CONNECT
search advanced search
UNICEF Innocenti
Office of Research-Innocenti
search menu
Research Watch

Children on the move

Research Watch - Main photo

Children on the move

An estimated 50 million children are on the move in the world today. Millions more have been deeply affected by migration. The need for solid evidence to develop better policies on child migration has never been greater. This edition of ResearchWatch brings together leading thinkers for insightful discussion on the research agenda for children on the move.

Featured Expert Interviews

Push and Pull Factors Affecting Children in Migration
Article Article

Push and Pull Factors Affecting Children in Migration

The drivers of child migration are often multiple, complex, layered and fluid. Our featured experts discuss the implications for research and policy.Content Summary: drivers often multiple, interacting; varying positive and negative outcomes and drivers; context in country of origin; trafficking and exploitation; common drivers in Central America: violence, poverty and family connections; child’s own sense of the drivers; multi-factorial drivers – climate, instability, discrimination; decision to migrate usually proves wise.
Challenges in Protecting the Rights of Migrating Children
Article Article

Challenges in Protecting the Rights of Migrating Children

Governments are challenged to uphold the rights and provide essential services for growing numbers of child migrants. Our featured experts provide their perspectives.Content Summary: assure rights despite migration status; tension between protective and participatory principles; risk continuum before-during-after; smuggling/trafficking nexus; children left to negotiate immigration on their own (US); avoiding expedited processes-specific risk to children of deportation; obligation to reunify families - correct default mode?; conducting quality best interests assessment; children’s rights not featuring in European immigration policy debates – becoming a security driven process ; when protection can be a burden.
Child Migration and the Law: Status, detention and court proceedings
Article Article

Child Migration and the Law: Status, detention and court proceedings

Immigration systems and border protection structures are often inadequately prepared to guarantee just and fair legal procedures for children. Our featured experts highlight the main issues.Content Summary: hidden dimensions of child migration; problem of defining status of children separately from parents; legal requirement to provide legal representation not observed; only small share go to immigration court with a lawyer; majority of children with legal representation have claims approved; decision on status of migrant children left to border guards; backlogs in legal process often denies children essential services; known risks of children put in administrative detention; priority to secure child’s best interest; children universally exempt from detention – no possible justification.
Research and Knowledge Gaps
Article Article

Research and Knowledge Gaps

The rapid increase of child migration and many difficulties in scoping and framing their experiences before, during and after their journey pose enormous challenges. Our featured experts share their insights.  Content Summary: in-depth and context specific research; outdated legal and policy frameworks; degree of agency among child migrants; knowledge/data gap after reunification/deportation; need for longitudinal, panel data; importance of opinions/direct experiences of children themselves; child perceptions of what protects them; the process of integration, impact of stigma on children-bilingual accommodations; comparative data on unaccompanied minors in different regions; ethical dilemmas-protecting identities-anonymous data collection-avoiding re-traumatization.
Insights and Lessons from Recent Experience
Article Article

Insights and Lessons from Recent Experience

In-depth discussion of child migration inevitably uncovers many unexpected lessons, many of which offer new opportunities to improve inquiry and expand knowledge. This video collects some of these lessons.    Content Summary: children left behind by migrating parents; refugees lack clear idea about destination; family reunification; tensions post family reunification; seeking anonymity, avoiding stigma; mobile technology and migrant experience; mobile as tool for panel data collection; benefits of NGO cooperation across borders for protection; solidarity between receiving populations and migrant arrivals; benefits of accepting migrating populations; dependence of industries on migrant labor; resilience of migrants, bringing many resources to new communities.
Joselyn’s Story
Article Article

Joselyn’s Story

Perhaps the most common theme in our discussion has been the need to include children’s direct experience in efforts to gather evidence on child migration. Too often only the most shocking stories of migrating children come to our notice. Joselyn’s story is not sensational, but if you pay close attention you will pick up valuable insights into the challenges and risks that affect even the simplest aspects of her life: going to school, celebrating family milestones, making friends, loneliness.Children left behind when parents migrate are often the forgotten face of the child migration story. Facing separation from one or both parents for years at a time they can be transferred from home to distant communities and back again. They may be able to benefit from extra wages sent home, but they face higher vulnerability to risk in all aspects of development.Joselyn’s emotions spill over in this video, especially when she speaks about her father who is working in the United States.  When she sat for the interview she was at home, with her mother, a local government social worker and other family members. She insisted on telling her story out of a desire to speak on behalf of many for other children like herself, in hopes of making things better for them.Special Note: When children are involved in research, measures should be taken to ensure their rights are fully protected. For more details on ethical research involving children in humanitarian situations read our recent publication: What we know about ethical research involving children in humanitarian settings
Ali and Zafar’s Stories
Article Article

Ali and Zafar’s Stories

Perhaps the most common theme in our discussion has been the need to include children’s direct experience in efforts to gather evidence on child migration. Too often only the most shocking stories of migrating children come to our notice. Ali and Zafar (their names have been changed) are unaccompanied adolescents who narrate their experiences after leaving their homes in search of peace and security.Although their stories of violence, family separation, exhaustion and exploitation along the way are not so unusual, by listening closely you can pick up numerous traumas, each of which on its own could potentially derail a child’s development. One in three migrants is a child. This includes a large number of unaccompanied adolescents. Many are boys aged between 14 and 17, sometimes traveling with groups of other teenagers, sometimes with an adult, sometimes not. At the time of these interviews Ali and Zafar did not know their legal status nor what their future would hold, so their identities have been protected. Special Note: When children are involved in research, measures should be taken to ensure their rights are fully protected. For more details on ethical research involving children in humanitarian situations read our recent publication: What we know about ethical research involving children in humanitarian settings

Research Commentaries

Administrative Detention of Children is a Violation of Children’s Rights
Article Article

