 20, 15 caseworkers, 2 supervisors, 1 coordinator and 1 information management officer are needed. Group activities: 2 sites, 1,200 children per cycle, 4 cycles; 24 community facilitators (50% of them women) and 2 supervisors. Cash for protection: 250 households, 6 months, 35 units per month.

Summary budget (in reference monetary units)

Average cost per child in case management, calculated on the direct budget lines for case management, cash transfers and reunification: about 525 units; cost per participant in group activities: about 34 units per cycle (activity staff and materials divided by 4,800 participations). These ratios are presented to the donor with their justification, because quality case management necessarily costs much more per child than group activities.

The reasoning presented to the donor

• Complementarity demonstrated by the 4W, no duplication with the other NGO.
• Caseload and supervision ratio justified by the Inter-Agency Guidelines.
• Cash transfers reserved for cases under follow-up, with an exit strategy towards the national social safety net.
• Training of 6 government social workers built into the programme, with gradual co-management of low-risk cases in the second half of the year.
• Risks and mitigation: access (remote management with community partners), data security (evacuation plan), staff turnover (staff care budgeted).

7Complex cases: specific procedures and clinical supervision

Some cases are beyond the competence of a generalist caseworker. They require written procedures, specific skills and close supervision. The SOPs must provide for them before they arise.

Child survivors of sexual violence

The guidelines Caring for Child Survivors of Sexual Abuse (IRC and UNICEF, 2012) are the reference. Key points:

• Medical emergency: immediate referral for clinical care, HIV post-exposure prophylaxis within 72 hours, emergency contraception within 120 hours for adolescent girls, treatment of infections and injuries; the examination is carried out by staff trained in examining children.
• Interview: a single in-depth interview if possible, conducted by a trained person, with open, non-leading questions; no confrontation with the alleged perpetrator.
• Consent: according to age and maturity; where the parent is the alleged perpetrator or an accomplice, another trusted adult or the caseworker acts in the child's best interests.
• Linkage with GBV: for adolescent girls, the local SOPs specify who takes the lead (CP or GBV case management); dual case management is avoided.
• Mandatory reporting: where national law requires reporting to the authorities, the child and family are informed before reporting, the risks that reporting creates are assessed, and the decision is taken with the supervisor and documented. The coordination group's SOPs explain how to reconcile the legal obligation with the child's best interests where the police or justice services are themselves dangerous.

Children in detention and in conflict with the law

The CRC (Articles 37 and 40), the Beijing Rules (1985), the Havana Rules (1990) and General Comment No. 24 of the Committee on the Rights of the Child (2019), which recommends a minimum age of criminal responsibility of at least 14 years, set out the principles: detention as a last resort and for the shortest possible time, separation from adults, access to a lawyer and to the family, alternative measures and diversion. CPMS Standard 20 (justice for children) guides humanitarian action: visits, advocacy, legal assistance, preparation for release and reintegration.

Other complex situations

Clinical supervision

Supervision combines three functions: technical (quality of assessments and plans, compliance with SOPs), developmental (skills development) and supportive (emotional burden). A typical arrangement:

A supervisor who manages a full caseload themselves is no longer supervising. In budgets, supervision is a budget line in its own right, not a task added to the most experienced caseworker.

8Measuring quality and being accountable to children

The quality of a child protection programme is not demonstrated with activity figures. It is demonstrated through process data (are procedures being followed?), outcome data (is the situation of children improving?) and feedback from children and families. The Core Humanitarian Standard (CHS) provides the accountability framework, and CPMS Standard 6 and the case management practice assessment tools developed by the inter-agency working group complete the system.

The case management quality dashboard

Case file review

A review checklist contains about twenty criteria grouped by step: documented consent, risk level justified and approved, complete assessment, plan with objectives, responsibilities and deadlines, evidence of the child's participation, follow-up in line with the planned frequency, referrals with feedback, approved closure decision. Each criterion is scored compliant or non-compliant, and the compliance score per caseworker feeds into developmental supervision, not into sanctions.

Child-friendly feedback mechanisms

• Suggestion boxes with drawings or symbols for the youngest children, opened by two people and never by the facilitator concerned.
• Quarterly feedback sessions with groups of children on their satisfaction and how safe they feel in the activities.
• Adolescent committees consulted on programme changes.
• A short satisfaction questionnaire at the closure of each case, administered by someone other than the caseworker.
• A separate channel, known to children, for serious complaints relating to safeguarding.

Feedback is recorded, categorised and handled within a set timeframe, and the organisation reports back on what it has changed. Auditors check the complete feedback loop, not just the existence of the mechanism.

What an evaluator or auditor checks

• Consistency between the figures reported to the donor and the data in the information system.
• A sample of paper or electronic case files, consulted under conditions of confidentiality (an external evaluator in principle only accesses anonymised files, or does so under a confidentiality undertaking).
• Supervision, training and safeguarding registers.
• Well-being outcomes and the method used to measure them.
• Interviews with children, families and partners, conducted in accordance with ethical rules.

