Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1698060139517.pdf (Liberia)
STILL UNPROTECTED Humanitarian Funding for Child Protection ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report was written by Margot Thierry from Save the Children Norway, with the support of Alvhild Strømme and Katharine Williamson (Save the Children).

Yu Lola Zhou and Amanda Louise Melville (Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees) have written the section on funding for Child Protection in refugee settings.
The report was made in collaboration with the Alliance for Child Protection in Humanitarian Action (the Alliance), the Child Protection Area of Responsibility (CP AoR), and the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).

We would like to thank all those from the Alliance Advocacy Working Group on Child Protection, the CP AoR, and across the Save the Children movement who shared contributions and inputs.
We would also like to thank the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs Financial Tracking Service team for their technical support.
Special thanks go to Anne Marie Turmine, Michael Pearson, Michael Copland and Petra Heusser (CP AoR), Sebastien Laroze Barrit (UNHCR), Amanda Brydon, Øygunn Sundsbø Brynildsen, Ewa Sapiezynska and Lindsay Shearer (Save the Children), Audrey Bollier and Hani Mansourian (the Alliance), Brigid Kennedy Pfister (UNICEF), Erica Hall (World Vision International), Cecilia Anicama (Office of the UN Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Violence against Children) and Kafia Abdurahman Omar (War Child UK).
Most important, we would like to thank the children who shared their testimonies, their feelings and their hopes in the report’s foreword, quotes and case studies.

Names of children portrayed in case studies have been changed to protect identities.

This publication is copyrighted, but may be reproduced by any method without fee or prior permission for teaching purposes, but not for resale.
For copying in any other circumstances, prior written permission must be obtained from the publisher, and a fee may be payable.

Copy-editor: Sarah Finch Design: Anna Maria Pirolt Photos: Save the Children Save the Children © 2020 Save the Children would like to thank the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs for funding this report.

Front cover: “My wish is that one day I would wake up and hear that the Coronavirus is no more and we can go back to school.” Shamiso, 10, Zimbabwe.
PHOTO: SOPHIE HAMANDISHE / SAVE THE CHILDREN TABLE OF CONTENTS Forewords ............................................................................................................................................4 Executive summary ........................................................................................................................6 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................9 Humanitarian funding for child protection 2010-2019 ..............................................11 Child protection funding on UN OCHA FTS .............................................................................11 Child protection funding in 2019 humanitarian response plans ........................................... 15 Child protection funding in refugee settings .............................................................................. 26 Child protection under COVID-19 ....................................................................................... 35 The COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on vulnerable children ....................................... 38 Funding child protection in humanitarian response plans under COVID-19 .................... 42 Conclusion and recommendations ...................................................................................... 46 List of abbreviations .................................................................................................................... 48 Appendices ....................................................................................................................................... 49 Appendix 1: Methodology and data limitations ........................................................................ 50 Appendix 2: Additional tables ........................................................................................................ 53 Appendix 3: Selection of 2019 humanitarian response plans: data and sources ............. 58 Appendix 4: Selection of 2020 humanitarian response plans: data and sources ............ 59 Endnotes .............................................................................................................................................61 STILL UNPROTECTED: HUMANITARIAN FUNDING FOR CHILD PROTECTION • 3 “Every night, I heard firing and bullets sounds.
I smelled and sensed bullets everywhere.

I saw people with guns force their way into our homes.

They exploded bombs and grenades close to our homes.

I witnessed the worst face of war.

I felt as if I had lost my life altogether.

I did not know what was normal anymore.

I wanted to go somewhere far away from all of it.

I can still see it in my head the day they shot my brother.” Poem by Shabana, 14, from Nangrahar province in Afghanistan.
She and her family moved to Kabul to escape the violence at their doorstep.

PHOTO: LYNSEY ADDARIO/SAVE THE CHILDREN FOREWORDS “The biggest change COVID-19 brought into our lives is that we cannot go to school.

To be honest, the lockdown makes us left behind in our studies.

Even now that some schools are open, the teachers are distracted, and the children can’t concentrate.

COVID-19 has made us feel worried, when a guest comes to visit, we cannot greet them properly the way we used to.
We must wash our hands all the time.

Every precaution reminds us about the danger we are in.

Since my father has passed, my mother is the one taking care of our expenses.

But after the COVID-19 outbreak, our situation has become very hard.

We have a small piece of land that we use to grow vegetables, but now, because of the lockdowns, we cannot go there to plant, and there are no customers even to buy them.

Unfortunately, the situation is even worse in our community.
There were days when people did not even have a loaf of bread to eat.

The first and by far most important thing I want from the world leaders is peace.

I want leaders to find a solution for the problems that girls are facing.

We are not seen as equal to boys.


Girls are forced into marriage, so we want the leaders to find a solution so we can enjoy our basic rights.” Mariza, 17 years old, Jawzjan Province, Afghanistan “Beyond the atrocities caused by armed groups, which have weakened families and communities, the COVID-19 pandemic is further complicating children’s lives.

This is reflected by increased stress among children, they become more anxious, clingy, they withdraw, become agitated or start bedwetting.
The situation worsened and became even more difficult with the closing of schools and the physical distancing that does not allow children to freely enjoy their leisure activities.

The explosive rise in prices due to COVID-19 significantly reduced families’ purchasing power.

Confinement, another heavy consequence, has disrupted the community by closing places of worship and preventing attendance at ceremonies.
We would like the world’s leaders to know that we expect a lot from them to be able to fight and survive this situation: we need food to eat, water and soap to wash our hands, we need more awareness around the virus, and schools need to be equipped so we can keep learning.
We call on decision-makers and those with power to urgently assist the most vulnerable families, especially children, in areas already weakened by ongoing conflict.” Hadiza, 18 years old, Diffa region, Niger 4 • STILL UNPROTECTED: HUMANITARIAN FUNDING FOR CHILD PROTECTION STILL UNPROTECTED: HUMANITARIAN FUNDING FOR CHILD PROTECTION • 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Children have a fundamental right to be protected, wherever they live.
Children affected by humanitarian crises are among the most vulnerable to abuse, exploitation, violence and neglect and most in need of protection, yet there is limited commitment to fund protective responses.

Throughout 2020, the impact of the global COVID-19 pandemic and the containment measures have layered risk upon risk for children in humanitarian crises.

Although the overall funding for child protection is increasing, the funding gap remains wide due to the needs increasing at an alarming rate.
This report builds on analysis undertaken in 2019 and documented in the report Unprotected: Crisis in Humanitarian Funding for Child Protection (Unprotected 2019) and incorporates 2019 and 2020 funding and additional funding streams related to refugee contexts.

KEY FINDINGS BASED ON OUR ANALYSIS OF 2019 FUNDING • This study found a total of US$252.2 million allocated to child protection in 2019.

Funding for child protection in humanitarian settings continues to increase.
As documented in the Financial Tracking System (FTS), a total of US$177 million was allocated to child protection in 2019, within and outside humanitarian responses and appeals; this includes funding for the Bangladesh Joint Response Plan (JRP) for the Rohingya crisis.

In addition, US$75.2 million for child protection was identified by UNHCR and the No Lost Generation Initiative for the Syria Regional Refugee and Resilience Plan (Syria 3RP).
This figure (US$252.2 million) does not represent the total spend on humanitarian child protection as a) funding for refugee response plans are not included in the FTS, b) it is challenging to track child protection funding included in integrated or multi-sectoral proposals, and c) agency-specific funding allocated to child protection is not systematically shared for collective analysis nor reflected in the FTS and the Refugee Funding Tracker (RFT).
• The gap between stated funding needs and funding received demonstrates that Child Protection is significantly under-funded.

An in-depth analysis of 17 2019 humanitarian response plans (HRP), as well as the Bangladesh JRP and the Syria 3RP for 2019, demonstrate that Child Protection receives on average 47% of the sums required for Child Protection in these plans.

In comparison, the overall requests across all sectors are funded at 67%.
In these 19 responses, Child Protection makes up 2% of the overall funding requirement, receiving less than half of that, funded at 47% .

If you look at the total amount of funding received, only 1,4% goes to CP.

• Underfunding affects countries differently.

Child protection is funded at more than 50% in only four of the 17 HRPs analysed (Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo, Iraq, and the occupied Palestinian territory), the remaining 13 are funded at less than 50% of stated needs.
Seven countries received less than 25% of child protection requirements (Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo, Iraq, and the occupied Palestinian territory).

The Syria Regional Refugee and Resilience Plan, which covers five countries around Syria, looks well-funded, but we find significant differences between the countries involved, with funding levels ranging from a low 3.7% in Iraq to a high 95.7% in Turkey.

However, under-funding is not universal.


In 2019, Central African Republic (CAR), the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Iraq, the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt), the Rohingya response and the Syria 3RP were relatively well funded, receiving funding exceeding 70% of stated needs for child protection.
It is, however, a paradox that while some of these responses are seemingly well funded, they only target a small portion of the children and caregivers identified as being in need, for example, in CAR only 4% of the children in need are targeted, in DRC it is 8%.

• Average funding per beneficiary falls short of what is needed to achieve the Minimum Standards for Child Protection in Humanitarian Action.
Reaching parti- cularly vulnerable children with targeted and intensive care, such as victim assistance, family tracking and reunification or reintegration of children associated with armed forces and groups, is human resource intensive.

However, in 13 of the 17 HRPs, funding received was equivalent to US$20 or less per child or caretaker for the year.

In Mali, Nigeria, Sudan and Yemen, it was less than US$6 per beneficiary.
Such low cost-per-beneficiary ratios are enough to fund general activities such as awareness raising and some community-based psychosocial support but are nowhere near adequate for more targeted and intensive activities reaching the most vulnerable children.

To escape shelling in Easter Ghouta, ten-year-old Salam and her family fled and now live in a camp in North-West Syria.

“Corona is a disease that spread globally, and it is easy to catch it.
What I fear is the loss of a family member by it.” PHOTO: SAVE THE CHILDREN • Funding for child protection remains unpredictable.

Important differences are found over time for individual countries.

For example, funding for child protection dropped from 88% in 2018 to 38% in 2019 in South Sudan, and from 68% to 38% in Somalia.

Likewise, within the Syria 3RP, Egypt had a funding level of 70% in 2017, which decreased to 22% in 2018, and then dropped to 5% in the third quarter of 2019.
These differences in funding across responses and over time have significant negative impacts on the provision, the sustainability, and the quality of child protection services.
KEY FINDINGS BASED ON OUR ANALYSIS OF 2020 FUNDING • As HRPs have been revised to address the impact of COVID-19 and measures put in place to limit the spread of the disease, the numbers of children identified as in need of protective interventions have increased significantly.1 In some countries the numbers of beneficiaries identified as in need of child protection interventions doubled (in Cameroon and DRC).
Funding requirements for child protection were revised in most response plans, demonstrating a considerable increase, such as in Afghanistan and Burkina Faso, where funding requirements for child protection increased more than three-fold.

• Yet, as of September 2020, funding allocations for child protection reported on the FTS are not on track to meet the funding requirements.

12 out of 19 HRPs have so far received less than 20% of the funding requested.
2020 has not ended yet, and opportunities remain to address this.

An analysis of 19 HRPs demonstrates that funding for child protection is 2% of the overall funding ask.

Yet as a proportion of overall funding received, it has fallen to only 0.8% of humanitarian funding.
6 • STILL UNPROTECTED: HUMANITARIAN FUNDING FOR CHILD PROTECTION STILL UNPROTECTED: HUMANITARIAN FUNDING FOR CHILD PROTECTION • 7 KEY FINDINGS RELATED TO TRACKING OF HUMANITARIAN CHILD PROTECTION FUNDING • The updated approach to the Humanitarian Programme Cycle rolled out in 2020 has standardised the disaggregation of require- ments per Area of Responsibility within the Global Protection Cluster.
This has made it easier to define needs, targets and funding requirements related specifically to child protection.

• Despite improvements, it is not yet possible to track funding for child protection comprehensi- vely through the FTS.

Some child protection funding, estimated at US$64.7 million in 2019, can still be found within the FTS as humanitarian protection funding rather than as humanitarian child protection funding.
Funding for refugee responses is not generally included within the FTS, and disaggregated data per sector is unavailable.

• For refugee responses, the Refugee Funding Tracker was developed and rolled out in 2019 as a one-stop platform compiling funding data from various sources, including FTS and agencies involved in refugee responses.

However, disaggregated data by sector is not available from the tracker.
KEY RECOMMENDATIONS: • We call on donors to fully fund appeals for Child Protection across the Humanitarian Response Plans and Refugee Response Plans.

As a start, ensure that Child Protection is funded at the same level as the overall appeal.
• We call on humanitarian actors, including Child Protection practitioners at all levels, to ensure that Humanitarian Needs Overviews, Humanitarian Response Plans and Regional Response Plans clearly outline how Child Protection interventions meet identified needs, that the response adhere to the Child Protection Minimum Standards, and are costed accordingly.
Total funding appeal Child Protection appeal 2% Total funding received Appeal funded at 67% Child Protection appeal Funding received for Child Protection Child Protection appeal funded at 47% Total funding received for Child Protection 1,4% Total funding received OVERALL APPEAL = 100% FUNDING LEVEL OF THE OVERALL APPEAL: 67% CHILD PROTECTION APPEAL AS PORTION OF THE OVERALL APPEAL: 2% FUNDING LEVEL OF CHILD PROTECTION APPEAL: 47% FUNDING RECEIVED FOR CHILD PROTECTION AS PORTION OF TOTAL FUNDING RECEIVED: 1,4% Based on the analysis of 19 response plans in 2019: HRPs for Afghanistan, Burkina Faso, CAR, DRC, Iraq, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, oPt, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Ukraine, Venezuela, Yemen, Zimbabwe, Bangladesh JRP and Syria 3RP.
INTRODUCTION “To effectively protect all children from all forms of violence, including those who are living in vulnerable situations, we need to act on several fronts, at the same time, through a child-rights, multi-stakeholder and across sectors approach.
And we need to promote child protective norms and practices, to raise awareness, mobilize and support families and communities.” Najat Maalla M’jid, Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Violence against Children Opening statement at the 35th ordinary session of the African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, 31 August 2020 The number of people in need of humanitarian assistance, as estimated by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), grew during the course of 2019 due to conflicts, natural disasters and forced displacements.2 As 2020 dawned, OCHA estimated that nearly 168 million people, more than 2% of the world’s population, would be in need of humanitarian assistance over the year, the highest number in decades.3 With these bleak trends as a backdrop, COVID-19 spread across the world within months of the new year.
COVID-19 has placed direct and indirect pressure on vulnerable coping mechanisms for children, their families, and their societies.

Children living in humanitarian contexts were, already, at particular risk of harm before COVID-19.

These children are now not only exposed to increased risks, but the limited systems that were in place to protect them are collapsing.

In July 2020 the COVID-19 Global Humanitarian Response Plan aimed to provide humanitarian aid to 250 million people in need in 63 countries.
The full scale of the impacts of the spread of COVID-19, as well as the consequences of measures put in place to slow its transmission, are still unfolding.