Administrative Detention of Children is a Violation of Children’s Rights

Children represent around a quarter of all migrants world-wide; while in June 2015, one in ten migrants reaching the Macedonian border from Greece was a child, in October 2015 it was one in three.[i] Children migrate for various reasons: to escape violence and conflict, to offset insecurity about their future, or to be reunited with family in the country of destination. They migrate alone or with family members, and some are separated during the course of migration. Without regular status and the protection that comes with it, children on the move are particularly vulnerable to exploitation, violence and abuse. The unknown social and cultural environment, as well as their age and level of development, often make it impossible for them to be aware of and to assert their rights. Rather than regaining control of the migration movements by opening regular, safe and cheap channels for migration, states continue to erect walls, use barbed wire fences and take deterrence measures such as systemically detaining migrants, including children. In transit as well as in destination countries, their experience is all too often linked to their status as immigrants, rather than their age. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights proclaim the right to the liberty and security of persons. This applies to everyone subject to the jurisdiction of a state and to all forms of detention, including for immigration purposes. In order not to violate the right to liberty and security of a person, as well as to protect against arbitrariness, the detention of migrants must be legally prescribed, necessary, reasonable and proportionate. States use a wide range of reasons to justify detention of migrants: health and security screening, identity checks, preventing absconding and facilitating removal. However, freedom should be the default position for them, as it is for citizens and legal residents. Detention should only occur when a person represents a demonstrated individualised risk to public security or of absconding from mandatory proceedings: in most cases, such a risk cannot be individually demonstrated and detention cannot be justified as necessary, reasonable or proportionate. Therefore, most of the time, detention serves solely the purpose of deterrence, a practice that contradicts Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative, which is at the root of our contemporary human rights doctrine: “Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end.” (Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals)In addition to the general human rights framework described above, children are entitled to the protection afforded to them by the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), which is the most ratified United Nations (UN) human rights treaty, lacking only one ratification in the whole of UN membership. The CRC proclaims that “no child shall be deprived of his liberty arbitrarily” (Article 37 (b)) and “in all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration” (Article 3).   Detention for administrative purposes can never ever be in the best interest of a child. It harms their physical and psychological well-being and has adverse effects on their development. It might aggravate trauma experienced before arriving in the transit or destination country and the constant control and surveillance may be very disturbing for a child, increasing already high levels of mental distress. Children deprived of their liberty often have difficulties understanding why they are being “punished” despite having committed no crime. Separation from community and from the outside world can give a child the feeling of isolation and decrease their confidence. The often poor hygienic conditions and unbalanced diet will have negative consequences on physical well-being and development. Often children and adults are detained together, which puts children at further risk. Housing migrant children and adults in the same detention structure can lead to physical and sexual violence and abuse, while disrespectful staff may further exacerbate feelings of humiliation and thus further impact a child’s development.   Children can make migratory journeys on their own, sometimes having been separated from their parents or other adult relatives on the route. These unaccompanied minors or separated children are vulnerable to becoming victims of human rights violations, such as sexual and economic exploitation and trafficking, and their situation requires special attention. Unaccompanied children should never be detained purely on the basis of their migratory or residence status, or lack thereof, nor should they be criminalised solely for reasons of irregular entry or presence in the country.[ii] Unaccompanied children should be treated as children first and placed in the alternative care system, either family-type or institutional care. Under no circumstances should they be left on their own, as this leaves them vulnerable to violence. States should systematically appoint an independent and competent guardian as soon as the unaccompanied or separated child is identified, and maintain such guardianship arrangements until the child has either reached the age of majority or has permanently left the jurisdiction of the state. It is important that the guardian not only take care of administrative processes related to the immigration status, but that he or she advocate for the child’s rights and best interests in all aspects of life, including preventing their detention.[iii]  In order to be able to protect the best interests of the child, the guardian should be independent of the immigration authorities and should have the authority and means to appoint a lawyer to represent the child in all proceedings affecting their rights. States should undertake every effort to quickly reunite children with other family members, if considered in their best interests, taking into account their own opinion and how they see their future.  The detention of children with their parents is often justified by states using article 9 of the CRC, which affirms that children shall not be separated from their parents against their will. However, Article 2 of the CRC provides that “children {shall} not to be punished for the acts of their parents, legal guardians or family members”. Hence, not only may the detention of children violate the ‘best interests’ principle, but it may also violate their right not be punished for the acts of their parents. Absurdly, I have personally observed families detained in the same detention centre, but separated in three groups (women, girls and infants; male teenagers; adult males), with only one daily hour of common family time.  A decision to detain migrants who are accompanied by their children should therefore only be taken in very exceptional circumstances: the vast majority of families with children should be offered alternatives to detention. Such non-custodial measures may include registration requirements, deposit of documents, reasonable bond/bail or surety/guarantor, reporting requirements, and case management/supervised release. When applying alternatives to detention, States need to make sure they respect children’s rights, including to education, to the enjoyment of the highest possible standard of health, to an adequate standard of living, to rest, leisure and play, to practice their own religion and use their own language. In conclusion, children, whether unaccompanied or travelling with their family, should never be detained for the sole reason of their administrative status or that of their parents, as it can never ever be in their best interest. Irregular migration is not a crime and extremely few of those children do present any danger to society. Children should be treated as children first and non-custodial alternatives to detention should be offered to all such unaccompanied children and to families with children.[i] IOM and UNICEF data brief: “Migration of children to Europe”. http://www.iom.int/sites/default/files/press_release/file/IOM-UNICEF-Data-Brief-Refugee-and-Migrant-Crisis-in-Europe-30.11.15.pdf[ii] See General Comment of the Committee on the Rights of the Child No. 6 (2005) on treatment of unaccompanied and separated children outside their country of origin.[iii] The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has stated that, given the availability of alternatives to detention, it is difficult to conceive of a situation in which the detention of an unaccompanied minor would comply with the requirements stipulated in the CRC.
Finding the glass slipper that fits: What policy options can promote a child-oriented asylum policy in EU Member States?
Article Article

Finding the glass slipper that fits: What policy options can promote a child-oriented asylum policy in EU Member States?

