UNICEF Guidance note on juvenile justice programming in the CEE/CIS region June 2010

1. UNICEF Guidance Note
for CEE/CIS
on juvenile justice programming
in the CEE/CIS region

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. • 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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.

24. 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

25. 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

26. 24

28. 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)