NGO JOBS

Organization: UN Children's Fund
Country: United States of America
Closing date: 30 Aug 2013

Terms of Reference

Consultant, A REVIEW OF TYPOLOGIES OF CHILD PROTECTION SYSTEMS

1. Introduction

Over the past several years there has been a growing convergence in views between academics and practitioners and between those working in the global north and the global south, around a common approach to child protection – a systems approach. A child protection (CP) system is defined as certain structures, functions and capacities that have been assembled to prevent and respond to violence, abuse and exploitation of children. As a result, there has been a move towards thinking and acting more systemically and holistically about child protection, moving away from a focus on specific issues in isolation of each other. This convergence comes from the recognition of the complexities involved in protecting children from violence, abuse and exploitation, and the limitations of working solely through issues. Many countries are now assessing the mechanisms for the protection of children in their countries, defining the boundaries of their CP system, and developing models for preventing and responding to the violence, abuse, and exploitation of children – while also dealing with the demands of specific CP issues.

Child protection seeks to guarantee the right of children to be protected from violence, abuse, exploitation and neglect. The many actors engaged in CP include children and youth, families, communities, government, civil society and private organisations. Effective child protection depends on the following elements: (i) appropriate policies, legislation and regulations; (ii) well-defined structures and functions and adequate capacities; (iii) supportive social norms; (iv) effective promotion, prevention and response actions; (v) high quality evidence and data for decision-makers; and, (vi) efficient fiscal management and sufficient resource allocation. When these elements and actors work together, they create a system that should be better able to protect all children. Like any system, components are arranged to work towards a common goal, and the nature of the arrangement is determined by the socio-cultural norms in the country.

1. Background

Many CP systems share similar characteristics or essential features that may provide the basis for classifying or clustering them into different ‘types’ or categories of systems. Developing a typology or classification of CP systems across the globe has the potential to facilitate discussion about the objectives and performance of such systems and inform the choices made about the way in which a particular system will develop. Grouping together countries according to a shared characteristic or characteristics enables the policy maker or analyst to rise above the detail of every individual system and to focus on similar patterns that recur across countries. In November 2012 more than 130 innovators and influencers active in child protection systems gathered to:1. Review and consolidate what has been learned so far about the development and reform of such child protection (CP) systems.2. Look at new ideas concerning those systems and explore their relevance; and 3. Outline an agenda for future work on CP systems.

One of the conference papers “Towards a Typology for Child Protection Systems” (Annex A) proposed a new framework for the categorization of CP systems. Typologies of CP systems were initially defined in 1997 by Gilbert who identified 2 orientations or categories of child protection systems defined along by their position on 4 dimensions – the way the problem was framed, the response mechanism, how the professionals functioned, and the rate of voluntary arrangements with family (in Gilbert, Parton, & Skivenes, Introduction, 2011). These 2 orientations were called a ‘child protection orientation’ and a ‘family service orientation’. The initial groupings directly reflected Esping-Andersen’s work on welfare capitalism (Esping-Andersen, 1990). Others have subsequently expanded this model to include a “community caring” orientation (Freymond & Cameron, 2006), and a fourth orientation has recently been proposed – a “child focused model” (Gilbert, Parton, & Skivenes, 2011). This typology framework was developed based on studies in high income countries, and primarily focused on the statutory or government’s approach to child protection. It explores the approach of the government to CP and the relationship of the State to its population.

At the conference “A Better Way to Protect ALL Children: the theory and practice of child protection systems”, this typology was revisited to see its applicability to countries other than high income countries, as well as reflecting on changes in approaches to child protection since the 1990s. Questions were raised as to whether the key questions defining the orientation of CP systems should be changed or expanded to include other dimensions, specifically: • the recognition of the context in which these typologies exemplify themselves (humanitarian, fragile situations, low/middle/high income settings);• the degree of formality of the CP system, and role of its less formal aspect (e.g. children, families, civil society actors, customary/traditional leaders, etc ) to protect children outside of the State actions;• the performance of the CP system (e.g. the extent that risk is reduced and the effectiveness with which cases are dealt with in the best interest of the child); and,• the overall approach of the system to the child in her/his family and community (e.g. from a punitive to a rights-based system).At this stage no overall orientations or categories of CP systems were suggested – such categories would be defined by groupings or clusters of CP systems that share common ‘positions’ on the 4 dimensions (for example - and purely for illustrative purposes - a reliance in fragile states on customary/traditional interventions that prioritise communal harmony against the best interests of the child).