Despite the intense focus on the unprecedented numbers of migrants and asylum seekers landing on European shores since 2015, one critical characteristic has been overlooked: children form a significant percentage of these inflows. This reality is posing a new challenge for policymakers, not least how best to receive and integrate this often vulnerable group. The struggles that European Union (EU) Member States face in dealing with the care of these children and in ensuring their rights vary from country to country. The diverse reception conditions for child migrants are shaped by receiving countries’ history, culture, social movements, and tradition of migration. Policy responses therefore cannot be “one size fits all,” and governments require a range of options that can be adapted to the country context and the particulars of the children they host. Even in countries with a strong record on child protection, the mobilization of additional human and financial resources in response to the migration surge proved incapable of keeping up with the pace at which child migrants were referred to services. In Sweden, where the arrival of unaccompanied minors surged from 7000 in 2014 to 35,000 the following year, the standard of placing these children in specialized reception facilities could not be upheld. The result: girls were at times placed within group housing for boys. And in the Netherlands, when spaces in dedicated centres for unaccompanied children ran out last year, new arrivals were housed in the former Ministry of Employment building.A well-functioning child protection system can also see a lowering of standards when migration authorities devise a general emergency measure to respond to overall flows and ignore the knock-on effects for children. Several EU Member States (for example, Austria, Belgium and Sweden) developed a dispersal policy in 2015 to enable their reception systems to respond swiftly to a large influx and in a manner that involved most, if not all, local authorities. However, the dispersal criteria centred on the degree to which these localities already hosted asylum seekers and persons dependent on social benefits. Other dimensions of migrant reception and integration, such as education and access to the labour market, were overlooked. In Austria, some newly erected reception centres are located in remote areas, at considerable distance from towns and local schools. As a result, child migrants may be relegated to classes organized within the reception centres, which are often restricted to language instruction rather than general education. The lack of capacity to uphold the conditions outlined in existing legislation concerning child migrants represents another recurring problem. Italian law, for example, foresees the appointment of a legal guardian within 48 hours of an unaccompanied minor coming to the attention of authorities. In practice, however, it may take weeks, if not months, for a child to be given a legal guardian. And the caseloads for these guardians may rapidly escalate; the local authority of Rome, for example, employed 16 guardians last year to oversee the cases of 3,500 unaccompanied children – an average of 219 children per guardian. This low guardian-to-child ratio curtails the ability of (legal) representatives to assess and respond to the needs of their young charges. Countries that had little prior experience handling such cases – for example Slovenia, which registered 85 asylum seekers under the age of 18 in 2015 (as compared to 13,630 in Belgium) – face an even greater gap in capacity and know-how when migratory flows suddenly shift in their direction.In the worst scenario, seen during last year’s surge, child migrants arrived in states where austerity measures had already cut into the provision of public services, ranging from education, health and social care to child protection. For example, the Serbian Centre for Protection and Assistance of Refugees could enroll into the formal education system only 30 of the 1,300 migrant children who were referred between September 2014 and May 2015. In Greece, many children continue to be detained on the Greek islands rather than being placed in dedicated, safe facilities on the mainland because of persistent shortages of available places. Last, but not least, lack of political will represents another reason why states are not treating child migrants in line with EU asylum and migration rights and obligations (the ‘acquis’). While Hungary adopted the Child Protection Act in 1997, the law has since been modified 204 times and the lack of issuance of related guidelines and coordination structures has hampered its implementation. Yet 43 per cent of all children living in Hungary are considered at risk of poverty, and ethnic minority children face institutionalised discrimination in hospitals and schools. When migrants began to arrive in significant numbers last year, the Hungarian government responded by erecting a wall, criminalising unauthorized entry, and publicly declaring that migrants should not seek international protection there. As a result, breaches of child rights and substandard reception and integration of child migrants are recurring problems in Hungary.What options could policymakers at national and EU level consider if states are to improve the implementation of the child rights and entitlements that are enshrined in EU asylum and migration acquis?First, the value of another round of legislative reform at EU level, however pertinent, is dwarfed by the returns that investments in implementing existing legislation could generate. Concretely, existing EU funding instruments, such as those under the aegis of the Directorates General for Home Affairs, Justice and Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection, could mainstream child rights and fund a variety of related activities. These could range from the set-up of new child-oriented services to the training of staff of existing organizations and creating welcoming societies for children and their families. Second, each EU Member State could design an emergency plan in case of mass influx that takes into account the particular needs of child migrants and other vulnerable groups. Among the issues that these emergency plans should consider are: optimal locations to set up emergency reception centres where children are housed (e.g. vicinity to a school), which criteria or dispersal key to use to match asylum seekers or refugees with local authorities, and how to rapidly muster a pool of guardians in the event of rising unaccompanied child arrivals. A multidisciplinary team of child experts should be involved in the design of these plans.Third, a useful policy tool would be to embed child expertise within government authorities responsible for supervising the general reception and integration of migrants. There is an emerging practice of convening cross-government committees and task forces to discuss ongoing responses to migration and asylum issues. The inclusion of a child expert is essential to ensure sufficient focus on the needs of children. Such an expert could weigh in on debates including: the construction of reception places suitable for families; the duty of school directors, doctors, and other service providers to report on the presence of irregular migrants; and the provision of services that prepare unaccompanied children for the transition to adulthood. At EU level, this approach could be mirrored by a team of child experts drawn from organizations such as UNICEF, NGOs, and the academic community who would be carefully incorporated in the organization and operations of the European Asylum Support Office (EASO). Finally, in contexts where there is limited expertise on what child migrants need and how to address this, the deployment of rapid response teams should be considered. The Blue Dot hubs that UNICEF and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees created in early 2016 illustrate the potential of devising a swift initial response in regions new to mixed migration flows and that lack the necessary infrastructure and know-how. This combined approach of immediate response and capacity building for local service providers could render these teams a temporary measure, while fostering durable change within the national asylum and child protection systems. The rapid release of funds to finance such initiatives is of essence here.The migration crisis exposed the variety of challenges that affect even the best resourced EU Member States when dealing with the reception and integration of children who may be traveling unaccompanied and under arduous conditions. At a time when EU and national policymakers are in the process of redesigning entire parts of the asylum and migration system, the plight of this uniquely vulnerable population must be at the forefront of their minds and actions.  
Asia’s Child Migrants
Article Article