Predictions on the toll on people who depend on humanitarian assistance that were made early on during the pandemic largely proved to be underestimates.4 COVID-19 is changing lives across the world, and will continue to do so for months, years, and possibly even decades to come.
The Unprotected 2019 report exposed shortcomings in funding for child protection in humanitarian settings.

It concluded that protection interventions typically remain underfunded and are not systematically prioritised.5 As a follow up to the 2019 report, this study estimates the total humanitarian funding allocated to child protection in 2019 with an in-depth analysis of 17 humanitarian response plans.
It also includes information on child protection on refugee settings with an analysis of the Bangladesh JRP for the Rohingya crisis and the Syria 3RP.

Furthermore, we look at how COVID-19 has altered humanitarian needs and offer preliminary studies of child protection in humanitarian responses through an in-depth analysis of 19 humanitarian response plans in 2020.
MAIN DATA SOURCES The main data source for this study is the UN OCHA Financial Tracking Service (FTS), which tracks international humanitarian aid, inside and outside humanitarian response plans and appeals, based on reports provided on a voluntary basis by donors and recipient organisations.

The FTS does not systematically track data on country and regional refugee responses, as these are led by UNHCR and tracked through the Refugee Funding Tracker (RFT).
Some data is available on the FTS for the Syria Regional Refugee and Resilience Plan (Syria 3RP) and the Refugee and Migrant Response Plan (RMRP) for the Venezuela crisis but funding is not tracked according to traditional sectors but rather reported as multi-sector funding with no breakdown available by sector.

Tracking child protection funding in refugee settings thus required a different approach.
This report includes a detailed analysis of the funding data available in country and regional refugee response plans (RRPs) since 2012, as well as refugee programme funding data from UNHCR and the RFT.
8 • STILL UNPROTECTED: HUMANITARIAN FUNDING FOR CHILD PROTECTION STILL UNPROTECTED: HUMANITARIAN FUNDING FOR CHILD PROTECTION • 9 HUMANITARIAN FUNDING FOR CHILD PROTECTION 2010-2019 In this chapter, the analysis of child protection funding is divided into three sections, with the first two sections focusing on the humanitarian funding data as tracked by the UN OCHA Financial Tracking Service, and the third on refugee settings.
The first section provides an updated analysis for humanitarian funding for child protection as tracked over the period 2010-2019 on the FTS.

The second section unveils an in-depth analysis of the child protection funding situation across 17 humanitarian response plans (HRPs) implemented in 2019, looking at funding requirements and funding received, and at the targeted population and identified needs for child protection.
The third section takes stock of the funding data available in inter-agency refugee responses as compiled by the Refugee Funding Tracker since 2012, as well as child protection funding in the UN Refugee Agency’s global refugee operation, including emergencies and protracted asylum settings.
In particular, it draws attention to the child protection response in the Bangladesh JRP – based on FTS records – and the Syria 3RP – based on the data provided by the UNHCR Refugee Funding Tracker and the No Lost Generation initiative.

CHILD PROTECTION FUNDING ON THE UN OCHA FINANCIAL TRACKING SYSTEM Global humanitarian overview and funding reported on the FTS6 In 2019, an estimated 166.5 million people were in need of humanitarian assistance in 56 countries.
A total of 35 UN-coordinated response plans and appeals – including 23 humanitarian response plans and six regional refugee response plans7 – were formulated, targeting 117.4 million people.

These plans called for US$29.75 billion funding but by the end of the year only US$18.11 billion had been received, a coverage of 60.9%.8 The FTS tracks funding for 31 of these 35 UN- coordinated response plans and appeals.
Funding for the regional refugee response plans of Burundi, DRC, Nigeria and South Sudan are not tracked.

As such, records from the FTS show that a total of US$17.53 billion was received against US$27.82 billion required, representing 63% coverage.

This was an increase from 2018, when the coverage rate was 60.1%.9 The FTS also tracked an additi- onal US$6.8 billion humanitarian funding outside response plans and appeals in 2019.
Funding of humanitarian response plans continued rising but still fails to keep pace with the growth of humanitarian need.

40% of the response plans’ requirements remain unfunded and this has direct and considerable impacts on how needs of the affected population are addressed.
FIGURE 1 TOTAL HUMANITARIAN FUNDING REPORTED ON THE FTS 2010-2019 (FTS accessed 6 August 2020) s n o i l l i B $ S U 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 16.01 11.25 7.25 27.82 24.29 17.53 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Unmet requirements Total funding reported Total requirements Response plan/appeal funding Maher, 2, lives in a displacement camp in northern Idlib in Syria PHOTO: SAVE THE CHILDREN/HURRAS NETWORK For the 2019 analysis based on FTS data, this study estimated the total funding for child protection looking into i) the protection sector and ii) the child protection sector of the database (see Appendix 1: Methodology and data limitations).
The estimate of child protection funding based on FTS records includes funding inside response plans when funding is tracked by sector; this is the case for all HRPs, and the Bangladesh JRP but not the Syria 3RP nor the Venezuela RMRP.
To complement the FTS data and provide a more detailed view on funding for child protection in refugee settings, this study also includes US$75.2 million identified for child protection for the Syria 3RP in 2019 – based on data collected by UNHCR and the No Lost Generation Initiative.

For 2020, the study focuses on a selection of humanitarian response plans and only considers funding reported as child protection on the FTS as of mid-September.
In this report, funding received means the sum of commitments and paid contributions.

Pledges are not included.

For more information on the methodology and data limitations please refer to Appendix 1: Methodology and data limitations.
10 • STILL UNPROTECTED: HUMANITARIAN FUNDING FOR CHILD PROTECTION STILL UNPROTECTED: HUMANITARIAN FUNDING FOR CHILD PROTECTION • 11 Protection and Child Protection funding on the FTS In 2019, the FTS tracked US$1.06 billion under the protection sector, of which US$521 million was in humanitarian response plans and appeals.

The coverage rate for the protection sector was 37% in 2019 and 36% in 2018.
Protection is particularly affected by underfunding in comparison to other sectors – in the same year, the coverage rate for all sectors combined reached 63%.

The sectors with the highest coverage were Mine Action,10 Nutrition, Coordination and support services, Food Security, and Logistics.

Separately from the protection sector, the FTS also allows tracking of funding for the Child Protection (CP) sector (see Table 6 in Appendix 3: Additional tables).
In 2017, CP became a sector of its own on the FTS database and some funding from 2010 onwards was re-categorized from Protection to Child Protection.
In 2019, a total of US$112.3 million is reported on the FTS as CP funding, including US$102.5 million on appeals and response plans, representing a coverage of 47% (against US$217.5 million in requirements).11 However this US$102.5 million only accounts for a few response plans where CP funding is tracked against specific CP requirements; the CP sector on the FTS does not capture the total volume of CP funding.
Indeed the 2019 Unprotected study and the present one found that a significant amount of CP funding is still recorded under the Protection sector with no disaggregation by areas of responsibility within the Global Protection Cluster.

The present study therefore delved into FTS records of both sectors to identify funding for child protection.

Appendix 1: Methodology and Data limitations further descri- bes the process.
FIGURE 2 HUMANITARIAN FUNDING FOR PROTECTION REPORTED ON THE FTS – 2010-2019 (FTS accessed 6 August 2020) s n o i l l i M $ S U 1 400 1 200 1 000 800 600 400 200 0 583 502 1409 1059 521 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Unmet Protection requirements Response plan/appeal funding for Protection Total Funding reported for Protection Response plans/appeals requirements for Protection FIGURE 3 ESTIMATED HUMANITARIAN FUNDING FOR CHILD PROTECTION 2019 (based on FTS)13 s n o i l l i M $ S U 200 150 100 50 0 20.4 54.0 102.0 54.0 2019 Total CP funding estimated 2019 Funding including CP activities CP component CP integrated across sectors - CP PIN CP est CP FTS Estimated total Child Protection funding based on FTS records Based on FTS data, this report estimates a total amount of US$177 million for CP funding for 201912 aggregating US$112.3 million reported directly under Child Protection and US$64.7 million identified as child protection funding under the overall Protection sector.
The total (US$177 million) includes, as presented in Figure 3 US$20.4 million categorised by the research team as ‘CP integrated across sectors’.

This category gathers funding recorded under the Protection and Child Protection for CP activities coupled with other sectoral activities which target solely children and caretakers.
This category typically includes funding for Child Protection coupled with an Education (45%) or Health (24%) activity; WASH and Nutrition activities are also commonly coupled with CP activity.

“Take care of us, because our situation is only getting worse” Samira, 16, Lebanon68 In addition to this US$177 million, the research team found financial flows where CP funding is identified but in unknown proportions – these could not be accounted for in the present report.
• A total of US$54 million – labelled ‘funding including CP activities’ in Figure 3 – was found under the Protection sector for interventions where i) CP activities are identified but ii) the targeted population is not solely children and parents or caretakers.

This includes US$10 million for joint CP and gender-based violence activities for women and children and almost US$30 million for Protection activities targeting children and women.
• Another US$143.7 million was reported for 2019 as ‘multiple sectors (shared)’ where CP is one destination sector amongst many.14 This is funding received for multisectoral responses which include a CP component, but where disaggregated information is not available and we cannot estimate the share specifically going to CP.

Child Protection funding trend 2010-2019 CP funding identified on the FTS continues to increase over the years, as illustrated in Figure 4.
It rose from an estimated US$92 million in 2010 to US$161 million in 2018 and US$177 million in 2019.

The steep increase from 2017 to 2018 might be due to better reporting on the FTS, thanks to the introduction of a CP specific sector.
FIGURE 4 ESTIMATED HUMANITARIAN FUNDING FOR CHILD PROTECTION 2010-2019 (based on FTS)15 200 150 100 50 0 s n o i l l i M $ S U 92 55 107 123 177 161 Estimated funding for CP Trendline (linear) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 FIGURE 5 BREAKDOWN OF IDENTIFIED HUMANITARIAN FUNDING FOR CHILD PROTECTION 2010–2019 (based on FTS)16 s n o i l l i M $ S U 200 150 100 50 0 92 161 177 CP FTS CP est.
CP integrated across sectors Grand Total 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 12 • STILL UNPROTECTED: HUMANITARIAN FUNDING FOR CHILD PROTECTION STILL UNPROTECTED: HUMANITARIAN FUNDING FOR CHILD PROTECTION • 13 FIGURE 6 SOURCES OF CHILD PROTECTION FUNDING 2019 (based on FTS) UNICEF (17.3%) Country-based (8.3%) UNHCR, IOM and UNDP (0,8%) CERF (4.1%) Other national governments (17.4%) 1 - United Sates of America (12.7%) 4 - Switzerland (4.6%) 2 - Sweden (7%) 3 - Australia (5.5%) 5 - Germany (4.4%) Sources of funding for Child Protection in 2019 The two major sources of CP funding in 2019 remain national governments, with 51.5% of the total estimated funding for CP (52% over 2010-18), and UN agencies 18.1% (17% over 2010-18).
Pooled funds remain the third main source of funding, with country-based pooled funds representing 8.3% and the UN Central Emergency Response Fund 4.1%.

Of national governments, the main donors for Child Protection in 2019 were USA, Sweden and Aust- ralia, followed by Switzerland and Germany.

If we consider the cumulative estimated amount over the period 2010-2019, USA, Sweden and Japan were the top three donors, with Australia ranked tenth (see Table 7 in Appendix 3).
Of UN agencies, UNICEF is still the principal donor, providing 95% of funds from UN agencies going to Child Protection.
FIGURE 7 RECIPIENTS OF CHILD PROTECTION FUNDING 2019 (based on FTS) Other UN agencies (0,9%) United National Children´s Fund (63.4%) Save the Children (14%) Other International NGOs (12%) Terres des Hommes - Lausanne (3%) Government: National government (51.5%) UN agency (18.1%) Pooled fund (12.3%) Inter- governmental (8.9%) Private organization and foundation: local, national, international and uncategorized (6.5%) Not speciﬁed (1.6%) NGO: International and uncategorized (1.1%) UN agencies (64.3%) NGO: International (29.5%) NGO: National (2.3%) NGO: Afﬁliated (1.6%) NGO: Local (0.9%) Not speciﬁed (1.4%) CHILD PROTECTION FUNDING IN 2019 HUMANITARIAN RESPONSE PLANS Most of the funding reported on FTS goes to response plans and appeals In 2019, 72% of the total humanitarian funding reported on the FTS, across all sectors, was for response plans and appeals, an increase from 2018 when the rate was 60%.
Estimated funding for CP also substantially went to appeals and response plans – 89% for 2019.

Looking into details allows a comparison between needs identified for the humanitarian response plan, the population targeted by the response, funding requested, and funding received, giving a view of the comparative level of funding or underfunding.

In the dataset of estimated funding for Child Protection for 2019, funding for 25 response plans were identified, as portrayed in Figure 9 below.
But the FTS only tracks CP funding received against CP-specific requirements for eight countries, in red in Figure 9 – an addition of three HRPs compared to the previous year; namely Bangladesh, Sudan and Zimbabwe.

Top recipients of Child Protection funding in 2019 In 2019, the top recipient category of CP funding was UN agencies with 64.3% of the estimated funding.
Within UN agencies the major recipient was UNICEF, with 98.5% of the funding going to UN agencies and an equivalent of 63.4% of all funding for Child Protection.

It is interesting to note that US$27 million is recorded as both sourced from UNICEF and received by UNICEF.

It is unfortunately not possible to examine how funds received by UNICEF are then disbursed to other implementing partners, however UNICEF is a significant donor for national and local NGOs.
International NGOs are the second largest recipients of CP funding, receiving 29.5%.

Two NGOs are particularly large recipients: Save the Children and Terre des Hommes – Lausanne with 47% and 10.5% of the share of CP funding to NGOs.
The Grand Bargain signatories committed, in 2016, to achieve by 2020 “an aggregated target of at least 25 per cent of humanitarian funding to local and national responders as directly as possible to improve outcomes for affected people and reduce transactional costs.” The data shows that only 3% of funding for Child Protection goes to local and national NGOs, but this does not capture all funding that is indirectly passed to local and national actors.
Since 2019, the Iraq Humanitarian Fund has only allowed submission from consortiums, which must include national NGOs.

In many conflict-affected areas, national NGOs have better access and ability to reach more of the children most in need of protection in displacement camps or areas of return.