The discussion at the conference appreciated the broadening of the approach beyond the original formulation for high income countries and suggested that further review of the typology framework be conducted, ideally also leading to being able to group different countries within this new framework. The paper in Annex A on typologies incorporates the conference findings.

At the same time as this development there has emerged an increasing wealth of knowledge on the structure and functions of CP systems in a low and middle income countries, complementing that which already exists in high income countries. Over the past 3 years, agencies such as UNICEF, Save the Children, and others have engaged in mapping and assessing CP systems. Toolkits to support this mapping have been developed and implemented by UNICEF and other international agencies. Governments of more than 42 countries have used these tools to more further understand the nature of the CP system and how countries protect their children. Through discussions and understanding of the interactions of the actors and institutions, this has resulted in assessment and identification of priorities for reform. This work has created the possibility of using such mappings and assessments to map ‘real world’ CP systems against the four proposed dimensions to see if obvious clusters or groupings of CP systems emerge.

1. Purpose

To review the proposed typology framework and identify key questions required to identify groups of countries within it. The output will be used to further guide the assessment of countries and identification of new typology groupings.

1. Objectives, Deliverables and Scope of Work

This consultancy is phase one of a potential two-phase review of the draft typology framework for CP systems. This phase will review the typology paper (attached) in relation to the typology approach detailed to date in other CP system reviews, identify revisions that could form the basis for an improved approach, and test the revised approach against examples of currently available mappings of national CP systems. The consultant will be expected to:

1 – Critique the typology paper. This should include considering the classification approaches detailed in the wider literature on CP systems to identify any significant omissions or areas that may require further consideration. Share this critique and recommendations with an expert reference group and amend the typology paper on the basis of its conclusions.

2 – Based on the above conclusions, identify the questions required to enable countries and their national CP systems to be grouped within the new typology framework i.e. the questions that will distinguish one group of CP systems from another based on a limited number of attributes or characteristics.

3 – Review the available mapping and assessment methodologies/toolkits currently in use to describe and assess national CP systems, and use selected examples of the outputs from these toolkits to assess whether it is possible from this information to group countries within the new typology framework based on the questions developed in step 2 above. This should include specific reference to parts of the toolkits that are most useful, the identification of any elements that are missing from these methodologies, and suggestions of how any missing information might be collected.

Note: It is expected that each of the above will require inputs and feedback from the reference group and that this feedback will be reflected in the final report submitted.

1. UNICEF ResponsibilitiesSome of the necessary project documents and reports will be provided to the selected institution at the beginning of the assignment by UNICEF HQ. It is expected, however, that the selected institution will conduct its own literature search.

The contents of the report, and its initial drafts, will be the exclusive property of UNICEF, for sharing and distribution as determined.

UNICEF will establish a reference group for this assignment and facilitate the consultations between the reference group and the selected company to review the drafts of the report. UNICEF will also provide the consultant with mapping toolkits to review (completed within several countries).

No travel is anticipated. The work can be carried out at the consultant’s institution.

1. Qualificationsi. A degree in social policy, sociology or similarly relevant discipline;ii. At least twelve years working on issues concerning child protection systems policy, with as wide an exposure to different aspects of social welfare and child protection systems as possible;iii. Proven familiarity with the existing child protection system models; iv. Excellent analytical report-writing, including publication;v. Excellent spoken and written English; fluency in a second or third UN language is desirablevi. Ideally experience working in an international context.

2. Liaison and Reporting Requirements

The selected consultant will work under the supervision of the UNICEF Senior Advisor Social Welfare and Justice Systems. S/he will work closely with identified actors engaged in mapping and assessment, as well as those who have worked on typologies. It is expected that beyond those stakeholders identified by UNICEF, other stakeholders will be identified by the selected consultant(s).

Outputs will be submitted to the Senior Advisor in English.

The final report will be approved by UNICEF. The contract will be terminated with immediate effect if the performance of the consultant is not satisfactory. The consultancy does not guarantee any future work with UNICEF.

1. CONTRACT ARRANGEMENTS

A desk assignment, it is expected to last approximately 30 days over 60 days, with the end date being before 31 December 2013.