Asia’s Child Migrants

Leaving one’s birthplace to move to a new region or country has been one of the central features of human civilisation. An estimated 214 million people worldwide are international migrants and 740 million people are internal migrants.[i] Migration is not always a negative experience. Yet, the contemporary history of migration is replete with stories of conflict, persecution, economic hardship and trauma. Data from the UN agencies tell us that we are now witnessing the highest levels of displacement on record.  An unprecedented 65.3 million people around the world have been forced from home. Among them are nearly 21.3 million refugees.[ii]  There are also 10 million stateless people. Though the UNHCR provides most of the data for displaced persons, there is not enough precise collection, analysis and distribution of age and sex-disaggregated data on overall migration flows. A very large number of displaced children living close to camps and elsewhere are undocumented.  What we do know is that children represent about half of the displaced population globally. According to the UNHCR the Asia Pacific Region is home to 3.5 million refugees, 1.9 million internally displaced persons and 1.4 million stateless people.  The majority originate from Afghanistan and Myanmar.[iii] Although both voluntary and involuntary migration occur in Asia, the prevalent flows are of temporary labour migrants.[iv]  Migration is a major driver of social and economic change in Asia.  Asia hosts some of the largest numbers of child migrants under the age of 18, who migrate internally and across national borders, with or without their parents. Some of the key concerns raised by humanitarian actors who work with migrant children in Asia are: incitement to violence; sexual and gender based violence (SGBV) and impunity; child labour and trafficking; extortion, arbitrary arrest and torture; humanitarian needs; statelessness and identity; segregation and property rights; discriminatory restrictions on family life; freedom of movement; and, and crimes against humanity. This commentary provides a brief overview of the experiences of two of the major child migrant groups in the region, Rohingya and Afghan children.  It also offers some reflections on how the international and local actors can respond to the predicaments experienced by a child migrant.  Experiences of Child Migrants in AsiaThe Rohingya population is one of the most persecuted, marginalised and disenfranchised groups in the world.  Through Myanmar’s state-sponsored exclusion policies Rohingyas were made aliens in their own land.  The forced migration of Rohingyas that generated the recent crisis beginning from 1942 is well documented. Some of the key exclusion policies and strategies that started with the military coup after which freedom of movement was restricted in 1962 include: the promulgation of the Emergency Immigration Act designed to prevent Rohingya re-entering from India, China and Bangladesh in 1974; the census program Nagamin, to check identification cards and take action against ‘illegal aliens’ in 1977; and finally the 1982 Citizenship Law following the 1978 exodus when many Rohingyas returned or attempted to return to Burma/Myanmar.  The strict licensing system to restrict movements, deportation and forced labour, land grabbing and torture have made the living conditions harsh for Rohingyas in their own homeland.  Racial hatred has been a significant factor in the human rights abuses perpetrated against Rohingyas.In 1942 a significant event of internal displacement resulted from communal violence in Burma/Myanmar, which enveloped the whole of Arakan State.  The Buddhist Rakhine and the Muslim Rohingya were engaged in a bitter battle after which the Buddhist Arakanese moved to the South and the Muslim Rohingyas to the north, including 22,000 who crossed the border to Bengal.  A second wave of migration occurred in 1977, prior to a nationwide census project during the military operation Nagamin to register citizens and screen out foreigners.  Over 200,000 Rohingya fled across the border in Bangladesh. During 1991 and 1992, more than 270,000 Rohingya refugees crossed the border from Burma/Myanmar.  With them they brought their experiences of horrific violence, forced labor, rape, executions and torture.  Two refugee camps in Bangladesh have hosted 28,000 Rohingyas from Burma/Myanmar for more than 16 years. In addition, an estimated 200,000 Rohingyas live outside the camps in Bangladesh.Most recently, after a series of communal riots in 2012, Rohingya families were again forced to move. Thailand permitted 2,055 Rohingya migrants to enter the country in 2013.  However, they were treated as illegal migrants and did not receive any protection traditionally provided to refugees. Human rights groups observed that the Thai government did not carry out regular age assessment procedures and lacked adequate screening to identify children.[v]  Even after the family members confirmed their ages, many children were forced to remain in detention centers.  Unaccompanied children also remained in the detention centers facing innumerable risks.Boys from rural and poor areas, mainly from Burma/Myanmar and Cambodia are trafficked and delivered to fishing ports in Southeast Asia. Some extreme forms of exploitation occur in Asia’s fishing industry due to poor regulation and a lack of political will to end the rights violations. Thousands of Rohingya children, particularly older boys have been trafficked through three trafficking camps in Southern Thailand.  Many of them were also held for ransom or sold to fishing boats.  Thailand’s seafood industry, worth an estimated $7.3bn a year uses them as manual labourers.  As a battleground for several intra-state and international conflicts, including the Cold War and the Global War on Terror, the Afghan socio-political infrastructure has been deeply affected.  While the Unites States of America-led international military intervention that ousted the Taliban regime was generally welcomed by the Afghan public, the statebuilding and peacebuilding efforts in Afghanistan have had limited success. One of the largest recorded events of displacement in history occurred in Afghanistan in 1979.  A mass exodus of refugees from Afghanistan began in 1979 following the Soviet invasion.  This group still constitutes the second-largest refugee group and the world’s most protracted refugee situation.  At the height of the displacement there were 6 million Afghans exiles.Currently some 2.6 million, representing 18 per cent of the global refugee population are under UNHCR’s mandate.[vi] About half of them are children.  Pakistan hosts 1.5 million registered Afghan refugees (10.5 per cent). While more than half of the registered refugee population is under the age of 15, 64 per cent are between 5-14 years and youth 15-24 make up another 20 per cent.