This approach has encouraged more national NGOs to engage in Child Protection in the HRP process.
There are now seven national NGOs engaged in supporting Child Protection coordination and capacity- building.17 FIGURE 8 ESTIMATED HUMANITARIAN FUNDING FOR CHILD PROTECTION INSIDE AND OUTSIDE RESPONSE PLANS AND APPEALS (based on FTS) s n o i l l i M $ S U 200 150 100 150 0 177 157 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Response plan / appeal funding received Funding outside of HRP and Appeals Total estimated funding for CP 14 • STILL UNPROTECTED: HUMANITARIAN FUNDING FOR CHILD PROTECTION STILL UNPROTECTED: HUMANITARIAN FUNDING FOR CHILD PROTECTION • 15 FIGURE 9 FUNDING FOR CHILD PROTECTION BY DESTINATION PLANS AND SHARE OVER TOTAL ESTIMATED CHILD PROTECTION FUNDING 2019 (based on FTS) 18.5% 14.1% 11.4% 9.1% Iraq 2019 Bangladesh Unspeciﬁed destination plan Yemen 2019 South Sudan 2019 Syria Humanitarian Response Plan 2019 Central African Republic 2019 Nigeria 2019 Somalia 2019 Democratic Republic of the Congo 2019 Myanmar 2019 Occupied Palestinian territory 2019 (part of 2018-2020 HRP) Niger 2019 Sudan 2019 Ukraine Humanitarian Response Plan (HRP) 2019 Ethiopia 2019 Venezuela 2019 Zimbabwe Flash Appeal 2019 / 2020 Cameroon 2019 Mali 2019 Afghanistan 2019 Chad 2019 Mozambique Humanitarian Response Plan 2019 Burundi 2019 Burkina Faso 2019 Pakistan 2019 6.1% 5.9% 5.3% 4.8% 3.7% 3.2% 3.2% 2.7% 2.1% 1.9% 1.8% 1.5% 1.4% 1.0% 0.8% 0.7% 0.5% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% CP funding received tracked against CP-speciﬁc requirements on the FTS 10 20 30 US$ Millions FIGURE 10: CHILD PROTECTION POSITIONING IN HRPS AND HNOs19 (Source CP AoR) Comparison with previous years (2018-2020) HNOs 10% 10% 10% 15% 15% 66% 50% 13% 21% 45% 21% 14% 2018 HNOs 2019 HNOs 10% 2020 HNOs HRPs 10% 33% 43% 14% 2019 HRPs 22% 35% 35% 8% 2018 HRPs 10% 25% 35% 30% 2020 HRPs Not mentioned Separate paragraph Mentioned within Protection chapter Separate section (New) Full chapter In 2019, the response plans receiving the most funding for CP, as reported and identified on the FTS, were Iraq and the Bangladesh JRP for the Rohingya crisis, with
 respectively US$32.7 and US$25 million.
Child Protection in HRPs and disaggregated tracking of CP funding against requirements Child Protection as an area of responsibility (AoR) within the Global Protection Cluster often disappears within the larger Protection cluster with few or no details on the breakdown per area of responsibility.

The positioning of CP in the humanitarian programme cycle (HPC) is assuredly crucial for this life-saving sector.
Children have specific protection needs and dedicated programming and funding are needed if they are to be effectively protected from abuse, neglect, exploitation and violence.

Appropriate positioning of CP in Humanitarian Needs Overviews (HNOs) and HRPs, with dedicated space and identification of needs and requirements, ensures better support to CP interventions and better tracking of funding.
The Global Protection Cluster pushes for increased disaggregation of information by areas of responsibility.18 And progress in CP positioning in the humanitarian programme cycle is noticeable in recent years.

The share of HRPs that mention Child Protection is increasing, and more and more response plans have a separate paragraph or section to present the needs of this AoR.

“I’m worried about my children’s education, their future, their behavior.

We can’t fulfill their dreams.


We can’t love and take care of them properly.

That’s why I feel very sad.

I can’t provide them with good food.

When they ask for anything, I can’t give it to them” Hamida, 40, Rohingya Refugee in Bangladesh In the 2020 HPC, both HNO and HRP templates allow the inclusion of a dedicated subsection within the Protection chapter, where people in need, peo- ple targeted, and financial requirements can be pro- vided by AoR.
While more and more HRPs present specific requirements for CP, the FTS module does not systematically include these and there are still important limitations to how CP funding on appeals and response plans is tracked.

Despite the call from the Global Protection Cluster to standardise data entry information breakdown in the FTS, progress on tracking CP funding specifically is still awaited.

We have shown how we have tracked funding for CP on the FTS and exposed the limitations of the reporting system.
In order to get a more compre- hensive picture of how CP is funded or underfun- ded and to better understand how CP needs are answered in humanitarian settings, this report looks into a selection of 17 humanitarian response plans, triangulating data sourced from the FTS, HNOs, HRPs and other official HPC documents, as well as data provided by the CP AoR.
The selection of HRPs includes the 10 conflict-affected countries that are the worst places to be a child according to research from the Peace Research Institute Oslo20 and Save the Children’s analysis of the UN’s data on grave violations in 2018:21 Afghanistan, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo, Iraq, Mali, Nigeria, Somalia, South Sudan, Syria and Yemen.
Niger, the occupied Palestinian territory and Ukraine are also included in the analysis to allow continuity with the Unprotected report.

The research team also decided to include Zimbabwe and Sudan as CP-specific data is provided on the FTS for these HRPs, as well as Burkina Faso and Venezuela, in order to capture the diversity of contexts.

Our study covers the 2019 HRPs for: 1.

Afghanistan 2.

Burkina Faso 3.

Central African Republic 4.

Democratic Republic of Congo 5.

Iraq 6.

Mali 7.

Niger 8.


Nigeria 9. occupied Palestinian territory 10.

Somalia 11.

South Sudan 12.

Sudan 13.

Syria 14.

Ukraine 15.

Yemen 16.

Zimbabwe 17.

Venezuela The countries in bold are those for which the FTS tracks funding received for CP against specific CP requirements.
16 • STILL UNPROTECTED: HUMANITARIAN FUNDING FOR CHILD PROTECTION STILL UNPROTECTED: HUMANITARIAN FUNDING FOR CHILD PROTECTION • 17 Child Protection funding progress in selected response plans The average coverage rate for this selection of response plans is 38%, Child Protection is conside- rably underfunded in 13 of the 17 response plans.

Seven of them – Afghanistan, Mali, Nigeria, Sudan, Syria, Venezuela and Zimbabwe – had less than 25% of requirements met by actual funding.
The other six – Burkina Faso, Niger, Somalia, South Sudan, Ukraine and Yemen – show funding coverage between 25% and 50%.

Underfunding of Child Protection, however, does not seem systematic.

Some humanitarian response plans demonstrate a good coverage rate: this is the case for CAR, DRC, Iraq and the oPt, which have a coverage of more than 70% based on data available.
Funding coverage is a useful indicator, but one has to look further to establish whether a response is well funded, and answers all needs on the ground.
FIGURE 11 SELECTION OF 2019 HRPS: ESTIMATED FUNDING PROGRESS FOR CHILD PROTECTION s n o i l l i M $ S U 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 14% 82% 23% 40% 79% 97% 14% 46% R A C C R D q a r I i l a M r e g N i a i r e g N i 74% t P o 17% 41% n a t s i n a h g A f o s a F i a n k r u B 38% 38% 19% n a d u S a i r y S a i l a m o S n a d u S h t u o S 17% 46% i e n a r k U 24% e w b a b m Z i n e m e Y l a e u z e n e V CP funding requirements Additional Funding received - information from local IMO, not identiﬁed on FTS CP Funding Received - based on FTS Data sources CP requirements: CP requirements for DRC, Iraq, Nigeria, oPt (Child Protection Mental Health & Psychosocial Support), Venezuela and Zimbabwe are sourced from the HRPs.
CP requirements for Sudan, Syria and Ukraine are sourced from the FTS.

CP requirements for Burkina Faso, Central African Republic, Mali, Niger, and Somalia are sourced through the CP AoR, from local CP Information Management Officers.

UNICEF Humanitarian Action for Children CP requirements were used as a proxy for Afghanistan and South Sudan.
CP funding received: CP funding is estimated based on funding reported for each destination plan under Protection (CP estimated and CP integrated) and Child Protection (CP FTS) for 2019 on the FTS.

For Burkina Faso, DRC and Somalia, funding received for CP reported by the local Information Management Officers is higher than that identified through the FTS – see Figure 11.
FIGURE 12 SELECTION OF 2019 HRPS: ESTIMATED FUNDING COVERAGE FOR CHILD PROTECTION (%) Child Protection Funding coverage - 2019 CAR Iraq DRC oPt Niger Ukraine Burkina Faso Yemen Somalia South Sudan Zimbabwe Nigeria Sudan Afghanistan Venezuela Syria Mali 0% 24% 23% 19% 17% 17% 14% 14% 20% 97% 82% 79% 74% 46% 46% 41% 40% 38% 38% 40% 60% 80% 100% When Child Protection is a priority – an example from Iraq The 2019 Iraq Humanitarian Response Plan covered the fifth year of humanitarian crisis in the country.
More than 6 million people were in need of humanitarian assistance, almost 18% of the population.
The protection crisis was at the core of the 2019 HRP, with particular concerns around “retaliation against people with perceived affiliations to extremist groups; forced, premature, uninformed and obstructed returns; a lack of civil documentation; severe movement restrictions in camps; arbitrary detention, IDPs and returnees who require specialized psychosocial support; extensive explosive hazard contamination and housing, land and property issues”.22 The Child Protection funding requirement for 2019 totalled $39.9 million (almost 6% of the overall HRP).
This was planned to cover key activities, including case management, capacity building of service providers, integrating mental health and psychosocial support in learning spaces, and keeping children in safe spaces.

For adolescents in particular, the response plan sought to respond to age and gender specific vulnerabilities.

These included child labour, child marriage, recruitment into armed forces and groups, sexual exploitation and abuse, and arbitrary detention.
Actual funding for Child Protection in Iraq reached 79% of the funding requirement, equalling $31.3m almost 5% over total funding received to the overall humanitarian response.

656,000 beneficiaries were targeted, about 53% of the 1.5 million children and caregivers in need.
Sector targets on the following all reached over 100% of the target: government training, setting up community-based child protection mechanism groups, case management, mental health and psychosocial support, and securing civil documentation.

In addition, the following activities all reached 80% of their targets: delivering parenting programmes, awareness raising and legal assistance.
Funding for Child Protection in Iraq didn’t just help to expand access to services, but also improved the quality of services.

The Child Protection sub-cluster rolled out Standard Procedures for SOPs for mental health and psychosocial support and case management programmes, enabling partners as well as government to scale up improved services.

This was supported with the launch of the online case management platform (CPIMS+).
By September 2020, Iraq’s ask for Child Protection in the HRP was funded at 42% (US$39.18), and aimed to reach 36% of identified children and caregivers in need (589,000 beneficiaries from an estimated 1.64 million in need of Child Protection).
18 • STILL UNPROTECTED: HUMANITARIAN FUNDING FOR CHILD PROTECTION STILL UNPROTECTED: HUMANITARIAN FUNDING FOR CHILD PROTECTION • 19 FIGURE 13 SELECTION OF 2018 AND 2019 HRPS: ESTIMATED FUNDING COVERAGE FOR CHILD PROTECTION TABLE 1 SELECTION OF 2019 HRPS: CHILD PROTECTION SHARE OVER TOTAL REQUIREMENTS AND FUNDING AS REPORTED ON THE FTS25 97% 26% 17% 25% 82% 55% 65% 46% 27% 23% 139% 74% 68% 88% 74% 38% 38% 43% 46% 58% 40% 2018 % funding for Child Protection 2019 % funding for Child Protection 14 The data collected in the Unprotected 2019 report enables us to compare the funding level of CP responses for 11 HRPs in 2018 and 2019.23 it is noticeable that underfunding of Child Protection not only affects countries and response plans in different proportions, but seems to vary across time.
The cases of the occupied Palestinian territory, Somalia, South Sudan and Syria suggest that Child Protection responses could be well funded one year and suffer from significant underfunding the next.
FIGURE 14: SELECTION OF 2019 HRPS: AVERAGE SHARE FOR CHILD PROTECTION OVER TOTAL REQUIREMENTS AND TOTAL FUNDING 24 2% 98% 1% 99% Average share for CP over total requirements 17 HRPs Average share for CP over total funding received 17 HRPs Based on information collected for each of these 17 response plans, Child Protection requirements represent 2% of the total requirements, while funding received for CP as identified on the FTS represents 1% of all funding received.
What happens when funding stops and starts?

Start/stop or unpredictable funding causes NGOs to repeatedly hire, train, let go and rehire staff in a cycle, every 12 months or even every three to six months depending on the type of grant agreement.

This delays the delivery of services and adds unnecessary costs due to repeating recruitment efforts.

It is also extremely hard on the local and national staff, who are often affected by conflict or displacement themselves.
From a community engagement perspective, start/stop funding can erode trust between the NGO, the community and the local authorities.
While NGOs do their best to transfer systems and structures over to the community from the outset of project implementation, the ability to access communities and reach those in need, overcome barriers related to stigma and lack of trust, and tackle harmful practices all require sustained presence and trust building, which are interrupted and set back when funding starts and stops.
Trust is also required to work on longer term attitude and behaviour change: start/stop funding substantially undermines this and can keep things stuck at awareness raising or lower levels of engagement towards normative change.

Finally, start/stop funding can pose specific safety and security challenges to NGOs.

In armed conflict, NGO access and staff safety relies on consistency of engagement with local actors and authorities and building trust.
Sudden stoppages create real risks for aid worker safety and can compromise future access to affected populations.
Response Plan Total requirements* (US$ millions) CP requirements (US$ millions) Share of CP requirements over total requirements (%) Total funding received and reported on FTS* (US$ millions) Total funding received for CP identified on FTS (US$ millions) Share of CP funding over total funding received and reported on the FTS (%) Venezuela Iraq Nigeria Ukraine Mali Burkina Faso Somalia CAR Syria Niger South Sudan oPt Sudan Zimbabwe Yemen Afghanistan DRC % 5,69 % 4,32 % 4,12 % 3,03 % 3,00 % 2,27 % 2,23 % 2,19 % 2,05 % 1,89 % 1,84 % 1,58 % 1,54 % 0,95 % 0,82 % 0,76 % % 4,97 % 1,46 % 3,62 % 0,79 % 0,08 % 0,73 % 3,08 % 0,49 % 1,58 % 0,95 % 1,87 % 0,57 % 0,71 % 0,44 % 0,18 % 0,79 % Note: * Excluding requirements and funding for refugee response within HRPs Over the 17 plans analysed, Venezuela demon- strates the highest share of CP requirements over total requirements (6.5%) but only received 3% of the total funding.
In the response plans for Yemen, Afghanistan and DRC, CP represented less than 1% of the total requirements.

Leaving aside Burkina Faso, DRC and Somalia, where funding for CP identified on the FTS is lower than that reported to the CP AoR by local informa- tion officers, we observe that CP funding represents less than 1% of the total funding received in seven response plans.
Child Protection funding vs people in need and people targeted In addition to bringing this financial gap to light, we aim to examine what a ‘well funded’ response means and look at how funding answers the prote- ction needs of children, bearing in mind that people targeted are typically a smaller subset of people in need of assistance.

For each of the 17 countries, we considered the estimated population in need of Child Protection (called CP PIN) and targeted by the response plans (CP target).
“When the Child Protection response does not ask for the funds needed to assist the population in need of Child Protection services, we call it ‘under- asking’.

This is sometimes based on limitations related to access or capacity.

However, under-asking is also a result of perceived donor expectations or donor priorities.