General Conditions of Contracts for the Services of Consultants / Individual Contractors

1. Legal Status

The individual engaged by UNICEF under this contract as a consultant or individual contractors (the “Contractor”) is engaged in a personal capacity and not as representatives of a Government or of any other entity external to the United Nations. The Contractor is neither a "staff member" under the Staff Regulations of the United Nations and UNICEF policies and procedures nor an "official" for the purpose of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, 1946. The Contractor may, however, be afforded the status of "Experts on Mission" in the sense of Section 22 of Article VI of the Convention and the Contractor is required by UNICEF to travel in order to fulfill the requirements of this contract, the Contractor may be issued a United Nations Certificate in accordance with Section 26 of Article VII of the Convention.

1. Obligations

The Contractor shall complete the assignment set out in the Terms of Reference for this contract with due diligence, efficiency and economy, in accordance with generally accepted professional techniques and practices.

The Contractor must respect the impartiality and independence of UNICEF and the United Nations and in connection with this contract must neither seek nor accept instructions from anyone other than UNICEF. During the term of this contract the Contractor must refrain from any conduct that would adversely reflect on UNICEF or the United Nations and must not engage in any activity that is incompatible with the administrative instructions and policies and procedures of UNICEF. The Contractor must exercise the utmost discretion in all matters relating to this contract.

In particular, but without limiting the foregoing, the Contractor (a) will conduct him- or herself in a manner consistent with the Standards of Conduct in the International Civil Service; and (b) will comply with the administrative instructions and policies and procedures of UNICE relating to fraud and corruption; information disclosure; use of electronic communication assets; harassment, sexual harassment and abuse of authority; and the requirements set forth in the Secretary General's Bulletin on Special Measures for Protection from Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse.
Unless otherwise authorized by the appropriate official in the office concerned, the Contractor must not communicate at any time to the media or to any institution, person, Government or other entity external to UNICEF any information that has not been made public and which has become known to the Contractor by reason of his or her association with UNICEF or the United Nations. The Contractor may not use such information without the written authorization of UNICEF, and shall under no circumstances use such information for his or her private advantage or that of others. These obligations do not lapse upon termination of this contact.

1. Title rights

UNICEF shall be entitled to all property rights, including but not limited to patents, copyrights and trademarks, with regard to material created by the Contractor which bears a direct relation to, or is made in order to perform, this contract. At the request of UNICEF, the Contractor shall assist in securing such property rights and transferring them to UNICEF in compliance with the requirements of the law governing such rights.

1. Travel

If UNICEF determines that the Contractor needs to travel in order to perform this contract, that travel shall be specified in the contract and the Contractor’s travel costs shall be set out in the contract, on the following basis: (a) UNICEF will pay for travel in economy class via the most direct and economical route; provided however that in exceptional circumstances, such as for medical reasons, travel in business class may be approved by UNICEF on a case-by-case basis.
(b) UNICEF will reimburse the Contractor for out-of-pocket expenses associated with such travel by paying an amount equivalent to the daily subsistence allowance that would be paid to staff members undertaking similar travel for official purposes.

1. Statement of good health

Before commencing work, the Contractor must deliver to UNICEF a certified self-statement of good health and to take full responsibility for the accuracy of that statement. In addition, the Contractor must include in this statement of good health (a) confirmation that he or she has been informed regarding inoculations required for him or her to receive, at his or her own cost and from his or her own medical practitioner or other party, for travel to the country or countries to which travel is authorized; and (b) a statement he or she is covered by medical/health insurance and that, if required to travel beyond commuting distance from his or her usual place or residence to UNICEF (other than to duty station(s) with hardship ratings “H” and “A”, a list of which has been provided to the Contractor) the Contractor’s medical/health insurance covers medical evacuations. The Contractor will be responsible for assuming all costs that may be occurred in relation to the statement of good health.

1. Insurance

The Contractor is fully responsible for arranging, at his or her own expense, such life, health and other forms of insurance covering the term of this contract as he or she considers appropriate taking into account, among other things, the requirements of paragraph 5 above. The Contractor is not eligible to participate in the life or health insurance schemes available to UNICEF and United Nations staff members. The responsibility of UNICEF and the United Nations is limited solely to the payment of compensation under the conditions described in paragraph 7 below.