[vii] Many Afghan children, usually male children between 13 to 17 have embarked on unaccompanied journeys.  Child migrants frequently work in physically demanding, harmful and dangerous situations. Internally displaced children employed in Afghanistan’s brick making industry start as early as five.  Their days begin at 4 am and end in nightfall.  Child labour has persisted and been reconstituted from traditional forms to become even more exploitative. Afghan refugee children in Pakistan are employed in potentially hazardous businesses such as shipwrecking, gem mining, construction, commercial farming, deep-sea fishing, and transporting goods and services.  One of the central themes of Pakistan’s counter-terrorism policy is to ensure mandatory return of unregistered Afghans.  In May 2016 for example, more than 2,000 refugees were arrested and 400 deported.[viii]  Undocumented Afghan children were returned, and many experienced secondary displacement inside Afghanistan.[ix] Protection and Justice for Child MigrantsThe international humanitarian discourses provide us with some insights on how in the age of the ‘Global War on Terror’, those who are forced to move are no longer welcome and are seen as security threats.  While citizens can be under surveillance and, at the same time ‘protected’ from outside threats, illegal immigrants, refugees, stateless people and internally displaced people remain as threats, thus creating moral and ethical dilemmas for states.  Although it is poor practice as a member of the international community and detrimental for the global image to send away refugees, governments often claim that it is imperative for state security and for the protection of citizens.  In this kind of security architecture, borders are strictly controlled; Identity differences are accentuated and securitized.Three durable solutions: voluntary repatriation; local integration; or resettlement, are options available to address the ‘refugee cycle’. Current debates on migration control offer new opportunities in the search for solutions. When durable solutions are delayed, children, in particular, are vulnerable to exploitation, discrimination and violence. The interests of states in resolving these pressures can best be met by providing effective protection in regions of origin.A significant number of child migrants in Asia live in or near refugee/IDP camps.   Children are particularly marginalised and vulnerable in these environments. Civil society organisations can play a crucial role in the promotion and protection of the rights of child migrants.  In environments where child protection laws have limited reach and are poorly enforced, appropriate family and community support systems are crucial.  Grass roots protection strategies can contribute to addressing displacement by strengthening resilience, rebuilding social networks and creating safe spaces. Although human trafficking as a transnational crime and advocacy on prevention, redress, policy response and treatment of the victims has received attention, there has been little focus on developing grass roots solutions, including through a gender justice approach, to protect displaced children. While the role of international and national agencies is crucial, we also need to explore how local organisations and networks can contribute to the design and implementation of policies that protect children on the ground. One key question is to consider how do protection measures enable and constrain children’s justice? How do they affect a displaced child’s participation, access to economic resources and her/his exposure to gender-based violence? How are rights, protection and justice understood and negotiated inside and outside camp environments? Another significant gap in the scholarship is the experience of displaced girls’. While a range of education and health programs exist, interventions to improve adolescent girls’ knowledge and access to justice are rare. Pregnant girls, in particular, have limited access to schooling or quality vocational and technical training, contributing to their extreme vulnerability and lack of agency. Girls are identified as a high-risk group requiring special assistance and protection, and are often defined solely by their perceived vulnerability. However, experiences on the ground show that displaced girls have skills, knowledge and experience that could be fostered. For example, the YWCA of Sri Lanka through its three Service Groups focuses on girls and youth activism. The success of the YWCA ‘Young Women Lead Change’ project in Jaffna and micro-credit and education programs in Batticaloa indicate that partner collaboration, training and advocacy are key issues for internally displaced girls and young women. Their participation in protection design, implementation, education and training is imperative. Despite the increasingly securitized stance of States, their policies can make a significant difference. Since 2001, in Afghanistan, school enrolment has increased from 900,000 to more than 6 million. Many of them are returnees. Importantly, the proportion of girls in schools has risen from almost nil to 35 per cent. The number of teachers has grown sevenfold - again, many of them returnees - and the number of schools have doubled.[x]  On the other hand, Rohingya children of Myanmar are lucky to complete fourth grade. A vast majority of Rohingya children, approximately 60 percent of them have never been to school due to poverty.  There are only five government schools for all of 12 Rohingya camps in the Western Rakhine State of Myanmar. The government excludes Rohingya children from accessing higher education in the name of maintaining peace. Local and international actors need to work together to develop a more child sensitive and child responsive mechanisms. The best interests of the child migrant must be at the heart of such mechanisms.______________________________________________________ [i] http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---asia/---ro-bangkok/documents/genericdocument/wcms_322637.pdf [ii] http://www.unhcr.org/figures-at-a-glance.html[iii] http://www.unhcr.org/asia-and-the-pacific.html[iv] http://www.unescap.org/sites/default/files/SDD%20AP%20Migration%20Report%20report%20v6-1-E.pdf, page 9[v] https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/01/06/thailand-protect-rohingya-boat-children [vi] http://www.unhcr.org/protection/operations/542522922/afghanistan-regional-portfolio-solutions-strategy-afghan-refugees-20152016.html?query=Afghanistan [vii] Ibid. page 5.[viii] http://www.reuters.com/article/us-pakistan-refugees-afghanistan-idUSKCN0ZF173[ix] http://www.voanews.com/a/afghanistan-returning-refugees-pakistan/2795211.html [x] http://www.unhcr.org/news/latest/2014/11/546de94f9/challenge-life-afghan-homeland-children-born-exile.html?query=Afghanistan 
Unaccompanied minors from Afghanistan: problems and protection in the European Union
Article Article