Indications from staff on the ground suggest that under-asking is a common, in an effort by the humanitarian management to balance the different sectors.

But this notion is problematic.


It leads to a gap between what is needed and what is provided.
Are these pragmatic decisions driven by knowledge of funding limitations, and if so, what is the cost of that for other children?” Katharine Williamson, Senior Humanitarian Child Protection Advisor, Save the Children 20 • STILL UNPROTECTED: HUMANITARIAN FUNDING FOR CHILD PROTECTION STILL UNPROTECTED: HUMANITARIAN FUNDING FOR CHILD PROTECTION • 21 Population in need and population targeted The Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) defines People in Need (PIN) as “a sub-set of the Population Affected and are defined as those members: a) whose physical security, basic rights, dignity, living conditions or livelihoods are threatened or have been disrupted, AND b) whose current level of access to basic services, goods and social protection is inadequate to re-establish normal living conditions with their accustomed means in a timely manner without additional assistance.
This category is further broken down into sub-categories or by sector/cluster to provide additional detail about the intensity, severity or type of need (e.g., need of urgent life-saving assistance, food insecure population, people in need of shelter).”26 People Targeted is “a sub-set of People in Need and represents the number of people humanitarian actors aim or plan to assist.
This projected number is typically smaller than the number of People in Need, given: (a) it is rare that international humanitarian actors can meet all needs; (b) needs are also being addressed by actors not participating in the joint plan, including national Governments; and (c) people in need are not always accessible.
The number of people targeted is usually defined once there is some idea of available resources and access constraints.”27 As clarified in OCHA’s HRP Guidance document on Response Analysis, Formulation of Strategic and Specific Objectives, and Targeting,28 “All people in need identified in the HNO, should be considered in their integrality when starting the planning process (…) From that planning starting point, response analysis is done to identify the most appropriate, relevant and feasible interventions.” Targeting is the process of identifying people who will be assisted as part of a humanitarian response.
It is based on the needs assessment and on the outputs of the response analysis where appropriate, relevant and feasible interventions and modalities to respond to the humanitarian needs of the population are identified.

Feasibility includes constraints due to physical access, legal issues, operational capacity, availability of support structure or financial delivery services.29 FIGURE 15 SELECTION OF 2019 HRPS: CHILD PROTECTION NEEDS AND TARGETED POPULATION 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 s n o i l l i M 4 3 .

9 1 .
9 1 .

5 1 .

2 3 .

5 1 .

1 0 .

1 0 .

1 0 .

5 0 .

2 0 .

7 3 0 0 .

, 4 0 .

3 0 .

5 0 .

3 0 .

 .

.

7 0 .

5 0 .

3 0 .

1 0 .

6 1 .

0 7 1 0 .

.

5 0 .

3 0 .

3 1 .

3 0 .

l a e u z e n e V .

2 0 1 0 .


n e m e Y e w b a b m Z i This research casts light on the fact that for many responses, the targeted population is a small fraction of the population in need of child protection services (see Table 8 in Appendix 3: Additional tables).

Knowing that CP requirements are formulated for the population targeted by the response, one might wonder how informative the funding level is.
In CAR and DRC, for instance, data collected for 2019 indicate that the CP response was rather well funded, but the population targe- ted seems to represent respectively 4% and 8% of the total population in need of CP services.

This suggests that even if the funding level is good, low targeting would lead to many children’s protection needs not being met.

6 5 .

CP PIN CP target 3 4 .

0 3 .

Mustafa, 12, lives with his parents, his brother and his aunt in their house in West Mosul in Iraq.
Mustafa’s home was damaged in a strike, and he himself was hit by a piece of shrapnel in his back.

At the photo he plays football with his younger brother Samir.

They both receive psychosocial support from Save the Children.

PHOTO: CLAIRE THOMAS/SAVE THE CHILDREN Ambitious enough?

The 2019 Syria HRP appealed for a total of US$3.3 billion across all sectors, and US$72 million specifically for the Child Protection response.
According to CP practitioners in Syria, the Syria HRP has a funding cap set by the humanitarian leadership, and all sectors formulate their requirements within these parameters.

The child protection envelope has remained stable for several years as to adhere to the funding cap, around 2% of the total requirements in 2019 and 2020.

Important disparities are noticeable between the CP response needs and the annual response targets.
In 2019, 5.6 million children were estimated to be in need of structured and sustained protection programmes, including psychosocial support, but the target was only to reach 880,000 children.

In the same year 280,000 children were estimated to need specialised child protection services through case management, but only 50,000 were targeted.30 The difference between needs and targets considers a number of factors, including operational capacity and funding trends.
It also factors in the funding ceiling imposed on the sector as part of the HRP processes.

Setting the AoR targets within realistic reach while respecting financial caps comes with a risk of under responding to children’s protection needs.
22 • STILL UNPROTECTED: HUMANITARIAN FUNDING FOR CHILD PROTECTION STILL UNPROTECTED: HUMANITARIAN FUNDING FOR CHILD PROTECTION • 23 To better understand the full financial needs for CP, it is interesting to look at the amount of money requested and available per child (and/or caregiver) in 2019.

This is obtained by dividing the CP requirements and funding received by the number of beneficiaries targeted for the CP response.
This is not intended to depict amounts actually requested or available per child or caregiver in need of CP assistance, as needs, types of activities and costs vary across regions, but it allows us to reflect on the unit cost of quality CP activities, especially as an increasing number of response plans intend to explore unit-based costing methodology or a hybrid approach in future.

In only six of these response plans was US$20 or more available per child targeted for the year 2019.
The average funding available for CP activities per beneficiary is extremely low.

In Mali, Sudan, Yemen and Nigeria, findings suggest that only US$5 was available per beneficiary for the whole year.
Some observations from Unprotected 2020 and 2020 HRPs led us to estimate that US$7 to US$10 per beneficiary per year is needed for awareness activities,31 US$16 to US$80 per child for psychosocial support activities,32 83 to 1,000 US$ per child for victim assistance for children in conflict,33 and US$150 to US$2,423 for case management services.34 Identifi- cation, assistance and reintegration of children associated with armed forces and armed groups ranges from US$300 to US$1,500 per child.35 Focusing on the example of DRC, which showed a good funding coverage in 2019, data suggests that the budget for the CP response is underestimated, with only US$46 required per beneficiary, which falls short of achieving the Minimum Standards of Child Protection and quality CP interventions.
This, combined with the low number of children targeted, clearly illustrates that budgets are not always adequate to assist the children in need.

Estimated requirements to meet all CP PIN’s protection needs On average, in this selection of plans (excluding Afghanistan and Burkina Faso due to lack of or inconsistent data on the CP PIN) the targeted population represents 35% of the population in need of CP services.
The following ‘thought experiment’ proposes a view of funding received versus funding required but adds to the picture the whole of the population in need, and not limited to the targeted population.

The estimated requirements to meet all children’s protection needs are calculated by taking as baseline (1) the CP requirements divided by the targeted population and applying this to the estimated population in need of CP assistance.
Figure 17 presents a way to visualise the population in need that is not targeted by the response plan and is therefore missing from the global picture when talking about underfunding.

The underfunding is even starker when considering the total population in need of CP, with an average 10% coverage rate in comparison to the original 38%.
This exercise does not aim to show the exact sum required to bring assistance to the total population in need, as it does not account for additional costs of reaching the whole population, additional security measures, nor the economies or costs of scaling up programmes.

“We ran from our house; my parents told us to run away.

My brothers and I ran in fear; they were crying and screaming.

Our neighbours were running and screaming as well.

‘Run, run, run,’ everyone was screaming.


As we ran, a missile hit our house and destroyed it.

We did not have a home, or anything anymore.

We did not take anything from inside the house.

Then we went to our relative’s house to spend the night.

Before sunrise, my father borrowed some money and rented a car to take us to Sana’a.” Rana, 14, lives in Sana’a in Yemen.
At a tempo- rary learning space in Sana’a, Rana gets help to come to terms with her experiences of war through psychosocial support, and she has a place where she can learn, play, and begin the long journey to recovery.
PHOTO: MOHAMMED AWADH/SAVE THE CHILDREN FIGURE 16 SELECTION OF 2019 HRPS: ESTIMATED FUNDING REQUESTED AND AVAILABLE FOR CHILD PROTECTION (US$/child or caregiver) FIGURE 17 SELECTION OF 2019 HRPS: FUNDING PROGRESS FOR CHILD PROTECTION AND ESTIMATED REQUIREMENTS TO MEET ALL CHILDREN’S PROTECTION NEEDS - THOUGHT EXPERIMENT CAR Iraq DRC oPt Burkina Faso South Sudan Zimbabwe Somalia Niger Ukraine Syria Afghanistan Venezuela Nigeria Yemen Sudan Mali 13 13 12 11 10 10 8 13 5 5 5 5 0 20 50 61 36 34 46 47 50 52 54 20 20 126 130 Fund available per child targeted ($/child) Fund requested per child targeted ($/child) 33 27 25 24 26 36 40 72 61 48 60 80 100 120 140 s n o i l l i M $ S U 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 35% 4% 6% 9% 28% 11% 31% 19% 11% 8% 3% 27% 4% 28% 21 Requirements for Child Protection HRP Estimated requirements to meet children needs - Baseline (1) Funds received against appeal 24 • STILL UNPROTECTED: HUMANITARIAN FUNDING FOR CHILD PROTECTION STILL UNPROTECTED: HUMANITARIAN FUNDING FOR CHILD PROTECTION • 25 CHILD PROTECTION FUNDING IN REFUGEE SETTINGS This section of the report gives an overview of global refugee protection needs as well as the funding situation of the inter-agency refugee response plans.
It provides a glimpse into the increase in refugee funding and the generosity of donors since the first inter-agency refugee response plan in 2012, and the widening funding gap from 23% in 2012 to 66% in 2019.

For the two inter-agency response plans, Syria 3RP and Bangladesh JRP, where Child Protection funding data are available, it analyses the funding situation in more detail, including the significant disparities in the funding levels for Child Protection between countries and over time.
Furthermore, UNHCR agency-specific data on Child Protection within UNHCR’s overall refugee programme is examined as a case study.

The UN refugee agency’s refugee programme funding is reviewed across regions and across time, revealing an upward trend for funding allocated to Protection including Child Protection.

However, the increase in funding is not able to keep up with the increasing requirements of the growing population of refugee children, resulting in an overall widening gap.
Global overview of refugee protection In 2019, there were 20.4 million refugees – and half of them were children.

Many refugees will spend their entire childhoods away from home.

Some have been separated from their families, while being witnesses to violent acts; many are at risk of abuse, neglect, violence, exploitation, trafficking or recruitment into armed groups and forces.
Forced displacement owing to conflict, violence and persecution continues to rise, with the number of refugees almost doubling in the last decade.

More people sought refuge, but those who had been displaced had fewer options for rebuilding their lives or being able to return home.

Refugees emerge from these widening fault-lines—a warning sign of things going wrong.
Their plight is part of a broader flow of human mobility, driven by many overlapping elements: resource-based and other conflicts that often transcend borders; growing inequality; the exploitation of ethnic, religious and other divisions by unscrupulous political leaders; and collapsing eco-systems and climate -related disasters.

UNHCR is mandated by the United Nations to support states by leading and coordinating international action for the protection of refugees and the resolution of refugee problems.
The refugee coordination model takes account of the specificity of refugee protection, based in international law, and is therefore distinct from the coordination model under the Cluster system for internally displaced people and other conflict or disaster affected populations.

How is funding for refugee responses tracked?

In major refugee situations, UNHCR provides the inter-agency platform for coordination and fund- raising for all partners engaged in the response through refugee response plans (RRPs).
This allows partners to raise funds independently as well.

The RRPs provide a comprehensive picture of identified needs, impact on host communities, operational strategy and financial requirements.

Regional RRPs cover a specific refugee population in multiple countries (for instance, Syrians in Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Iraq and Turkey) while a country response plan covers refugees in a given country.
The mechanism has been organised under the Refugee Coordination Model since 2012, complementing the IASC reform on strategic coordination for humanitarian response.

When there is a complex humanitarian emergency or natural disaster taking place that involves not just refugees, i.e.
where a Humanitarian Coordinator has been appointed and a UNHCR-led refugee operation is also underway, the response is based on shared situational analysis, common vision, and strategic planning with streamlined leadership and coordination mechanism.37 FIGURE 18: THE GROWING GLOBAL REFUGEE POPULATION AND THE INCREASING PROPORTION OF CHILDREN DURING 2012-201936 15.48 16.53 13.69 51% 51% 51% 9.88 11.00 46% 50% 19.62 20.12 20.22 52% 52% 52% Total number of refugees % of children 25 20 s n o i l l i M 15 10 5 0 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 TABLE 2: REGIONAL AND COUNTRY REFUGEE AND REFUGEE AND MIGRANT RESPONSE PLANS FROM 2012-2019 Inter-agency Regional RRPs Inter-agency Country RRPs Burundi Regional RRP Chad Country RRP CAR Regional RRP DRC Country RRP DRC Regional RRP Egypt Country RRP Europe Regional RMRP Ethiopia Country RRP Nigeria Regional RRP Rwanda Country RRP South Sudan Regional RRP Sudan Country RRP Syria Regional 3RP Tanzania Country RRP Venezuela Regional RMRP Uganda Country RRP Yemen Regional RMRP Bangladesh JRP “In Venezuela, so many children haven’t had a childhood – they know things the children here don’t know about.
Here they are more innocent, naïve.” Rossi, 15.

She fled Venezuela with her family and now lives in Lima, Peru.

Analysing Child Protection funding in refugee settings The sections below provide an overview of inter- agency refugee funding trends, a summary of Child Protection funding of RRPs and an overview of UNHCR Child Protection funding for refugee settings.
For funding trends in the overall inter-agency refugee response plans, the Refugee Funding Tracker (RFT), developed by UNHCR and rolled out in 2019, is the main data source.

The RFT compiles financial data related to refugee programmes that was previously collected in different data systems.

For the purposes of this report, one of the main limitations of the RFT is that it does not provide disaggregated data on Child Protection funding.
Our analysis of inter-agency funding for Child Protection in refugee settings is based on the two RRPs for which data on the funding requested and received for Child Protection is available, namely the Bangladesh JRP covering the Rohingya response and the 3RP covering the Syria refugee response in Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey.
Finally, UNHCR Child Protection funding for all refugee responses under the UNHCR mandate38 is provided as a case study to illustrate funding trends for Child Protection in refugee responses globally.

Note that, to ensure compatibility of the methodology used, the funding requested and provided for Child Protection within the Bangladesh JRP and Syria 3RP is included in the overall analysis presented throughout the report, while funding for Child Protection for UNHCR outside the JRP and 3RP is not.
26 • STILL UNPROTECTED: HUMANITARIAN FUNDING FOR CHILD PROTECTION STILL UNPROTECTED: HUMANITARIAN FUNDING FOR CHILD PROTECTION • 27 “All of us have different problems because of the war, it can change everything.