1. Service incurred death, injury or illness

If the Contractor is travelling with UNICEF’s prior approval and at UNICEF's expense in order to perform his or her obligations under this contract, or is performing his or her obligations under this contract in a UNICEF or United Nations office with UNICEF’s approval, the Contractor (or his or her dependents as appropriate), shall be entitled to compensation from UNICEF in the event of death, injury or illness attributable to the fact that the Contractor was travelling with UNICEF’s prior approval and at UNICEF's expense in order to perform his or her obligations under this contractor, or was performing his or her obligations under this contract in a UNICEF or United Nations office with UNICEF’s approval. Such compensation will be paid through a third party insurance provider retained by UNICEF and shall be capped at the amounts set out in the Administrative Instruction on Individual Consultants and Contractors. Under no circumstances will UNICEF be liable for any other or greater payments to the Contractor (or his or her dependents as appropriate).

1. Arbitration

(a) Any dispute arising out of or, in connection with, this contract shall be resolved through amicable negotiation between the parties.
(b) If the parties are not able to reach agreement after attempting amicable negotiation for a period of thirty (30) days after one party has notified the other of such a dispute, either party may submit the matter to arbitration in accordance with the UNCITRAL procedures within fifteen (15) days thereafter. If neither party submits the matter for arbitration within the specified time the dispute will be deemed resolved to the full satisfaction of both parties. Such arbitration shall take place in New York before a single arbitrator agreed to by both parties; provided however that should the parties be unable to agree on a single arbitrator within thirty days of the request for arbitration, the arbitrator shall be designated by the United Nations Legal Counsel. The decision rendered in the arbitration shall constitute final adjudication of the dispute.

1. Penalties for Underperformance

Payment of fees to the Contractor under this contractor, including each installment or periodic payment (if any), is subject to the Contractor’s full and complete performance of his or her obligations under this contract with regard to such payment to UNICEF’s satisfaction, and UNICEF’s certification to that effect.

1. Termination of Contract

This contract may be terminated by either party before its specified termination date by giving notice in writing to the other party. The period of notice shall be five (5) business days (in the UNICEF office engaging the Contractor) in the case of contracts for a total period of less than two (2) months and ten (10) business days (in the UNICEF office engaging the Contractor) in the case of contracts for a longer period; provided however that in the event of termination on the grounds of impropriety or other misconduct by the Contractor (including but not limited to breach by the Contractor of relevant UNICEF policies, procedures, and administrative instructions), UNICEF shall be entitled to terminate the contract without notice. If this contract is terminated in accordance with this paragraph 10, the Contractor shall be paid on a pro rata basis determined by UNICEF for the actual amount of work performed to UNICEF’s satisfaction at the time of termination. UNICEF will also pay any outstanding reimbursement claims related to travel by the Contractor. Any additional costs incurred by UNICEF resulting from the termination of the contract by either party may be withheld from any amount otherwise due to the Contractor under this paragraph 10.

1. Taxation

UNICEF and the United Nations accept no liability for any taxes, duty or other contribution payable by the consultant and individual contractor on payments made under this contract. Neither UNICEF nor the United Nations will issue a statement of earnings to the consultant and individual contractor

Annex A: Towards a Typology for Child Protection SystemsRevised Discussion PaperJuly 2013

A discussion paper on the typology of child protection systems was prepared and discussed at the conference “A Better Way to Protect ALL Children”, Delhi November 2013. Discussion at the conference recognised the value of developing a typology that was inclusive of many different contexts. The following is a revision of the initial discussion paper, based on the conclusions of the conference.

Summary:

Developing a typology or classification of child protection systems has the potential to:o facilitate discussion about the objectives and performance of such systems and o inform the choices made about the way in which a particular system will develop.

Grouping together countries according to a shared attribute or attributes enables the policy-maker or analyst to rise above the detail of every individual system and to focus on similar patterns that recur across countries. However, the task of developing a broadly applicable typology of child protection systems is at a very early stage and this paper mainly aims to stimulate further discussion.

The paper suggests 4 possible dimensions or variables that may provide a way of categorising child protection systems. These are:

? Orientation – the overall approach of the system to the child in her/his family and community. ? Formality - the degree of formalisation of the child protection system, particularly the extent to which the state monopolises the governance of the system, and the role of the less formal elements of the system, such as community organisations and traditional leaders.
? Context – the socio-economic and political context in which the child protection system is operating? Performance – the success or failure of the system in delivering positive outcomes in children’s well-being and its efficiency in doing so.