Unaccompanied minors from Afghanistan: problems and protection in the European Union

Introduction  Recent research papers regarding unaccompanied minors in Europe and their psychological care were reviewed in order to inform UN agencies and European policy makers of the unique mental health needs of minors arriving in Europe without adult companions. A special focus of this review is placed on unaccompanied Afghan minors, as they constituted 51% of unaccompanied asylum applications in the European Union (EU) in 2015. Unaccompanied minors are a particularly vulnerable subset of refugees. Several research studies have shown that, psychologically speaking, the stress and challenges associated with travelling and resettling without a parent or trusted adult, lead to higher rates of depression and symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), compared to other refugee and migrant groups.[1] [2] [3] [4]Reasons for greater emotional difficulties include: separation from families and networks, hardships and stressors faced early in life, and exposure to violence both in their home country and on their journey. Once they have arrived in the EU a new set of stressors related to resettlement impacts these children, including barriers to education, increased isolation, frequent moves, and mistrust and misunderstanding of the asylum process. Despite all these challenges, many unaccompanied minors possess strong agency and high adaptive functioning.[5]Understanding who the unaccompanied minors areFor the past 30 years, Afghans have been one of the largest groups of asylum seekers in Europe. The reasons may seem apparent; the grim insecurity and fragility inside Afghanistan is protracted and pervasive. As long as there is a lack of livelihood and low levels of safety in the country, it seems likely that Afghans will continue to seek stability and survival elsewhere.[6]  Large numbers of Afghans began migrating in the late 1980s, but the demographics of who is moving, and to where, have shifted. While many Afghans used to flee to the neighbouring countries of Iran and Pakistan, in recent years, these countries have increasingly become unwelcoming to Afghans, who consequently have sought refuge elsewhere. In 2014, Afghans were the largest group arriving in Greece.[7] Unaccompanied minors – primarily boys –are now one of the largest subsections of Afghans arriving in Europe today.[8]Many of these unaccompanied minors are second-generation refugees with little or no connection to Afghanistan. Most of them are ethnic Hazaras who were born in Iran or arrived there when they were very young. Over the past decade, Iran has made it increasingly difficult for Afghan children to receive residency permits or access education, and there are now severe restrictions on Afghans’ movement. As a result, many Afghan families are now making the difficult decision of letting their children leave Iran for Europe on their own.[9] [10] Risk Factors[11]  With very little money, socially isolated and sometimes armed with incorrect information, unaccompanied Afghan minors embark on a dangerous journey to reach northern Europe. Research has documented the threats unaccompanied Afghan minors face on their journey, including physical and sexual violence and other forms of exploitation.[12] What unaccompanied minors endure in transit is further compounded by high expectations and pressure not to disappoint family back home, as parents have often entered into considerable debt in order to finance their trip.[13] While the detrimental influence of political conflicts, war, and forced migration on the mental health of asylum-seeking individuals is well documented, until recently the challenges they face after resettlement are less well known.[14] A 2014 longitudinal study of 103 unaccompanied minors in Belgium measured their well-being 18 months after arrival. They found that unaccompanied minors still have high rates of anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder 18 months after resettlement, suggesting possible long-term persistence of mental health challenges.[15]It has been reported that among many Afghan minors, ‘success’ is equated with reaching Sweden or Norway.  This adds to the tremendous internal and external pressure arising from the  perceived psychological and financial debt that minors feel towards their families. In qualitative interviews gathered in 2015, these pressures led some unaccompanied minors to self-isolate after resettlement.[16] The same research highlighted the sobering realities of life after resettlement, including language barriers, complicated asylum processes and discrimination. It was reported that some Afghan minors do not feel comfortable telling their families about these realities, and instead begin to isolate themselves; this creates a barrier between unaccompanied minors and their family, affecting an integral relationship that would otherwise act as a psychological buffer to protect against the stress of relocation.While every country and migrant subset is unique, a 2013 study of unaccompanied minors in the United Kingdom (UK) found that they rarely accessed mental health care. Newly resettled unaccompanied minors with depressive symptoms were more likely to access the mental health system than those with symptoms similar to PTSD,[17] suggesting that those who had endured trauma were less likely to engage with the mental health care system. That finding is particularly worrying since mental health care for refugees at an early stage can prevent both the aggravation and continuation of emotional problems.[18] As a result of the UK study, researchers and those who work with unaccompanied minors advocated for better mental health screening tools in reception centres and during the asylum process.  Protective FactorsIt is important to emphasize that even when exposed to risks, not all unaccompanied minors develop depression or PTSD. The ‘agency’ of unaccompanied minors should always be respected and taken into account. Research on resilience has examined protective factors that buffer unaccompanied minors from mental health issues.  A 2012 study pinpointed several individual factors such as high intelligence, easy temperament, and good coping and problem-solving skills. Social aspects such as close ties to at least one parent are also linked to resilience, as well as engagement in communities based at school and place of worship.[19] Education can also play a crucial role in an unaccompanied minor’s adjustment and resettlement process. At school, children can learn the host language, establish a routine, experience a sense of purpose, and begin to build a peer network.[20]  However, while the context of the school should be considered, it should not always be assumed to be pro-social. A survey of mental health in Sweden showed high rates of bullying and associated depressive symptoms among unaccompanied minors in schools that do not have many children of non-Swedish descent.[21] A recent study in Norway highlights the crucial role that family and peer networks may play, even across long distances and national borders. In essence, family and peer-networks – even when located thousands of kilometers away – serve different and important purposes in the acculturation process of the young unaccompanied refugees.[22] It is important to note that these relationships often act as a healthy buffer to guard against developing symptoms of depression and PTSD. As mentioned earlier, if an unaccompanied minor experiences too much pressure or stress during resettlement – external or internal – they may isolate themselves from family and peer relationships and may thus become more vulnerable to developing mental health issues. Suggestions for policy makersStreamline asylum processes across and within countries: since frequent moves and the distrust of an overly complicated or poorly communicated asylum process has negative effects on unaccompanied minors’ well-being,  these processes should be communicated as much as possible in a child-friendly and clear way in the child’s native language. Better access to mental health care: since unaccompanied minors are particularly vulnerable and more likely than other refugee groups to experience symptoms of depression and post traumatic stress, they should be screened and offered care as part of the resettlement process. Rather than having to seek out care within a possibly complicated system of the host state, there should be a mental health-care process within the agencies that serve unaccompanied minors.   Psycho-education regarding the phases and potential problems of resettlement: in order to temper the internal and external pressures that an unaccompanied minor places on his or herself, they should be provided with evidence-based psycho-education regarding the readjustment process as part of their resettlement. They should be encouraged to keep open lines of communication with friends and family in the home country.[23]School: since resuming school has proven to be key on psychological and social levels, immediate access to meaningful education opportunities, with safeguards against bullying, is key in protecting and improving an unaccompanied minor’s psychosocial well-being. Staying connected with family and peer support group: encourage minors to maintain ties with parent and peers at home and in their community, especially when life in the new country is difficult. Encourage minors to join peer communities and/or live with a peer group in the host country. ___________________________ [1] Paraphrasing: Spallek, J., Tempes, J., Ricksgers, H., Marquardt, L., Prüfer-Krämer, L., & Krämer, A. (2016). Gesundheitliche Situation und Versorgung unbegleiteter minderjähriger Flüchtlinge – eine Näherung anhand qualitativer und quantitativer Forschung in der Stadt Bielefeld. Bundesgesundheitsblatt - Gesundheitsforschung - Gesundheitsschutz, 59(5), 636–641.[2] Sanchez-Cao, E., Kramer, T., & Hodes, M. (2013). Psychological distress and mental health service contact of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children: Mental health service contact of asylum-seeking children. Child: Care, Health and Development, 39(5), 651–659.[3] Vervliet, M., Meyer Demott, M. A., Jakobsen, M., Broekaert, E., Heir, T., & Derluyn, I. (2014). The mental health of unaccompanied refugee minors on arrival in the host country. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 55(1), 33–37.[4] Oppedal, B., & Idsoe, T. (2015). The role of social support in the acculturation and mental health of unaccompanied minor asylum seekers. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 56(2), 203–211.[5] ibid.[6] Antonio-Donini, A., & Monsutti, G. S. (2016). Afghans on the move: seeking protection and refuge in Europe. (Research No. 17) (p. 48). The Graduate Institute of Geneva, Switzerland: Global Migration Research Paper.[7] ibid.[8] ibid.[9] ibid.[10] May, Michelle (2015). A Report Card: Iran and its Afghan Children. The Guardian Newspaper. [11] Risk factors before reaching destination: Loss of a parent, separation from family and community, enduring multiple traumas, including war. Risks after reaching destination: discrimination, language difficulties, frequent moves, self imposed isolation/not reconnecting with family back home due to shame of difficulties in new life.[12] Antonio-Donini, A., & Monsutti, G. S. (2016). op. cit.[13] ibid.[14] Vervliet et al. (2014) op. cit. [15] Ibid.[16] Antonio-Donini, A., & Monsutti, G. S. (2016) op. cit. [17] Sanchez-Cao, E., Kramer, T., & Hodes, M. (2013). Psychological distress and mental health service contact of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children: Mental health service contact of asylum-seeking children. Child: Care, Health and Development, 39(5), 651–659.[18] Vervliet et al. op cit.[19] Carlson, B., Cacciatore, J., & Klimek, B. (2012). A Risk and Resilience Perspective on Unaccompanied Refugee Minors. Social Work, 57(3), 259.[20] Eide, K., & Hjern, A. (2013). Unaccompanied refugee children - vulnerability and agency. Acta Paediatrica, 102(7), 666–668.[21] Ibid.[22] Oppedal, B., & Idsoe, T. (2015). The role of social support in the acculturation and mental health of unaccompanied minor asylum seekers. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 56(2), 203–211.[23] Thommessen, S. A. O., Corcoran, P., & Todd, B. K. (2015) op. cit.
Age, Gender and Policymaking on Migration: What are the links?
Article Article

Age, Gender and Policymaking on Migration: What are the links?