Things just become worse and a lot is lost.” Rehim is 15 years old and moved to Uganda following violence and instability in DRC.

She now lives in the Kyaka II refugee settlement in Uganda.

Five years ago, rebels attacked her family’s home.

They killed Rehim’s father and abducted her.


Her mother Aluna fled with her other children, taking refuge in a church – but Rehim disappeared into the night.

She was missing for a year before managing to escape while her captors were sleeping.

Discovered asleep in a garden, Rehim was reuinited with her surviving family.

Starved and weak, she was taken to the hospital daily until her family, fearing for their lives, fled to Uganda.
PHOTO: ESTHER RUTH MBABAZI/ SAVE THE CHILDREN Inter-agency RRPs: funding trends From 2012 to 2019, a total of US$25.22 billion of funding was provided to nine regional refugee response plans and 10 country refugee response plans.

The Syria 3RP received the vast majority of the funding (75%, or US$18.95 billion), followed by the South Sudan regional RRP with 10% (US$2.52 billion), and the Uganda country RRP (US$0.89 billion).
UNHCR received the largest proportion of funding (35% or US$8.85 billion), followed by the World Food Programme (US$6.89 billion) and UNICEF (US$3.29 billion).

The three top donors to refugee responses during the period 2017-2019 were the USA, the European Union and Germany.

Since 2012, there has been a growing number of major inter-agency refugee responses.
The funding requested has grown substantially from US$488 million in 2012 for five countries only – all under the Syria 3RP – to requests totalling US$10,419 million for numerous RRPs covering 28 countries in 2019.

The funding provided has also grown.

However, the increase in funding provided has not kept pace with the funding requested, resulting in a widening funding gap from 23% in 2012 to 66% in 2019.

Overall, refugee response plans receive very diffe- rent funding levels.
From 2012 to 2019, the Bangla- desh JRP, the Europe Regional RMRP and the Syria Regional 3RP had the highest rates of funding (70%, 62% and 58% respectively).

In contrast the least funded refugee response plans was the Tanzania country refugee response plan, which is only 24% funded, followed by Yemen Regional RMRP and the DRC Regional RRP (both 27% funded respectively).
FIGURE 19 THE FUNDING GAP IN REFUGEE RESPONSE PLANS IS WIDENING FROM 2012 TO 2019 $ S U n o i l l i M 1 5000 1 0000 5000 0 27% 41% 46% 23% 40% 46% 43% 66% 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 100% 50% 0% p a g i g n d n u F Requirements Funds available Funding gap TABLE 3: AGGREGATED FUNDING REQUIREMENTS, FUNDS AVAILABLE, AND FUNDING GAP BY REFUGEE RESPONSE PLAN (2012-2019) Funding requested Fund received Funding gap RRP 2012-2019 (million US$) Bangladesh JRP Europe Regional RMRP 920 500 000 1 360 802 792 690 117 340 850 093 679 Syria Regional 3RP 32 789 384 288 18 946 244 897 Venezuela Regional RMRP Nigeria Regional RRP Uganda Country RRP Ethiopia Country RRP South Sudan Regional RRP Chad Country RRP CAR Regional RRP Rwanda Country RRP Egypt Country RRP Burundi Regional RRP DRC Country RRP DRC Regional RRP Yemen Regional RMRP Tanzania Country RRP % 38 % 42 % 46 % 48 % 50 % 54 % 58 % 59 % 62 % 64 % 65 % 66 % 68 % 73 % 73 % 76 % 28 • STILL UNPROTECTED: HUMANITARIAN FUNDING FOR CHILD PROTECTION STILL UNPROTECTED: HUMANITARIAN FUNDING FOR CHILD PROTECTION • 29 Child Protection interagency funding in refugee response plans This section analyses trends in funding for Child Protection in the Syria 3RP and Bangladesh JRP, the only two inter-agency refugee response plans for which this data is available.39 These two plans have the highest levels of funding of all current refugee response plans and therefore should not be con- sidered representative of funding levels for Child Protection in all refugee responses.
Nonetheless the available data does provide some insights into inter-agency funding trends for Child Protection in these two refugee settings.

In 2019, the Syria 3RP40 and Bangladesh JRP recei- ved US$100,214,564 for Child Protection (2.64% of total funding), out of a total funding received for these two plans of US$3,796,154,015.

Overall, in both responses, Child Protection has a higher funding level than the overall appeal.
In 2019, it was 106% funded in the Bangladesh JRP (compared to 75% overall) and child 71% funded in the Syria 3RP (compared to 56% overall).

This trend is true for the two years of the Bangladesh JRP and three years of the Syria 3RP for which data is available.

This sug- gests that Child Protection is relatively well funded compared to overall levels of funding for refugee response in these two appeals.
As shown in Figure 21, the percentage of funding allocated to Child Protection in 2019 was 3.6% in the Bangladesh JRP and 2.4% in the Syria 3RP.
Over the two years of the Bangladesh JRP and the three years of the Syria 3RP for which data is available, FIGURE 21 PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL FUNDING RECEIVED GOING TO CHILD PROTECTION: BANGLADESH JRP (2018-2019) AND SYRIA 3RP (2017-2019) 4% 2% 0% 2.19% 2.70% 2.42% 3.63% 2.50% 2017 2018 2019 Syria 3RP 2018 2019 Bangladesh JRP an average of 2.5% of all available funding was allo- cated to Child Protection.
As above, this indicates that within these two appeals, Child Protection is receiving a relatively high percentage of available funding compared to what is the case in many oth- er humanitarian responses.

However, drilling down to country level, we find significant differences between countries and over time.
In 2019 at end of quarter 3, funding levels for Child Protection ranged from a low of 3.7% in Iraq to a high of 96% in Turkey and at the end of 2019, 106% in Bangladesh, as illustrated in Figure 2241.

Within the 3RP countries, such inequitable levels of funding have a significant negative impact on the ability of UNHCR and partners to provide quality, equitable Child Protection services to refugees.
From 2017-2019 funding levels for Child Protection remained relatively high and stable for Bangladesh, Turkey and Lebanon, stable and moderate for Jordan, but varied substantially for Iraq and Egypt, as shown in the Figure 22.

Egypt has had the most inconsistent levels of funding for Child Protection, varying from a high of 70% in 2017, to 22% in 2018, and down to 5% in the third quarter of 2019.
In conclusion, the data suggests that while on average Child Protection is relatively well funded compared to overall funding levels for refugee responses, there are significant disparities between countries and over time.

This inconsistency has a major negative impact on UNHCR’s and partners’ ability to provide equitable access to quality Child Protection services to refugees and other vulnerable children.
Taken together with the significant disparities in overall funding levels for refugee response plans, this suggests that addressing overall funding gaps for refugee responses and providing predictable multiyear funding to refugee response plans are crucial prerequisites for ensuring adequate levels of funding for Child Protection in refugee settings.
FIGURE 22 PERCENTAGE OF CHILD PROTECTION FUNDING RECEIVED AGAINST REQUIREMENTS IN SYRIA 3RP COUNTRIES AND BANGLADESH JRP 107% 90% 7% 70% 96% 75% 57% 22% 5% 49% 63% 61% 63% 40% 4% 106% 90% Lebanon Egypt Turkey Jordan Iraq Bangladesh JRP 2017 % funding for Child Protection 2018 % funding for Child Protection 2019 % funding for Child Protection Marium, 11, lives in Cox’s Bazar with her sister and brother.
She was separated from her family when her village was attacked, and she was shot in the leg during the violence.

“They were crying and hugging each other.

Seeing this, we also couldn’t stop our tears.

We all cried a lot.

They helped each other to overcome.

We also helped them to overcome.

That’s how we carried them the whole way.” Marium’s uncle, Rafiq, tells Save the Children.
PHOTO: JONATHAN HYAMS/SAVE THE CHILDREN The disparity in funding continued in 2019, with funding levels ranging from 57% for the Syria 3RP to 22% for the DRC RRP.
Overall funding levels of refugee response plans has a significant impact on the ability to fund Child Protection programmes – while the levels of Child Protection funding do not correspond precisely to the levels of overall funding (see section hereafter), available data suggests that higher levels of overall funding do tend to be associated with higher levels of funding for Child Protection.
FIGURE 20: OVERALL FUNDING LEVELS FOR MAJOR REFUGEE RESPONSE PLANS IN 2019 AS RECORDED BY FINANCIAL TRACKING SERVICE AND REFUGEE FUNDING TRACKER 75.0% 52.0% 56.1% 43.0% 46.0% 28.0% 22.0 30 • STILL UNPROTECTED: HUMANITARIAN FUNDING FOR CHILD PROTECTION STILL UNPROTECTED: HUMANITARIAN FUNDING FOR CHILD PROTECTION • 31 Exceeding expectations When Child Protection is well funded, it can have positive impacts beyond what is anticipa- ted.
In Lebanon, in 2019, thanks to receiving the resources it needed, the child protection sector achieved its targets and overachieved in key response-related services such as focused case management and psychosocial support.

Almost half of the children targeted by child protection actors were engaged in child labour.

A tailored package of services was developed by the sector and implemented by partners to help these children.
This included Child Protecti- on and Education interventions children at risk and those working and not going to school.

During the year, almost 80,000 children, half of them girls, benefitted from community-ba- sed child protection activities.

Almost 40,000 parents or caregivers took part in activities to promote the well-being and protection of chil- dren.
292 community initiatives were conducted by community members and key stakeholders to address key child protection issues identified in their communities.

Overall, 12,235 children received individual case management and specialised services, many more than the target 8,000.
20,958 girls and boys received specialised or focused psychosoci- al support, while the target was 16,000.42 Within UNHCR’s results-based management framework, Child Protection is one of five objecti- ves within the Rights Group called ‘Security from Violence and Exploitation’.

In 2019, UNHCR glo- bally allocated US$92.9 million to Child Protection, which is 2.5% of funding available for all UNHCR refugee responses.
UNHCR spent US$926.2 million on four protection-related rights groups ‘Fair protection processes and documentation’, ‘Favoura- ble protection environment’, ‘Durable Solutions’, and ‘Security from Violence and Exploitation’.43 As shown in Figure 25, Child Protection received 10% of all funding to these groups in 2019.
From 2015 to 2019, Child Protection funding in UN- HCR refugee programmes has also seen a significa- nt increase, from US$51.3m to US$92.4m, and from 2.4% to 3.2% of total refugee programme funding.

This increase is largely in line with the increase in overall funding to Protection.

There is significant regional variation in the per- centage of UNHCR refugee programme funding allocated to Child Protection.
Europe allocated the highest average percentage to Child Protection (3.4%) in 2019 while the lowest average is 1.6% in Middle East and North Africa, and West and Central Africa.
While further analysis is required to understand the reasons for such differences, po- tential explanations include different levels of Child Protection needs in the population and/or national capacities to respond, different prioritisation of Child Protection between UNHCR operations, and/ or competing priorities and donor priorities.
For instance, the increase in the percentage of UNHCR funding allocated to Child Protection within Europe in 2016 and 2017 largely corresponds to the peak of the refugee response in Europe, which involved large numbers of unaccompanied children requiring dedicated services.
Child Protection in UNHCR’s refugee response Due to the limited inter-agency funding data avai- lable on Child Protection in refugee settings, this section uses UNHCR data on Child Protection wit- hin UNHCR’s overall refugee funding allocations, as a case study to compliment the inter-agency data presented above.
UNHCR funding for asylum-seeker and refugee situations covers a full range of settings – includi- ng the large-scale inter-agency refugee responses covered by the refugee response plans described above as well as smaller programmes.

In 2019, 54% (US$1.65 billion) of UNHCR refugee programme funding was allocated to inter-agency refugee response plan appeals (eight country-level and six regional RRPs), while 46% (US$1.4 billion) was allocated to 98 country operations in non-RRP refugee settings.
As with inter-agency funding, the available funding for UNHCR’s refugee response is not keeping pace with the increased need, resulting in a widening funding gap.
FIGURE 23 ACCORDING TO REFUGEE FUNDING TRACKER, THE PROPORTION OF RRP FUNDING CONSTITUTED 54.2% OF UNHCR FUNDING FOR THE TOTAL REFUGEE PROGRAMME IN 2019 RRP FUNDING YES NO $1.4 billion (45.77%) FIGURE 25 UNHCR FUNDING FOR PROTECTION (MULTIPLE RIGHTS GROUPS) AND CHILD PROTECTION (2015-2019) Protection (Multiple Rights Groups) funding Child protection funding $1.65 billion (54.23%) FIGURE 26 PERCENTAGE OF CHILD PROTECTION BUDGET IN UNHCR REFUGEE PROGRAMME BY REGION (2015-2019) FIGURE 24 UNHCR FINANCIAL TRENDS: THE FUNDING GAP FOR CHILD PROTECTION IS SMALLER THAN THE GAP OF TOTAL REFUGEE PROGRAMME (2015-2019) s n o i l l i B 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 43.0% 42.1% 39.0% 33.2% 39.7% 33.3% 40.0% 37.6% 40.4% 32.1% 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Total Requirements for UNHCR Refugee Programme Total funding available for UNHCR Refugee Program Total funding gap Child protection funding gap 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0% 0.9% 0.6% 2015 5.2% 1.4% 5.7% 0.5% 2016 2017 3.7% 1.2% 2018 3.4% 1.6% 2019 East and Horn of Africa and Great Lakes Southern Africa West and Central Africa Americas Asia and the Paciﬁc Europe Middle East and North Africa 32 • STILL UNPROTECTED: HUMANITARIAN FUNDING FOR CHILD PROTECTION STILL UNPROTECTED: HUMANITARIAN FUNDING FOR CHILD PROTECTION • 33 CHILD PROTECTION UNDER COVID-19 THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC AND ITS IMPACT ON VULNERABLE CHILDREN The COVID-19 pandemic is exposing and accelerating shortcomings in local, national and global systems that protect children from harm.
COVID-19 has placed direct and indirect pressure on vulnerable coping mechanisms for children, their families, and their societies.

Children living in humanitarian contexts were, already, at particular risk of harm before COVID-19.

These children are now not only exposed to increased risks, but the limited systems that were in place to protect them are collapsing.
The World Bank estimates that an additional 88 million to 115 million people will be pushed into extreme poverty this year, with the total rising to as many as 150 million by 2021.47 Predictions suggest that people in 25 countries are set to face devastating levels of hunger in coming months due to the fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic, and that the number of people facing extreme hunger globally is set to double.48 Fifteen-months old Noura receives treatment for severe acute malnutrition at Save the Children’s outpatient therapeutic programme in a camp for Internally Displaced People in Lahj, Yemen.
PHOTO: JONATHAN HYAMS/ SAVE THE CHILDREN Ubah, 33, lost her livestock and was displaced from her home following the drought in 2017.

Since then, Ubah and her six children have been living in a settlement for the Internally Displaced Peoples (IDP) in Puntland, Somalia.

Before Coronavirus started to spread in Somalia, Ubah, used to go to the local market to found casual jobs at the local market, like washing clothes, cleaning houses or work as a porter.
But movement restrictions that came with the pandemic left her jobless.