9Advocacy and the monitoring and reporting mechanism on grave violations

Child protection advocacy targets specific changes among specific actors: a law, a practice of the security forces, a budget allocation, a donor policy. It relies on verified aggregated data and is coordinated within the AoR so as to speak with one voice. CPMS Standard 3 (communication, advocacy and media) sets out its ethical rules.

The Monitoring and Reporting Mechanism (MRM)

Established by Security Council resolution 1612 (2005), the MRM documents six grave violations against children in situations of armed conflict: killing and maiming, recruitment and use, sexual violence, abduction, attacks on schools and hospitals, and denial of humanitarian access. It is set up in situations on the agenda of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict. The Country Task Force on Monitoring and Reporting is co-chaired by the highest-ranking United Nations representative in the country and by UNICEF.

For a partner NGO, the rules are strict: the safety of the victim, witnesses and staff takes precedence over documentation; information is collected only with informed consent; survivors are always referred to services before or at the same time as documentation; nothing is transmitted through insecure channels; and there is never any public communication about an incident that is being verified. NGOs that are not trained in the MRM simply pass the information to the designated focal point, without investigating.

Building an advocacy strategy

1. Problem: formulated on the basis of data (for example: 38% of children intercepted by the security forces remain in detention for more than 72 hours before being handed over to civilian actors).
2. Objective: a specific, time-bound change (adoption and implementation of a handover protocol with a 48-hour deadline within six months).
3. Targets: decision-makers (ministry of defence, general staff), influencers (Humanitarian Coordinator, donors, diplomatic missions).
4. Messages: one main message, three evidence-based arguments with figures, one clear ask, tailored to each target.
5. Channels: private advocacy first, bilateral meetings, confidential notes, then, if necessary and after a risk analysis, coordinated public communication.
6. Monitoring: progress indicators (meetings secured, commitments, texts adopted, practices observed).

Advocating for funding

Child protection is regularly among the least funded areas of humanitarian response plans, even as needs increase. The CP AoR publishes funding analyses that help build the case. Effective advocacy with donors presents: the number of children in need and targeted, the cost per child of interventions, the quantified consequences of gaps (for example: the number of unaccompanied children without case management), and the gains from integration with education, health and cash transfers.

Advocacy must never expose a child. Case studies are anonymised and altered so that the child cannot be identified, with informed consent, and approved by the safeguarding focal point before any dissemination.

10Common mistakes, contextual variations, interview questions and references

Common mistakes and how to avoid them

Variations by context

• Sudden-onset crisis: an initial 3- to 6-month programme focused on separation, PFA, mainstreaming in other sectors and setting up case management; revised on the basis of the joint analysis.
• Protracted crisis: multi-year programmes, strengthening of the national system (legal framework, social workforce, justice for children services), linkage with development and social protection.
• Camp: case management by zone, daily coordination with camp management, children's committees.
• Urban setting: partnerships with municipal services, drop-in sessions in schools and health centres, identification tools in neighbourhoods.
• Remote management: delegation to local partners with adapted SOPs, telephone supervision and periodic joint visits, independent third-party verification; high-risk cases require the capacity for a physical presence.
• Insecurity: low profile, data minimisation, file evacuation plans, risk analyses for every advocacy activity.
• Local partners with limited capacity: capacity assessment, capacity-strengthening plan, funding of core costs (supervision, safeguarding, information management), support towards leadership of local coordination, in line with the Grand Bargain localisation commitments.

Interview questions

Key references

• Alliance for Child Protection in Humanitarian Action, Minimum Standards for Child Protection in Humanitarian Action, 2019, in particular Standards 3, 4, 6, 14, 18 and 20.
• IRC and UNICEF, Caring for Child Survivors of Sexual Abuse: Guidelines for health and psychosocial service providers in humanitarian settings, 2012.
• Case Management Task Force, Inter-Agency Guidelines for Case Management and Child Protection, 2014, and the associated supervision and practice assessment tools.
• United Nations Security Council, resolution 1612 (2005) and subsequent resolutions; Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict and UNICEF, MRM Field Manual and associated guidelines.
• United Nations, Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (the Beijing Rules), 1985; Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty (the Havana Rules), 1990; Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No. 24 on children's rights in the child justice system, 2019.
• CHS Alliance, Groupe URD and the Sphere Project, Core Humanitarian Standard on Quality and Accountability, 2024.
• European Commission, DG ECHO, Thematic Policy Document on Humanitarian Protection and key outcome indicators; USAID BHA, emergency application guidelines, protection section.
• Child Protection AoR, Child Protection Coordination Handbook and child protection funding analyses.
• Grand Bargain commitments (2016) on localisation.