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development calls on all member states to ‘ensure safe, orderly and regular migration with full respect for human rights and for the humane treatment of migrants, regardless of their migration status, and of refugees and internally displaced persons’.[i] Yet each week brings reports of failures to protect the rights of some of the most vulnerable groups of migrants and refugees. We hear of unaccompanied children’s perilous journeys to Europe and the United States. They are fleeing violence and conflict in their countries of origin but instead of being able to access safe migration routes and humane treatment, they are met by closed borders, criminal gangs, exploitation and indifference to their plight.[ii] Bilateral and third country agreements have been put in place in efforts to manage or reduce migration, but these agreements are reported to seriously threaten the human rights of migrants and refugees, particularly vulnerable groups such as girls and women. [iii]Reports of increasing forced displacement and escalating ‘refugee crises’ have been matched by perceptions of migration that incite fear, defensiveness and even violence, depicting refugees and migrants as uncontrolled and unwelcome crowds threatening national borders. These perceptions also disguise the fact that the majority of the world’s refugee population are not en route to rich, developed countries, but residing in neighbouring countries within their own region.[iv] When we group all refugees and migrants together indiscriminately, we miss out on vital information, we fail to address the specific needs of vulnerable groups, and we help to strengthen racism, xenophobia and indifference to the plight of others. So why is it important to talk about age and gender equality? Why does policymaking on migration need to take an age- and gender-sensitive approach? Migration cannot be approached, understood or managed without recognising that, just like the populations of our societies, people on the move are all different. Without thinking about age and gender equality in the context of migration, we would never know, for example, that:  Women and under-18s together make up around 70 per cent of the world’s internally displaced population.[v]75% of South Sudanese refugees in Kenya’s Kakuma camp are women and girls.[vi]In 2015, 98,400 asylum applications by unaccompanied children were processed across 78 countries. This is the highest number of such applications on record.[vii]Of the 23,160 asylum applications made in the EU in 2014 by those considered to be unaccompanied and separated children, 19,915 were boys.[viii]Women and girls are vulnerable to sexual and gender-based violence at all stages of migration journeys, even when they have reached places of supposed safety.[ix]Without a gender and age sensitive approach to policymaking, we cannot fully understand the needs, experiences and motivations of refugees and migrants. Without it, policymaking cannot address migration and forced displacement at its root causes, and it cannot promote and enable the opportunities that migration offers. Age, gender and migration journeysMigration journeys take place within countries, regions and internationally. Decisions to migrate may be forced, in situations of conflict and disaster, or they may involve different degrees of choice and agency, and combinations of motivation and coercion. Characteristics such as gender and age (along with others such as ethnicity, health, sexual orientation and religion) play a strong role in influencing who migrates and how, and who stays where they are.When thinking about the gender and age dimensions of migration, it is important to think not only about women and men, but also girls and boys. Migrant children might travel with their parents or guardians, with other adults or alone. They might migrate in regular or irregular ways, and move between categories such as unaccompanied, independent, internally displaced, asylum seeking, trafficked and smuggled. In many countries, migration is seen as a rite of passage for young people. Children may migrate in search of work, education, or simply to mark a transition into adolescence or young adulthood. One example is Ghana, where there are established and relatively safe migration paths, travelled regularly by children, along with family, friends or relatives. In Tanzania, 23 per cent of households have male children and 17 per cent female children who have migrated elsewhere.[x] If opportunities are not available for children to migrate safely, for example in order to be unified with family members in other countries, they may make dangerous journeys, including those arranged by smugglers, during which they are vulnerable to abuse and violence.[xi] The types of discrimination and persecution that children face in countries of origin are gendered in nature, and so are opportunities to move or escape. In Afghanistan, a country producing large numbers of unaccompanied asylum seeking teenage boys, boys are targeted by the Taliban for conscription.[xii] Afghan girls also face severe discrimination in different forms, but they are far less likely to make unaccompanied journeys. In Ethiopia and Sudan, increasing numbers of unaccompanied Eritrean children – mainly boys, but also some girls – are arriving in refugee camps. Fear of military conscription, lack of education, unemployment and desire to join a family member in another country are behind these children’s journeys.[xiii]It is also important to consider who is left behind, either in countries of origin or in transit countries. The fact that the majority of the Eritrean refugee population in Ethiopia and Sudan are male indicates that more women and girls are staying behind. The disproportionate number of male unaccompanied asylum seeking children in Europe suggests that many girls remain in countries of conflict and instability.Age, gender and life as a refugee or migrantOnce refugees and migrants reach a destination country, their gender- and aged-based experiences continue – in healthcare, education, employment and integration. Access to education is a problem for many migrant and refugee children and young people. In protracted situations of conflict, refugees may spend their whole childhood in displacement, without schooling. Displaced girls are even less likely to attend school than boys.[xiv] Migration to a more developed region does not automatically bring improved learning outcomes. In 2012, migrants aged 15-34 years in OECD countries were more likely than their native-born counterparts to be out of employment, education or training. Young immigrant women were particularly highly represented in this category.[xv] Migrant children also experience poorer health outcomes. In 2013, 50 per cent of children treated by Medecins du Monde-International (an organization for whom 50 per cent of patients are undocumented migrants) in 25 European cities had not been vaccinated against hepatitis B, measles or whooping cough.[xvi] Women migrants in many countries experience unequal access to healthcare services – often as a result of institutional and language barriers. This is particularly problematic given women’s sexual and reproductive healthcare needs and the fact that they are often responsible for children’s health care.[xvii]What can we do to address these issues? How can age and gender perspectives be integrated into policymaking on migration?Policymakers have yet to bring the challenges and risks faced by migrating women and girls, as well as other vulnerable groups such as unaccompanied boys, to the forefront of the migration agenda.[xviii] Approaches and strategies for managing migration are often developed in what is seen as a gender and/or age ‘neutral’ way; they do not take into account the different experiences and needs of women, men, girls and boys. The effects of such approaches, however, are far from neutral in terms of gender and age. Women, girls, boys and older people tend to lose out when strategies are based on a male breadwinner model. So what should policymakers be thinking about when developing national and regional approaches to migration that take age and gender equality into account? Below are some suggestions.