“I have seen my children go to bed hungry.

As a mother, the best feeling is to know that your children are well-fed and healthy.

The worst feeling is when you fail to feed your children.

It is really painful.” Save the Children and partners gave Ubah and her family cash so the family could buy food and survive the harsh conditions.

“Before we got this help, we were only eating one meal a day, in the morning.
This support got us back on our feet, I also managed to pay my previous debts.” PHOTO: SAID M. ISSE/ SAVE THE CHILDREN Funding shortfalls: what happens next?

Two examples South Sudan’s conflict has had a devastating impact on children, who account for over half of the more than two million South Sudanese living in exile.

300,000 South Sudanese refugees live in seven different camps in Ethiopia’s Gambella region.
Most of the refugee children live with their families, but a significant number – more than 42,000 – are either unaccompanied or separated from their caregivers.
Lack of funding has left UNHCR unable to respond to the large number of new arrivals at the Pagak reception centre, or to strengthen support services for unaccompanied and separated children.44 As of June 2020, due to funding shortfalls, UNHCR had to stop supporting the child-friendly space it had been running with the Norwegian Refugee Council at the Simon Bolivar Bridge in Cucuta, at the main border crossing point from Venezuela into Colombia, since 2018.
In the second half of 2020, an estimated 10,000 newly arrived Venezuelan children will be left without supervision while their parents are going through immigration procedures, exposing them to significant risks at the crowded border crossing.45 34 • STILL UNPROTECTED: HUMANITARIAN FUNDING FOR CHILD PROTECTION STILL UNPROTECTED: HUMANITARIAN FUNDING FOR CHILD PROTECTION • 35 Key protection concerns under Covid-19 The Inter-Agency Standing Committee has identified key protection concerns already amplifying during the COVID-19 pandemic, based on reports from protection clusters across humanitarian responses.
These include increasing negative coping mechanisms, such as sale or exchange of sex, child recruitment into armed groups and trafficking in persons.

Violence, conflict and political unrest are growing, with a 2.5% increase in violence against civilians.

Almost all national protection clusters report an increase in gender-based violence, in the form of domestic violence, harmful practices against girls and child marriages.

Xenophobia, racism, and stigmatisation are on the rise.
In addition to this, containment measures, arbitrary restrictions on movement, and lack of available information mean not everyone is accessing life-saving services equally, and restrictions on access to certain populations is limiting the ability of protection actors to reach and inform communities on where to access help.46 By the end of March 2020, UNESCO reported that 1.5 billion children and young people, or almost nine out of ten learners across the world, had lost access to school as a result of containment measures.49 Loss of access to education profoundly undermines the protective environment for children.
In a global survey of the impact of COVID-19 on children, the percentage of children who reported violence within the home rose from 8% to 17% for those in and out of school.50 In emergency contexts, 75 million children, particularly girls, already lack access to education.51 Evidence from multiple contexts demonstrates that children affected by humanitarian crises are significantly less likely to return to school and more at risk of exploitation and recruitment.
Loss of access to school is a key driver of psychosocial distress and negative coping strategies in adolescence, such as drug use, self-harm and suicide.52 Across the world, the pandemic is adding multiple stressors to households, exacerbating pre-existing mental health issues and disrupting social supports.
This in turn fuels the drivers of intimate partner violence and child abuse within the home.55 We know from evidence that exposure to conflict, economic pressure within the household, poor mental health, limited social support and alcohol and drug use are associated with violence against both women and children.56 In the context of COVID-19, children have greatly reduced contact with trusted adults outside the home and are less likely to be able to seek the support that they may need to keep themselves safe.
In Zimbabwe, child protection hotlines have registered a 53% increase in calls.57 In Nepal, the 10-9-8 child helpline received a significant increase in calls following lockdown from children reporting harsh discipline, witnessing domestic violence, and reporting sexual and online abuse.58 Children, particularly adolescent girls, are increas- ingly exposed to the risk of sexual and gender- based violence.
In April 2020, the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) predicted that every three months of lockdown would lead to an additional 15 million cases of gender-based violence “My children are working every day.
They have to do that to feed us.” Aliya, 38, Iraq59 “I feel bored, thinking a lot about negative things, fear of the future, and our life has become more difficult than before due to poor living conditions.” Amjad, 15, Iraq67 worldwide.60 This ‘shadow pandemic’ is now being evidenced across multiple humanitarian crises: as of August 2020, 24 out of 26 Protection Clusters reported an increase in gender-based violence.
Twenty out of 26 report the sale or exchange of sex as a coping mechanism.61 Research by Oxfam in Afghanistan found that 97% of women in five districts reported an increase in gender-based violence.62 In CAR, an NGO providing services to survivors of sexual violence treated more child survivors in the first half of 2020 than in the whole of 2019.63 In Somalia, Plan International have noted an increase in female genital mutilation as cutters aggressively market their services and lockdown provides ample time for healing.64 World Vision has estimated that an additional four million girls are at risk of child marriage in the next two years because of the pandemic, as deepening poverty drives many families to marry off their daughters.65 Fifteen Protection Clusters have already reported an increase in early marriage.66 How do children across the world experience COVID-19?
The Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General on Violence against Children together with civil society organisations launched a global consultation to understand children’s experiences of the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as hear their views on how they wish to get involved in finding solutions to the worldwide crisis.53 The #CovidUnder19 initiative brought together children, academia, child human rights activists, experts and other key stakeholders to work together in understanding and collecting children’s experiences and views regarding their lives and their surroundings under COVID-19.
To date, over 21,000 children from all geographical regions have responded to the questionnaire.

The preliminary results show that: • Over half of children report that they have experienced, heard of or witnessed the same degree or more violence, both in the real world and online.

since the pandemic started.

• Some groups have experienced higher levels of violence, including children from minorities, children from migrant communities, children with disabilities, and LGBT children.
• Almost half of children who reported feeling less safe where they live also said they have less knowledge now than before lockdown on how to get help and support.

• Nine out of ten children said their friends have been able to help them during confinement but connecting with them has been challenging.
• Finally, in a post-COVID-19 world, over 90% of children want to help their families and two thirds want to get involved in their communities or with other children and young people in schools, youth groups or through other channels.
In September 2020, Save the Children published the report Protect a generation, presenting findings of a survey with 31,683 parents and caregivers and 13,477 children from 37 countries.54 The survey found that: • More than three in four households reported an income loss since the beginning of the pandemic.

Poorer households were more likely to suffer income losses (82%) than those not classified as poor (70%).
Urban households were also disproportionately affected, with respondents from urban areas almost twice as likely to say they have lost their job (61%) compared with those in rural areas (33%).

• Nearly one third (32%) of households had a child, parent or caregiver who said that there had been physical or emotional violence in their home since the start of the pandemic.
Income loss and school closures heightened such violence; 19% of households in which children reported that violence had taken place had lost all or most of their household income due to COVID-19, compared to 5% when there had been no loss of income.

• Violence in the household reported by children was double the rate when schools were closed (17%) compared with when schools were open and the child was attending in person (8%).
• Responses to the survey suggested that girls were being negatively affected by gender roles in the home.

Almost two thirds of girls (63%) reported an increase in household chores and more than half (52%) reported an increase in time spent caring for siblings and others since the pandemic began.

Girls reported that this stopped them from being able to study, at twice the rate of boys.
36 • STILL UNPROTECTED: HUMANITARIAN FUNDING FOR CHILD PROTECTION STILL UNPROTECTED: HUMANITARIAN FUNDING FOR CHILD PROTECTION • 37 Children who are living without family care face even greater risks.
Nineteen out of 29 Protection Clusters have identified an increase in family separation.69 In a global survey of the impact of COVID-19 on children, 6% of parents and caregivers who responded reported that they had been separated from their children due to the pandemic.70 As children lose caregivers to illness and death, and extended family and community members become less willing to provide care for children who may be perceived as spreading infection, increasing num- bers of children are moving to the streets or into over-crowded care centres.
In some care centres, children are not being allowed to leave while others are rapidly closing down, leaving many children at risk with no safe place to go.71 In Sudan, the numbers of children living in the street in Khartoum and Gezira States increased from 15,000 to an estimated 65,000 at the beginning of the pandemic as childcare facilities closed and children were released from reformatories, prisons and khalwa (religious schools).72 Children living on the streets have limited ability to take preventative measures against COVID-19, are less likely to access health services should they become ill, and are therefore at increased risk of both illness and stigmatisation.
Similarly, children deprived of their liberty or living in institutional care are unlikely to be able to distance themselves or access adequate hygiene, putting them at greater risk of transmission.73 As staff and carers become ill, standards of care for these children are likely to diminish.

A reduction in humanitarian access and support to children further undermines their care.
In South Sudan, family tracing and reunification for unaccompanied and separated children has been halted because of movement restrictions and loss of funding, leaving multiple children in interim care, including 99 children released from armed groups now left in interim care in Juba.74 ”I am worried about my learning.

I also feel tired of home chores.


I have fear of teenage pregnancy and child marriage; school girls are the most targeted ones in marriage due to school closure.” Neema, 14, Kenya 68 In many humanitarian contexts, large numbers of children are detained because of their migration status or for real or perceived association with parties to conflict.

In Senegal, following the forcible removal of children living on the streets, 206 non-national children have been placed in interim care awaiting deportation.
In the West Bank, a 15-year-old boy was detained and placed in solitary confinement when he tested positive for COVID-19.75 ICRC report that many children in detention are no longer allowed visitors, further affecting their emotional wellbeing.76 “I don’t feel good about the virus.

The outbreak has led to closure of activities in the camp for some time now.

We don’t play in the camp any more.

I am worried because I can’t meet with the other children in the child-friendly space.
Now I can’t move from the house.

I do housework all the time for my mother and remain indoors all the time.

They say anyone who plays with other children from another tent will be affected with the coronavirus.” Hauwa, 12, internally displaced in Nigeria77 The economic and social consequences of the pandemic threaten to erode social cohesion, amplifying existing and generating new conflict, exposing children to new risks and further under- mining their protection.
Twenty-one out of 26 Protection Clusters reported escalating conflict or political instability since the outbreak of COVID-19.

This amounts to a 30% increase in targeting of civilians by state forces and a marked rise in violent activity from non-state armed actors including a 70% increase in East and West Africa, most particularly Burkina Faso, DRC and South Sudan.78 Protection Clusters are also reporting an 11% increase in gang and mob violence across multiple countries since the start of the pandemic.
Children are particular victims of increasing violence and instability.

Seventeen Protection Clusters report an increase in forced labour, with recruitment and use by armed groups of particular note in Mali, Afghanistan and Colombia.

In the first half of 2020, 128 children and adolescents were recruited or associated with armed groups in Colombia.

In June, War Child documented a significant increase of children in mining areas in CAR, with an estimate of 500 NEW cases.
Local authorities reported an increase of girls in mining areas who are being sexually exploited in exchange for money and necessities, and cases of child recruitment into armed groups were also recorded.79 “I wonder if everything will be the same after the outbreak ends” Ayesha, 16, Pakistan80 titled ‘Humanitarian Financing Is Failing the COVID-19 Frontlines’, “rather than triggering adaptations to the humanitarian business model, or accelerating localization reforms agreed through the Grand Bargain, the COVID-19 crisis is instead prompting a regression toward traditional donor and UN funding dynamics.”84 The nexus approach – a new way of working moving beyond traditional sectoral thinking to capitalising on the synergies between the humani- tarian and development sectors – also seems missing in the COVID-19 response.
An article on the International Peace Institute Global Observa- tory website titled ’What Happened to the Nexus Approach in the COVID-19 Response?’85 details how the nexus approach was highlighted at the outset of the crisis with the promotion of a tighte- ned and reinforced collaboration between humani- tarian, development and peace actors – called the ‘triple nexus’.
But a siloed approach was then reinforced and observed and “the COVID-19 response has been managed through the traditio- nal structures” based on three plans led by the UN: the GHRP, the World Health Organization’s Strategic preparedness and response plan and the UN Socio-Economic Framework with separate appeals.
“The Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF) and country pooled funds are being used to finance the GHRP, while a COVID-19 Response and Recovery Multi-Partner Trust Fund has been set up to support responses to the socioeconomic consequences.”86 FUNDING CHILD PROTECTION IN HUMANITARIAN RESPONSE PLANS UNDER COVID-19 The Global Humanitarian Response Plan At the end of March 2020, the UN launched a coordinated COVID-19 Global Humanitarian Response Plan (GHRP) to address the most urgent needs caused by the pandemic in the most vulnerable countries.81 The GHRP aggregates existing humani- tarian appeals from UN and non-UN entities.
In March, funding requirements amounted to US$2.01 billion, but these were soon reviewed and updated in May to a US$6.71 billion appeal.

A second update was issued mid-July to include a US$10.3 billion appeal.

63 countries are considered as needing humanitarian assistance due to the virus, with most of them – 55 of the 63 – already having a response plan for pre-existing crisis.

In the remaining eight countries, humanitarian needs arose as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.
It is important to note that more than half of the 63 countries are experiencing protracted crises.
The GHRP July update provides a breakdown of COVID-19 requirements for: • • 25 Humanitarian Response Plans 4 Regional Refugee Response Plans, the Syria 3RP and the Venezuela RMRP • Bangladesh JRP for the Rohingya humanitarian crisis and the Horn of Africa and Yemen Migrant Response Plan • 10 ‘other plans’ for Benin, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Iran, Lebanon, Liberia, Mozambique, Pakistan, Philippines, Sierra Leone and Togo and 9 intersectoral plans for Bangladesh, Djibouti, Ecuador, Jordan, Kenya, Republic of Congo, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zambia • 3 global plans for: Global Support Services, Famine Prevention and a supplementary envelope for NGOs.
At the time of writing, US$2.53 billion82 has been received (excluding pledges) against the US$10.34 billion required, that is a 24.5% coverage rate or a 75.5% funding gap.

The FTS also reports an additional US$2,13 billion in funding related to the COVID-19 outbreak outside the response plans.

Although the GHRP acknowledges the importance of local response leadership,83 it called for the vast majority of funding (95%) to go to UN agencies directly.
As of mid-September, 79% of funding has been received by UN agencies and 16% by interna- tional NGOs, while local and national NGOs are receiving directly only 1.8% of funding.
According to a blog by staff at the Center for Global Development 38 • STILL UNPROTECTED: HUMANITARIAN FUNDING FOR CHILD PROTECTION STILL UNPROTECTED: HUMANITARIAN FUNDING FOR CHILD PROTECTION • 39 Child Protection funding under COVID-19 in 2020 humanitarian response plans The COVID-19 crisis is evolving fast; the present report is merely a snapshot at one point in time.

Child protection needs are changing rapidly, and the response must be adapted to match the changing context.
By triangulating CP data reported in HNOs, HRPs and the FTS with data collected through the CP AoR at country level, this study provides a more detailed review of CP response in a selection of 19 Humanitarian Response Plans for 2020.89 1.

Afghanistan 2.

Burkina Faso 3.

Cameroon 4.

Central African Republic 5.

Democratic Republic of Congo 6.