Conceptually these dimensions could be used in one of two ways to categorise or classify child protection systems. Firstly, categories within each individual dimension could be used as a way of identifying different types of systems e.g. ‘punitive’ versus ‘family service’ systems along the orientation dimension. Secondly, systems could be ‘mapped’ against 2-4 of these dimensions to see whether or not there are identifiable clusters or groups of countries that share similar positions in multi-dimensional space.

These and other possible dimensions deserve further discussion and analysis to see if:1. They can be empirically validated as useful dimensions to categorise child protection systems.
2. They facilitate a more informed debate about the strengths and weaknesses of different types of systems that can guide system strengthening efforts.

Introduction

‘Real world’ child protection systems across the globe vary enormously in their structure, orientation, degree of formalisation, resourcing, priority goals, etc. Reducing this variety to a smaller set of categories or types of child protection systems is therefore a challenging task.

Current typologies of child protection systems are very few and suffer from a common problem in developing globally applicable typologies of various kinds of social welfare systems – they are based on existing, relatively well-resourced systems in high-income countries. One important consequence of this is that their emphasis is on the characteristics of the statutory and more formal system rather than on the system defined more broadly as all those elements that play a part in the protection of children, including the less formal components. Given the weakness of many statutory child protection systems in the developing world this is major drawback to their use in classifying child protection systems.

However developing such a typology or categorisation of child protection systems across the world potentially offers a useful opportunity to:o Facilitate the comparison of the basic characteristics of different types of systems and understand their strengths and weaknesseso Guide or redirect the development of systems by clarifying the key choices and options available to those building or strengthening systemso Suggest alternative types of child protection systems to those already existing.

For these reasons other sectors such as health have also discussed ways in which they could reduce the complexity of real world systems to a few ‘types’. This is usually done by identifying a small number of key ‘dimensions’ that can be used to differentiate between different types of systems.

In the case of healthcare systems, for example, the nature of healthcare financing, service provision and regulation/governance have been proposed as the most important dimensions to differentiate between different healthcare system types In a similar exercise the OECD identified 6 types of health care systems based on two dimensions - their institutional structure (e.g. public or private provision; gate keeping or no gate keeping) and performance.

In the rest of this paper possible dimensions of child protection systems that might serve as the basis for a typology and their strengths and weaknesses are considered.

The Orientation of the Child Protection SystemThe most well-known typology is based on the fundamental ‘orientation’ or approach of the State towards the child and the family on child protection matters. The original binary formulation of this in 1997 identified two basic orientations:o Child protection – priority given to protecting children from harm mediated through a legalistic, forensic bias and coercive intervention. o Family service/support – priority given to working with the family to reduce harm to children, helping children and parents in a supportive way. This orientation also distinguishes between those countries with mandatory and non-mandatory reporting. Gilbert, with others, have since argued that this binary distinction has become less clear and that a third orientation has emerged, informed by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. This child focused orientation combines many features of the two other orientations in a search for a balanced approach that places the individual child more directly at the centre of the system.

An addition to this typology of orientations has been labelled community caring which is intended to capture a distinct orientation towards child protection taken by indigenous and aboriginal peoples that is seen as congruent with their values and culture. This orientation is a reaction to the damaging consequences of discriminatory and culturally insensitive policies and programmes imposed by national child protection systems . It operates within defined limits set by the national statutory system but allows a degree of self-determination in child protection practice that is different from the national system applying to all other children within a jurisdiction.

However, it is worth considering whether this 'community caring' orientation is unique to indigenous peoples within a wider setting or whether it could be generalised to other similar systems or sub-systems. Is an experience of colonization an essential context of this orientation or are there examples of countries that have not been colonised that actually have very similar systems?

A more detailed description of the four types of orientation within this approach is presented in Annex 1. The strengths and weaknesses of this approach to an orientation dimension are outlined below.

Strengthso It focuses on a crucial dimension of statutory systems - the nature of the relationship between the State, the child and the family.o It provides a simple normative and descriptive typology of statutory systems in high income countries, differentiating them according to the emphasis on either a strong intervention system for those children requiring immediate protection or on a effective system for identifying children who require services early in order to prevent harm occurring.