[xix]Impact assess all new policy on migration (and existing policies that have not been assessed in this way) to ensure that the human rights of people of all genders and ages are respected and that relevant international standards such as the UN Convention on the Protection of the Rights of all Migrant Workers and Members of their Families, and the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child are adhered to. Ensure that migration policies and practices treat children as individual rights holders, whether they are accompanied by adults or not. Create and maintain safe and legal channels for people fleeing conflict and persecution, and develop special measures to ensure that vulnerable groups such as girls, boys, women, older and disabled people can access formal migration channels and do not resort to life threatening sea and land journeys.Discontinue the immigration detention of children, families with children and other vulnerable groups including survivors of sexual and gender-based violence and pregnant women. Cease the separation of families through detention. Develop family reunification policies that take a rights-based approach and do not discriminate on the grounds of gender or age, or perpetuate existing inequalities. Implement these policies in a timely way, most especially for refugees and asylum seekers including unaccompanied children, so that family members can join their relatives safely and avoid being stranded in transit. Ensure that migrant and refugee children and women have equal access to education, health and social services, and shelter regardless of residence status.Work with local women’s and children’s organisations to develop mechanisms to detect vulnerable groups on arrival and provide tailored services such as women only and family/child spaces, and sexual and gender based violence protection and prevention services.Build the capacity of state, regional and local governments, along with organisations working on the ground with migrants and refugees to collect, analyse and use data disaggregated by migratory status, gender and age (and the other characteristics specified in Global Goal 17.18). Ensure that this takes place in transit as well as destination countries, and in internally displaced populations too. Of course this is not easy. There are many obstacles faced by those who wish to create, implement and evaluate gender- and age-sensitive migration policies that can have real impacts in practice. These include restricted resources, negative public opinion around migration, fast moving humanitarian situations and weak institutional capacity for mainstreaming equality issues. But we cannot afford not to develop and implement these policies. Decision makers need to be aware of, willing to take action on, and not indifferent to, the plight of vulnerable groups of refugees and migrants. As part of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the new Global Goals for Sustainable Development (SDGs) present an important entry point. In addition to Goal 10, which has a specific target on safe migration, there are nine other goals particularly relevant to migration.[xx] Policymakers should take this opportunity to look at migration in an intersectional way; recognising the specific experiences, needs and strengths of particular groups of migrants and refugees, and addressing these through inclusive, sensitive and evidence based policymaking. This is one step in a journey towards protecting the human rights of some of the most vulnerable and marginalised people around the globe. _____________________________________________ [i] UNDESA (2015) Integrating migration into the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, POPFACTS No. 2015/5, http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/publications/ populationfacts/docs/MigrationPopFacts20155.pdf[ii] Gentlemen, A. (2016) ‘Migrant children are being failed by UK, says Lords committee report’ in The Guardian, 26 July 2016, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/26/unaccompanied-migrant-children-failed-uk-government-lords-eu-committee ; UNICEF (2016) Danger every step of the way: A harrowing journey to Europe for refugee and migrant children, www.unicef.org/emergencies/childrenonthemove/files/Child_Alert_Final_PDF.pdf ; UNICEF (2016) Neither Safe nor Sound: Unaccompanied children on the coastline of the English channel and the north sea, http://www.unicef.org.uk/Latest/Publications/Neither-Safe-Nor-Sound/ ; UNHCR (2014a) Children on the Run: Unaccompanied Children Leaving Central America and Mexico and the Need for International Protection, http://www.unhcr.org/56fc266f4.html [iii] Women’s Refugee Commission (2016) EU Turkey Agreement Failing Refugee Women and Girls, https://www.womensrefugeecommission.org/rights/resources/1357-eu-turkey-agreement[iv] UNHCR (2016) Facts and figures about refugees, http://www.unhcr.ie/about-unhcr/facts-and-figures-about-refugees[v] IDMC (2014) Girl disrupted, http://www. internal-displacement.org/assets/publications/2014/201403-global-girl-disrupted-pic-brief-en.pdf[vi] UNHCR (2015) South Sudan Situation: Regional overview of population of concern, https://data.unhcr.org/SouthSudan/download.php?id=2436[vii] UNHCR (2016) Global Trends: Forced Displacement in 2015, http://www.unhcr.org/news/latest/2016/6/5763b65a4/global-forced-displacement-hits-record-high.html  [viii] Eurostat (2015) Asylum applicants considered to be unaccompanied minors by citizenship, age and sex annual data, http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=migr_asyunaa&lang=en [ix] Birchall, J. (2016) Gender, Age and Migration: An extended briefing, BRIDGE, http://www.bridge.ids.ac.uk/news/new-publication-gender-age-and-migration-extended-briefing[x] Kelly, A. (2010) Leaving Home: Voices of Children on the Move, Global Movement for Children, http://resourcecentre.savethechildren.se/sites/default/files/documents/4914.pdf [xi] Crepeau, F. (2013) ‘The rights of all children in the context of international migration’ in IOM (2013) Children on the Move, http://publications.iom.int/books/children-move[xii] Foreign Policy Journal (2015) ‘The Refugee Crisis and Afghan Asylum Seekers in Europe: Testimony of Youth’, Foreign Policy Journal, http://www.foreignpolicyjournal. com/2015/11/20/the-refugee-crisis-and-afghan-asylum-seekers-in-europe-testimony-of-youth/[xiii] WRC (2013) Young and Astray: Unaccompanied Children from Eritrea, https://womensrefugeecommission.org/images/zdocs/Young_and_ Astray_web.pdf[xiv] WRC (2010) Education for Refugee Children Factsheet, https://womensrefugeecommission.org/programs/youth/research-and-resources/522- education-for-refugee-children-fact-sheet [xv] OECD (2015d), Indicators of Immigrant Integration 2015: Settling In, http://www. oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/download/8115051e.pdf[xvi] Keith, L. and LeVoy, M. (2015) Protecting undocumented children: Promising policies and practices from governments, Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants (PICUM), http://picum.org/picum.org/uploads/publication/Protecting%20 undocumented%20children-Promising%20policies%20and%20practices%20from%20 governments.pdf[xvii] Aspinall, P. and Watters, C. (2010), Refugees and asylum seekers: A review from an equality and human rights perspective, Equality and Human Rights Commission, https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/publication-download/research-report-52-refugees-and-asylum-seekers-review-equality-and-human-rights; Ghosh, J (2009) Migration and Gender Empowerment: Recent Trends and Emerging Issues, UN Development Programme, http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/hdrp_2009_04.pdf; Orozco, A.P. et al (2010) Crossing Borders II: Migration and Development from a Gender Perspective, United Nations International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women (UN-INSTRAW), http://www.globalmigrationgroup.org/sites/default/files/uploads/gmg-topics/gender/UN-Women-Crossing-Borders-II-Conceptual-Framework_2010.pdf[xviii] Bozrikova, T. and Niyazova, A. (2011) Major approaches and principles of mainstreaming gender into migration policy, UN Women, http://www.unwomen-eeca.org/module/project/img/204.pdf ; UNFPA (2015) Policy brief: female migrants, https://www.unitar.org/dcp/sites/unitar.org.dcp/files/uploads/unfpa_-_policy_brief_on_female_migrants.pdf[xix] More detailed and extensive recommendations, as well as some examples of good practice, can be found in Birchall, J. (2016) Gender, Age and Migration: An extended briefing, http://www.bridge.ids.ac.uk/news/new-publication-gender-age-and-migration-extended-briefing[xx] UNDESA (2015) Integrating migration into the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, POPFACTS No. 2015/5, http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/publications/populationfacts/docs/MigrationPopFacts20155.pdf

Full Audio–featured expert interviews

Jacqueline Bhabha, Director, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health

Mike Dottridge, Independent Expert

Simon Parker, DIrector, School of Social and Political Science, University of York

Victoria Rietig, Policy Analyst, Migration Policy Institute

Andrea Rossi, Sr. Social Policy Specialist, UNICEF Mozambique