Ethiopia 7.

Iraq 8.

Libya 9.

Mali 10.

Myanmar 11.

Niger 12.

Nigeria 13.

Occupied Palestinian territory 14.

Somalia 15.

South Sudan 16.

Sudan 17.


Syria 18.

Ukraine 19.

Zimbabwe Data collected for these response plans and sources are detailed in Appendix 5: Selection of 2020 humanitarian response plans: data and sources.

Child Protection in the COVID-19 GHRP and on the FTS 2020 Under the COVID-19 GHRP, the FTS appears to track funding for CP against requirements for 10 response plans: Cameroon, Iraq, Libya, Niger, Nigeria, South Sudan, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Bangladesh intersectoral, and Kenya intersectoral.
These 10 plans together represent a total of US$37.3 million requirements for CP under the COVID-19 response.

As of mid-September,87 the FTS indicates that US$16.5 million was received for CP, suggesting a coverage rate of 44%, but when delving into details we observed that this total also accounts for funding received for CAR and Mali while the requirements are only for the 10 above-mentioned plans.

The coverage rate is therefore inaccurate.


When considering all plans and appeals in 2020, the FTS shows – at mid-September – US$69.5 million for CP (COVID-19 and non-COVID-19) received for 23 response plans against US$341.4 million required (suggesting a coverage rate of 20%).88 At the time of writing, the sector showing the best coverage rate (61%) was Emergency telecommunications, followed by Coordination and support services, Food security, and Logistics (all with a coverage rate of 30% to 32%).
The top four recipients of CP funding are UNICEF (57%), Save the Children (16%) and UNHCR and the United Nations Population Fund (6%).

The top donors are UNICEF (19%), USA (16%), Canada (12%), and Japan and Sweden (both with 9%).

In addition, a total of US$130 million is identified where CP is one among multiple destination sectors, the two largest combinations being CP/Health/Water, sanitation and hygiene and CP/Education/Nutriti- on/ Water, sanitation and hygiene.
In this study, we are not focusing solely on funding required and received for CP specifically in the COVID-19 response but rather on CP funding in the COVID-19 context, where pre-existing needs and newly arising CP needs are targeted.

We look at funding received for CP against requirements formulated before the COVID-19 pandemic and at their revision due to the changing environment linked to the pandemic.
“Before the COVID-19 pandemic, our life was better, although we still struggled to get food and other basic necessities.

Now, we feel that there is no inspiration to continue life’s journey - my school is closed, and we don’t have enough food and we are isolated at home.

I miss my friends and my classmates.

I am afraid of the future we are heading towards, an unclear future where we can’t see ourselves.

When I lost my father, I lost hope, but my school and my studies kept me motivated to continue.
Now I can’t see any bright future, poverty and other life obstacles threatens my life.” “Because of the coronavirus and the restrictions of movement imposed by the government, our family income from the small shop that we owned has declined.

The price for goods has also increased.

Before, we used to own some livestock; however, we lost most of them due to the drought here.

I’m worried my family could suffer from a shortage of food.” Mahadiya, 13, the Somali region of Ethiopia.
PHOTO: SAVE THE CHILDREN Mariam, 14, Afghanistan 40 • STILL UNPROTECTED: HUMANITARIAN FUNDING FOR CHILD PROTECTION STILL UNPROTECTED: HUMANITARIAN FUNDING FOR CHILD PROTECTION • 41 (loss of one or both parents, children who are separated from parents or unaccompanied, children placed in institutions, children victims of stigmatization) or those who are affected by the consequences of the pandemic (stress at the family level related to diminished resources, risks of neglect and lack of stimulation, reduced access to services, increased risk of domestic violence and child physical and sexual abuse, etc.
)” and prevention of family separation and provision of adequate alternative care measures.

The CP PIN doubled from 1 million to 2 million while the CP target tripled from 250,000 to 765,000.

In DRC, the HRP was revised in June 2020 and also reports major direct and indirect impacts from the pandemic and the associated prevention measures on the children’s living environment, and increased CP risks.
It estimates that 8.8 million children are now in need of CP assistance, an increase of 165%, from the 3.3 million identified in the original HRP.

The activities initially planned were scaled up and new activities were added, changing the CP target from 448,000 to 3.4 million, an increase of 650%, that is multiplied by 7.5.
CP Needs under COVID-19 The countries we are examining all had a humani- tarian response plan for the year 2020, but child protection needs increased rapidly as a result of the pandemic and the plans needed swift revision to address the crisis.

The Afghanistan, Cameroon and DRC HRPs all present striking examples of how CP needs increased due to the pandemic.
In Afghanistan, the HRP revision of June 2020 mentions the rise in CP concerns and risks and the severe burden placed on the already stressed CP system by the pandemic.

The CP PIN increased from 1 million to 1.6 million (an increase of 60%) and the CP target from 698,000 to 806,000 (a 15.5% increase).
Scaling-up “case management of children at significant risk of, or currently experiencing, child protection issues and extending services to children in detention/juvenile facilities” is planned, but scale-up of a number of activities was deemed not feasible in the operational context.
The response plan also mentions that some activities were adjusted, such as group activities in child-friendly spaces which have been paused, but children who received psychosocial support at these spaces are now reached through phones, radio, TV, online and house-to-house visits.

In Cameroon, the July 2020 revision of the HRP assesses a sharp negative impact on the environment in which children are living.
The population already affected by protracted humanitarian crisis has been heavily hit by the COVID-19 outbreak and protection risks have risen.
The revised response plan prioritises, for instance, “mental health and psychosocial support for children directly affected by COVID-19 FIGURE 27 SELECTION OF 2020 HRPS: ORIGINAL AND REVISED POPULATION IN NEED OF CHILD PROTECTION SERVICES AND POPULATION TARGETED 10 CP PIN CP PIN revised CP target CP Target revised TABLE 4 SELECTION OF 2020 HRPS: ORIGINAL AND REVISED POPULATION TARGETED AND IN NEED OF CHILD PROTECTION SERVICES Response plan CP PIN Revision Original CP PIN (millions) Revised CP PIN (millions) CP target revision Original CP target (millions) Revised CP target (millions) Afghanistan Burkina Faso Cameroon CAR DRC Ethiopia Iraq Libya Mali Myanmar Niger Nigeria oPt Somalia South Sudan Sudan Syria Ukraine Zimbabwe 1.00 0.37 1.00 0.80 3.32 2.60 1.64 0.22 1.03 0.38 0.43 1.80 0.34 1.60 2.50 1.84 5.70 0.81 1.20 1.60 0.57 2.00 na 8.80 na na na 1.20 0.38 na 1.80 na na na 2.28 5.70 na 2.20 0.70 0.37 0.25 0.29 0.45 0.25 0.59 0.14 0.24 0.24 0.21 1.07 0.08 0.92 0.53 0.74 0.60 0.41 0.42 0.81 0.39 0.77 na 3.36 1.87 0.59 na 0.28 0.35 0.25 1.80 na na na 0.92 0.60 0.43 0.42 The Sudan and Ethiopia HRPs are also revealing of the impact of COVID on CP needs.
In Sudan an additional 442,000 children and caretakers were identified as being in need of CP services as a result of COVID-19, and the target rose from an initial 739,000 to 916,000.

The CP target in Ethiopia increased from 250,000 in the original HRP to 1.9 million as reported by the local Information Management Officer in September 2020.

Additionally, in Nigeria, the CP PIN was not revised but the CP target rose from an initial 1.1 million to 1.8 million, covering all the people in need of CP services.
Revised figures for CP PIN and CP target could not be found for CAR, Libya, oPt , Somalia, and South Sudan nor could the revised PIN figures for Ethiopia, Iraq, Niger and Ukraine.

While we know that the CP PIN of Myanmar and Syria, and the CP target of Iraq and Syria were not revised, we cannot confirm for the “missing figures” (marked na.

in Table 4 ) whether revised figures were not developed or not accessible.
Scaling down mental health assistance to South Sudanese children In Uganda, child protection and psychosocial case management services in settlements hosting South Sudanese refugees have been scaled down in 2020 due to lack of funding.

With fewer case workers, many children at risk do not get home monitoring visits, with the caseworker to child ratio of 1:300 dramatically higher than the international standard of 1:25.
Mental health issues and suicide will continue to rise among refugees, in part due to lack of mental health services.
This has implications for 55,750 children at risk and 45,000 individuals with mental health and psychosocial support needs.90 42 • STILL UNPROTECTED: HUMANITARIAN FUNDING FOR CHILD PROTECTION STILL UNPROTECTED: HUMANITARIAN FUNDING FOR CHILD PROTECTION • 43 FIGURE 28 SELECTION OF 2020 HRPS: CHILD PROTECTION FUNDING RECEIVED (FTS ACCESSED ON 14 SEPTEMBER 2020) AGAINST CHILD PROTECTION FUNDING REQUIREMENTS (ORIGINAL AND REVISION) s n o i l l i M $ S U 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 9% 7% 8% 29% 1% 9% 55% 32% 42% 16% 1% 29% 19% 20% 25% 4% 14% 42% 0% R A C * C R D n a t s i n a h g A f o s a F i a n k r u B * n o o r e m a C i a p o h t E i q a r I a y b L i * i l a M * r a m n a y M t P o * r e g N i * a i r e g N i * a i l a m o S a i r y S * n a d u S i * e n a r k U * e w b a b m Z i * n a d u S h t u o S Original CP requirements HRP 2020 Additional CP Requirements (COVID revision) CP Funding received (FTS) Additional CP funding received (IMO) % Funding level - September 2020 CP funding requirements and funding received so far In light of the COVID-19 crisis, and to account for the changing needs and context, the Global Protection Cluster issued guidance on how to revise humanita- rian response plans or develop specific COVID-19 humanitarian plans.91 The guidance underlines that plans should include both preparedness for possible outbreaks, and should be revised and adapted to respond to the consequences of the pandemic on operations.
Revisions, informed by risks and needs analysis, can be integrated into the existing HRP or be presented as an addendum.
The guidance also clarifies: “This process includes taking decisions on: (1) reprioritizing activities (including putting some on hold); (2) adapting existing activities; (3) new interventions related to COVID-19.” Regarding the revision of financial requirements, the costing methodology should remain the same as in the initial 2020 HRP and as far as possible “requirements should distinguish the additional COVID-19 requirements from non-COVID-19 requirements”.92 Looking at the revised HRPs, it seems that some response plans prioritised existing packages of activities to address the urgent needs of the most vulnerable; some modified and adapted current and existing activities; and some planned new activities.
As a result, HRPs present CP requirements with various terminology: “original requirements” as opposed to “COVID-19 requirements” or “non- COVID” (DRC) and “covid-19 requirements” (Cameroon HRP), some do not mention additional COVID-19-specific requirements but refer to “original requirements” and “revised requirements”, and others present “prioritized requirements” for a defined period.
There is a wide range of revisions, and this study therefore focuses on all types of revision to account for changes in the pandemic context and not solely on “CP COVID-19 requirements”.

Of the 19 response plans we looked into, 16 demonstrated an increase in CP requirements in various proportions.
Some countries manifest a considerable increase in their requirements for CP, for example in Burkina Faso and Afghanistan these increased more than threefold (more than 200% increase rate) from US$4.5 million to US$14.7 million in Burkina Faso and from US$5.6 to US$17.3 million in Afghanistan.

The increase is also noteworthy for Cameroon, Mali, Niger and Ukraine, which show increases of 30% to 60% compared to original requirements.
In other terms, in 11 HRPs the increase in requirements represents an addition of US$2 to US$5 million per plan (marked with a * in Figure 28/29) and between US$10 and US$12 million for Afghanistan and Burkina Faso.

In CAR, Libya and Syria, based on available information, no changes in CP requirements were identified.

For Libya and CAR, the humanitarian community decided to prioritise a portion of the funding requirements as urgent funding.
However, Protection requirements increased by US$3.1 million, from an original US$32.5 million in CAR, and an additional US$12.8 million was requested for the Protection Cluster in Syria – unfortunately no information was available on the potential increase in requirements for Child Protection specifically in these response plans.

In this selection of 19 HRPs, CP requirements amount to US$382 million, representing 2% of the plans’ total requirements.
CP represents between 5% and 6% of total requirements in three HRPs: Cameroon, Iraq and Libya, with the lowest share being found in the Ethiopia HRP with a low 0.7%.

The share of funding94 received over total funding (excluding funding received for refugee response) is estimated at 1.3% as of mid-September.

Figures for Iraq, Libya, Mali and Myanmar suggest that funding for CP reaches 3% or more, while for the rest of the HRPs the share of funding for CP is 1% or less of total funding currently received.
Overall, a total of US$62.4 million was received for these responses (based on FTS and information provided by CP AoR), including US$54.5 million recorded on the FTS.
FIGURE 29 SELECTION OF 2020 HRPS: AVERAGE SHARE FOR CHILD PROTECTION OVER TOTAL REQUIREMENTS93 2% FIGURE 30 SELECTION OF 2020 HRPS: CHILD PROTECTION FUNDING PROGRESS (FTS accessed on 14 September 2020) CP requirements = 383 US$ Million 98% These findings also unveil that the way CP is portrayed on the FTS is not systematically accurate, data for CP is not thoroughly reported and tracked, and the summary view presented on the platform only accounts for a portion of response plans.
In mid-September the platform displayed that US$69.5 million had been received for CP against US$341.4 million required.

But one has to delve into the data to find that US$69.5 million is the sum of funding reported received for 23 response plans, and the total requirements of US$341.4 million seems to be the sum of CP requirements of 18 of these 23 response plans, thereby presenting an over-estimate for funding coverage of the sector.
Our selection of 19 HRPs accounts for 48% of total requirements across all sectors, and requirements for CP specifically exceed the total requirements for CP reported on the FTS.

Funding tracked on the FTS for these 19 HRPs represents 78% of all funding tracked on appeals and response plans on the FTS.

Child Protection underfunding as of September 2020 Based on information available, all HRPs except Libya have a funding gap of over 50% as of mid-September 2020.

12 HRPs are underfunded by 80% or more.


The response plan with the highest coverage rate currently is Libya, which is only 55% funded.

DRC, Nigeria, Syria and Zimbabwe have, according to available data, an appalling coverage rate below 5%.
Zimbabwe Nigeria DRC Syria Burkina Faso Cameroon Afghanistan Ethiopia Ukraine Niger Somalia South Sudan Sudan oPt CAR Mali Iraq Myanmar Libya This is highly worrying as funding traditio- nally peaks at Q2 of the year.

But it is not too late to fund the sector appropriately in order for humanitarian actors to effectively implement the planned CP activities.
If we fail to respond, children will be left in distress, deprived of necessary psychosocial support, the hope of unaccompanied and separated children of being reunified with their families will dwindle rapidly, and many children will face severe risks of abuse and violence.

More children will be exposed to exploitation, child labour, and early and forced marriages.
And as expressed in Cameroon’s HRP, “With the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic, children’s right to be safe will be profoundly at risk, especially in conflict-affected areas.