Weaknesseso It assumes an empowered statutory system with the capacity to intervene in families and the ability to deliver protection and/or family supporto A dimension based on the relationship of the State with the child and their family does not have significant relevance to national child protection systems where the practical ‘reach’ or effective impact of the State is very limited (e.g. to urban areas or small numbers of children). o It is an ahistorical approach that takes no account of earlier types of child protection systems in present-day high income countries.o The original binary differentiation between 2 types of orientation in child protection systems in high income countries has become less clear over time.o ‘Community Caring’ is an orientation that has been linked specifically to the situation of aboriginal and indigenous peoples and represents a sub-system within the overall national child protection system, and partly defined by its relationship with the overall national child protection system which would reflect one of the other orientations, rather than a global orientation.

A Revised Orientation of the Child Protection System

In order to improve the relevance of a focus on the orientation of the child protection system in classifying child protection systems it would need to be able to describe the full range of currently-existing child protection systems across the world. In doing so, it seems necessary that the focus moves from the approach of the State towards the child and the family on child protection matters towards the overall orientation of the system towards the child in her/his family and community. This orientation very much reflects the socio-cultural context in a country, including the social norms concerning attitudes towards marginalised children, the priority given to the protection of children versus the protection of the local community or wider society, and who is trusted to intervene in family life. It also reflects the balance between prevention and response in the system.

The following orientations are proposed as orientations that either singly or in combination have characterised past and current child protection systems.

o Punitive – the system is designed to protect society against children who are seen as a threat to the wellbeing of society because their perceived anti-social behaviour or situation (e.g. street involved children) is viewed as bringing them into conflict with the law.o Moral Instruction/ Rescue – the system is designed to rescue children seen as at risk of moral contamination because of a lack of appropriate parental care and supervision or their separation from family, as well as the absence of positive opportunities in their lives. Such systems have tended to emphasise moral instruction with vocational training in a closed institutional setting. o Welfare – the system is designed to deal with deprivation and broader child welfare failings affecting the physical, social and psychological well-being of children, particularly children suffering from the effects of poverty. The specific needs of children needing child protection are subsumed within the overall approach to this wider group and are not necessarily directly addressed.o Communal Harmony – the system is designed to ensure the maintenance of communal and social harmony when children have been harmed. This can occur through mediation, financial compensation or some other form of restitution, and more rarely through expulsion from the community. Priority is given to the preservation of family, neighbourhood and communal ties.o Child Protection – as above. With a bias towards response.o Family Support – as above. With a bias towards prevention.o Rights-based Child Focused – as above

Formality of the Child Protection SystemThis dimension categorises child protection systems according to the degree of formalisation of the child protection system, particularly the extent to which the state monopolises the governance of the system. Note that the system may contain elements of more than one of the categories or types below (e.g. a small statutory sector embedded in a system still primarily based on local community action) but that it is the dominant mode of governance and provision that determines its categorisation. For example:

o Community-based – the protection of children is primarily a matter for the family and local community with decisions on serious child protection matters being based on local custom and practice channelled through local leaders. The role of the state is marginal or has delegated its protection functions to traditional or local leaders. o Charitable – the system is based on the largely unregulated provision of child protection services through non-governmental and/or faith-based organisations, overlaid on community-based responses, where the state is unable to provide universal child protection services. o Statutory – the state assumes responsibility for the governance of the child protection system (including legislation and policy-making), either directly supplying child protection decision-making and services itself or delegating/contracting these to other providers, including NGOs and community bodies.

As can be seen above, the ‘more or less formal’ dimension is likely to be correlated with a range of other specific attributes of a child protection system:? The balance between lay, voluntary and professional child protection staff in the workforce? The balance between the use of customary norms & laws and national & international norms and laws in dealing with child protection issues.? The balance between community, NGO/FBO, external donor and domestic funding of the system.? The extent to which the system is integrated or aligned (e.g. geographically; from the community to the national level; across different sectoral mandates)

Context in which the Child Protection System OperatesThis dimension assumes that there is some correspondence between the nature of the child protection system and the overall socio-economic and political development of a country.
o Fragility – Fragility is a relative term and situations of fragility can range from complete state collapse through widespread breakdown to movement out of crisis towards recovery. In these contexts the child protection system may be dependent on one or more of community, non-governmental and international/humanitarian action to deliver preventive and/or responsive services to fill the gap left by the limited capacity of the state. o Developing – where the state has some capacity but where its resources and that capacity are still unable to match the scale of the child protection requirements and other challenges it faces. As the State grapples with these challenges a focus on selected child protection issues can be one response (often led by donor country priorities), as can a focus on legislative and policy reform (with or without practical impact in children’s lives). In these contexts a legacy of colonial policy and practice embedded in the system can be an obstacle to progress in its development.
o Complex – where the child protection system is governed and largely financed by the state from domestic resources, where the workforce is largely professionalised with clear mandates, data collection is standardised and there is a significant degree of coordination across government departments and agencies with a role to play in child protection.

One key question regarding this dimension is the extent to which this dimension is empirically distinct from the formality dimension.

PerformanceThe performance of a child protection system illustrates its accountability, outcomes for children and the system dynamics that leverage change. The performance can be measured in various ways but the most appropriate measures would seem to be the direct outcomes on children’s protection (e.g. perceptions of safety; degree of vulnerability) and system outcomes (e.g., the percentage of children in family-based alternative care, percentage of children registered at birth). Conceptually at least child protection systems can be categorised according to their performance in this regard - from poorly performing to high performing as judged against appropriate metrics.

Assessing the performance of a child protection system empirically, however, remains problematic with standardised and internationally agreed metrics in child protection being few, many common tools (such as household surveys) not capturing the out of household populations that are an important protection focus and national statistical offices slow to systematise the collection of relevant data. As well as absolute rates of the prevalence of certain outcomes one would also want to factor in the resources applied to the protection of children to assess the efficiency of their use (i.e. value for money). It is also difficult to measure the impact of the child protection system itself on the specific outcomes.

Comparing the performance of child protection system across the world is also complicated by the differences in the mix of child protection issues in different countries. Although certain issues are likely to be present in all countries (e.g. sexual abuse) others may be specific to a much smaller group of countries (e.g. early marriage; child labour).

For the reasons above the categorisation of child protection systems according to their performance, while being a very important task, is one that is likely to have to await significant methodological and statistical improvements in the collection of data on relevant indicators.

Annex 1: The Orientation of Child Protection Systems

Child Protection Family Service Child Focus Community Care

Main driver for intervention Parents being neglectful and abusive towards children (maltreatment) The family unit needs assistance The individual child's needs in a present and future perspective; Reaction of aboriginal populations to the negative impacts of discriminatory and culturally inappropriate child welfare policies
Relationship of child protection and family support services Child protection services separate from family support services Child protection services embedded in broader family support programmes Child protection services located in broader welfare services for all children-in-need Child protection services embedded in broader family and community preservation services. Role of the state Sanctioning: the state functions as "watchdog" to ensure child's safety Parental support: the state seeks to strengthen family relations Duty bearer - the state has obligations to promote and protect children’s rights to protection Partnership with aboriginal communities that are afforded a degree of self-determination in child welfare matters within a defined mandate. Problem frame Individual/moralistic Social/psychological and systemic e.g. poverty, racism, etc Violations of child rights to protection and unequal outcomes for children Relationship between the dominant child welfare system and minorities cultural systemMode of intervention Legalistic/investigative with a focus on families identified as high risk or requiring immediate intervention Therapeutic/needs assessment looking for a voluntary, collaborative solution Best interests determination and early intervention Consultation with parents, extended family and local community in accord with aboriginal values and culture.Aim of intervention Protection/harm reduction Prevention/social bonding Harm reduction and overall child well-being Harm reduction while retaining children within their families and aboriginal societyState-parent relationship Right to family privacy but adversarial/coercive if action required Partnership with, and offer of help to, families State supports parental responsibility but has a independent relationship with the child State respects traditional values on parenting Balance of rights Children's & parents’ rights enforced through legal means Parents' rights to family life mediated by professional social workers Children's rights paramount but parent’s role supported The rights of children, families and aboriginal communities in balance Service provider Statutory and contracted non-governmental or private organisations Aboriginal service organisations, community and other non-governmental organisationsReporting Mandatory Varies by jurisdiction Varies by jurisdiction

Source: adapted from Gilbert et.al. (1997), Gilbert et.al. (2011),Freymond et.al (2006), Connolly & Morris (2012 ).

How to apply:

Qualified candidates are requested to submit a cover letter, outline methodology with time line for the assignment, an example of their published work ideally on CP systems, their CV and P11 (the P11 template can be downloaded from http://www.unicef.org/about/employ/index_53129.html) to pdconsultants@unicef.org with subject line “Consultant on Child Protection Systems Typology” by 30 August 2013. Please indicate your ability, availability and daily rate to undertake the terms of reference above.Proposals for two or more individuals are accepted. Please visit www.ungm.org