Children’s environment (families, communities) will be disrup- ted, with harmful consequences for the children’s protection, well-being, and development.” Release and reintegration on hold In South Sudan, restrictions related to COVID-19 have halted the planned release of children associated with armed forces and armed groups in 2020.
UNICEF’s funding appeal for work with such children is only 11% funded, and previously allocated funds have been diverted to the COVID-19 response.
As a result, strategic partnerships have ended, and some organisations have had to reduce or stop programming on the reunification and reintegration of children associated with armed forces and armed groups.95 44 • STILL UNPROTECTED: HUMANITARIAN FUNDING FOR CHILD PROTECTION STILL UNPROTECTED: HUMANITARIAN FUNDING FOR CHILD PROTECTION • 45 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Interventions that protect children from the es- calating risks of violence, abuse, exploitation and neglect during humanitarian crises save lives, pro- tect human dignity and promote the well-being of children, families, communities and societies, both immediately and into the future.
While it is encouraging to see a rise in funding of CP over time, woeful gaps remain.

With the im- pacts of COVID-19 disproportionately affecting the most vulnerable and increasing risks to children, it is now more important than ever to ensure children’s protection is central to responses.

The reverberating impacts of the global COVID-19 pandemic on children in humanitarian crises make it even more imperative to ensure that children have the safe environments they need to thrive.
Joyce, 10, at a hand-washing station in Kapoeta, South Sudan.

PHOTO: TITO JUSTIN/ SAVE THE CHILDREN Findings presented in this report illustrate that: • Child Protection is chronically underfun- ded.

The 19 Humanitarian Response Plans and Refugee Response Plans (2019) we have studied were funded at 67% overall across sectors, while Child Protection was only funded at 47%.

• There are significant disparities in funding between responses.
In 2019, overall funding coverage of the 19 HRPs and RRPs ranged from 35% to 94%, while the coverage for Child Protection ranged from 14% to 97%.

• Funding is unpredictable, with significant disparities between years for individual responses, which makes planning difficult.

For example, within the Syria 3RP, Egypt had a funding level of 70% in 2017, which decreased to 22% in 2018, and then dropped to 5% in the third quarter of 2019.
• Humanitarian funding requests for Child Protection interventions do not match the actual needs as they often aim to assist just a small fraction of the population in need of Child Protection services.

For example, in CAR only 4% of the children in need are targe- ted, in DRC it is 8%.

Also, funding requested does not always reflect the real cost of quality interventions that meet the Child Protection Minimum Standards, for example in Yemen on average only US$13 was requested per beneficiary for 2019.
• Funding available per child falls far short of what is needed to meet the Child Pro- tection Minimum Standards.

For example, in Mali, Sudan, Yemen and Nigeria, less than US$6 was available per beneficiary targeted for the year 2019.

• While the FTS system has improved to better reflect funding for Child Protection, there is a need for a system that adequately tracks all interventions, including from other sectors, which aim to protect children from harm.
We call on donors to: • Fully fund appeals for Child Protection across the Humanitarian Response Plans and Refugee Response Plans.
As a start, ensure that Child Protection is funded at the same level as the overall appeal; • Reaffirm and promote the Centrality of Protection in Humanitarian Action – and step up overall humanitarian funding across sectors, including to particularly underfunded countries; • Require that proposals adhere to the Child Protection Minimum Standards, and are costed and funded accordingly; • Move towards more equitable funding across responses, as well as predictable, flexible, and multi-year funding models to enable stable programming; • Invest and advocate to build the capacity and capabilities of the humanitarian Child Protection sector, with a particular focus on local actors, so that the sector is able to deliver quality needs assessments and appropriate responses that meet the Child Protection Minimum Standards; • Make funding available for multi-sector programming that recognizes both the Centrality of Protection and the need for specialized Child Protection programmes.
We call on humanitarian actors, including Child Protection practitioners at all levels, to: • Ensure that Humanitarian Needs Overviews, Humanitarian Response Plans and Regional Response Plans clearly outline how Child Protection interventions meet identified needs, adhere to the Child Protection Mini- mum Standards, and are costed accordingly; • Recognise the gap between Child Protection needs and capacity to deliver, and advocate for increased investment in systems building, including capacity building of national authorities and civil society organisations; • Strengthen the analysis of Child Protection needs, estimates of people in need of Child Protection services and targeting of interventions based on need; • Allocate enough funds to allow humanitarian Child Protection actors to provide essential services, while simultaneously investing in building longer term sustainable services and systems that protect children from harm.
• Estimate the cost-per-child, in context, for delivery of key Child Protection interventions in line with the Child Protection Minimum Standards, and use the findings to advocate for increased resources; • Strengthen the focus on the integration and mainstreaming of Child Protection across sectors in line with the Centrality of Protection in Humanitarian Action and the Child Protection Minimum Standards; • Mobilise new sources of funding for Child Protection, and work across the humanitarian, development and peace nexus to ensure children are protected, recover and their rights are met.
46 • STILL UNPROTECTED: HUMANITARIAN FUNDING FOR CHILD PROTECTION STILL UNPROTECTED: HUMANITARIAN FUNDING FOR CHILD PROTECTION • 47 APPENDICES LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS Gender-based violence The Syria Regional Refugee and Resilience Plan Area of responsibility Children associated with armed forces and armed groups Child Protection Area of Responsibility population in need of Child Protection Minimum Standards for Child Protection in Humanitarian Action 3RP The Alliance The Alliance for Child Protection in Humanitarian Action AoR CAAFAG CAP Consolidated appeals process (inter-agency) CAR Central African Republic CERF UN Central Emergency Response Fund CIN Children in Need COVID-19 Coronavirus disease 2019 - CO for corona, VI for virus, D for disease and 19 for 2019 CP Child Protection CP AoR CP PIN CPMS DRC Democratic Republic of Congo FTS Financial Tracking Service (managed by UN OCHA) GBV GHRP Global Humanitarian Response Plan HNO Humanitarian Needs Overview HPC Humanitarian Programme Cycle HRP Humanitarian Response Plan IASC IDP IMO Information Management Officer JRP Joint Response Plan (for Bangladesh – Rohingya crisis) Korea DPR Democratic People’s Republic of Korea NGO Non-Governmental Organization oPt occupied Palestinian territory PIN People in Need RFT Refugee Funding Tracker (managed by UNHCR) RMRP Refugee and Migrant Response Plan (for Venezuela) RRP Refugee Response Plan UN United Nations UN OCHA United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs UNFPA UNHCR Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund UNRWA US$ United States dollar USA United States of America The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East Inter-Agency Standing Committee internally displaced person United Nations Population Fund 48 • STILL UNPROTECTED: HUMANITARIAN FUNDING FOR CHILD PROTECTION STILL UNPROTECTED: HUMANITARIAN FUNDING FOR CHILD PROTECTION • 49 APPENDIX 1: METHODOLOGY AND DATA LIMITATIONS This report builds on the
 findings of two Save the Children reports: Unprotected: crisis in humanitarian funding for Child Protection (2010-2018) and Too little, Too Late: Child Protection funding in emergencies 2007-2009).
This desk-based research was carried out from July 2020 to September 2020 and used two separate approaches to data research and analysis: • The first approach used as main data source the Financial Tracking Service (FTS), a global and real-time database created in 1992 and managed by UN OCHA which tracks internati- onal humanitarian aid flows.
All humanitarian funding flows reported on the FTS are considered in the study, it includes funding from Humanita- rian Response Plans and appeals, the Central Emergency Response Fund, Country-based Pooled Funds, and other funds reported by the European Emergency Disaster Response Information System, government donors, UN agencies, NGOs and private donors.

The approach to data collection and identification of funding for Child Protection funding on the FTS is described below.
• For refugee settings, the main data source was the Refugee Funding Tracker, which includes funding and budgets for refugee-related appeals and plans such as country and regional Refugee Response Plans since 2012.

However, the RFT does not provide sufficient sector- specific data for a situational analysis of Child Protection.
Therefore additional sources with sufficient data granularity on Child Protection have been introduced to complement the analysis for refugee settings: (1) the Syria 3RP funding data for Child Protection tracked by No Lost Generation/Syria 3RP Child Protection Working Group, and Bangladesh JRP funding data collected from UN OCHA FTS following the methodology for categorising Child Protection detailed below; (2) UNHCR refugee programme funds on Child Protection, made available and analysed in comparison to the overall inter-agency funding in refugee settings.
1- Methodology – FTS Database A - Data limitations: Some limitations should be highlighted to put the findings of the study in perspective.

FTS database – The FTS database relies on voluntary reporting from donors and recipient organisations.

It therefore does not capture exhaustively all humanitarian funding.

It is, however, the most comprehensive public data source on humanitarian funding currently available.
Centrality of Protection in Humanitarian action and Child Protection mainstreaming – Protection is the central outcome and purpose of humanitarian response and all sectoral responses contribute to protection.
As mentioned in the Minimum Standards for Child Protection in Humanitarian Action96 “All humanitarian actors have the obligation to engage in multisectoral child protection activities.” This study acknowledges that other sectoral activities contribute to answer the protection needs of children but looks at funding for specialised Child Protection interventions and activities.
Child Protection integration across sectors – The study aims to identify funding for specialised Child Protection (CP) interventions.

Funding for CP integrated programming is taken into consideration when identified under the Protection and Child Protection sectors of the FTS, but it is extremely difficult to account in an exhaustive manner for all integrated CP activities across sectors due to reporting requirements.
For instance, some education or gender-based violence (GBV) inter- ventions, reported under the education and GBV sectors, might include specialised CP interventions, but the study focused on funding reported under Protection and Child Protection.
In Humanitarian Response Plans, CP is often included in the Global Protection sector with no breakdown of data for the areas of responsibility: Funding requirements are still often formulated for the whole Protection sector and not specifically for CP, which led to limitations in tracking CP funding and funding coverage.
Keyword search – The study includes all funding reported on the FTS for the Child Protection sector, but it also delves into the Protection sector to identify funding that may qualify as CP funding.

The study therefore proceeded to a keyword search where a number of keywords were searched through the descriptions provided on the FTS to flag funding flows with a focus on Child Protection (see list of keywords below).

Each flagged flow was then controlled individually.
This process includes a certain degree of subjectivity in the choice of keywords and the categorisation of funding flows.

The quality of this process is also constrained by the details provided in the funding description.

In addition, even when funding for Regional Refugee Response Plans is tracked on the FTS, funding is not tracked by traditional sectors but overall reported under ‘multi-sector’, which hinders the identification of CP funding for these plans.
B - Data collection – main steps: All funding flows under Protection Sector (set 1) Keyword search + individual control and categorization Funding flows considered as CP and CP integrated across sectors (set 1-bis) All funding flows under CP Sector (set 2) Estimated CP funding (Set 1bis + Set 2 = Set 3) As the FTS is a real-time database, data for 2019 was downloaded once, on 6 July 2020, for two sectors: Protection and Child Protection.
Only incoming flows were considered, to avoid double counting with internal flows.

As per the Unprotected study, and despite the existence of a CP-specific sector, on the FTS, the research team included the Protection sector in the data search as some CP funding is still reported under the larger Protection sector.
A keyword search was used to isolate funding reported under Protection that may qualify as CP funding, followed by a manual and individual control phase to check whether funding identified by the keyword search should be considered as CP funding.
Funding considered as CP funding was then assigned to the following categories: METHODOLOGY - FUNDING FLOWS CATEGORISATION CP FTS CP integrated across sectors (CP target) CP est CP integrated across sectors (CP target) Funding Reported under CP sector Funding Reported under P sector CP Multiple sectors (shared) CP Multiple sectors (shared) P with CP component target larger than CP target) Not CP • “CP” = Funding described as for Child Protection activities or/and reported under the Child Protection Sector without additional details • “CP integrated across sectors (CP PIN)” = Funding described as for Child Protection activities but coupled or inte- grated with other activities focusing on children and their families exclusively The sum of funding categorised under these two groups is what the study refers to as “total estimated CP funding”.
» » The following categories include funding going in part to CP activities, but which cannot be considered as CP funding in whole.

No breakdown or further details were available to enable us estimate the specific share attribu- ted to CP.
• “CP component (target > CP PIN target)” = Funding reported under the Protection sector where Child Protection activities is one component and is coupled with activities from different sectors not exclusively focusing on children, but CP activities are clearly identified.

One example is gender-based violence and CP activities focusing on women and children.
• “Multiple sectors (shared)” = Funding with a CP component but with multiple destination sectors – as no disaggregated sectoral data is available, the share of funding for CP is unknown.
50 • STILL UNPROTECTED: HUMANITARIAN FUNDING FOR CHILD PROTECTION STILL UNPROTECTED: HUMANITARIAN FUNDING FOR CHILD PROTECTION • 51 ” D E T C E T O R P N U ” N I D E S U S D R O W Y E K ” D E T C E T O R P N U L L I T S ” N I D E D D A S D R O W Y E K KEYWORDS (english) INCLUDES (english) child youth young infant Childhood, children, separated children, unaccompanied children, street children, refugee and migrant chil- dren, child soldiers, child caregivers, child-headed households, child labour, child exploitation, child survivor young people (s) adolescen adolescent(s), adolescence girl boy minor newborn new-born baby babies orphan family families parent caregiver care-giver kid mother father pregnant UASC CWD CAAFAG CLWS OVC teacher pupils (s) (s) (s), unaccompanied minors.. (s) (s) (s), orphanage(s) family stenghtening (s), parenting, parental (s) (s) (s) (s) (unaccompanied and separated children, unaccompanied asylum seeking chidlren) (children with disabilities) (children associated with armed forces and armed groups) (children living and working on the streets) (orphans and vulnerable children) safe space (s) friendly spaces child friendly spaces, mother-baby friendly spaces, youth friendly spaces.. CFS (child friendly spaces) recreational activities after-school After-school activities ECD CAC CAAC CCS foster care ACE CBCP CP CEFM CHH CM IDTR IYCF PSEA RFL FTR (early childhood development) Children in armed conflict Children and armed conflict Caring for child survivors Alternative care in emergencies Community based child protection Child Protection Child early and forced marriage Child headed household Case management Identification documentation tracing and reunification infant and young children feeding Protection against sexual exploitation and abuse Restoring family links Family tracking and reunification FIGURE 31 THE REFUGEE FUNDING TRACKER RFT Form Online form to collect refugee data from NGO partnes Financial tracking Online service coordinated by OCHA to report on humanitarian funding
 Historical Data Funding and budget data on Refugee Response Plans since 2012 UNHCR UNHCR´s funding data for the current year with estimate on allocation of unearmarked/ broadly earmarked funding SOURCE: HTTPS://DATA2.UNHCR.ORG/FR/DOCUMENTS/DETAILS/69631 2- Methodology – Child Protection funding in refugee settings A - Data limitations: Refugee Funding Tracker (RFT): The RFT compiles all financial data related to refugee programmes that was previously collected in different online data systems.
The graphic below describes the key data sources for the RFT, which include funding and budgets for refugee-related appeals and plans such as country and regional Refugee Response Plans since 2012, as well as refugee programme funding data from UNHCR.

The RFT provides the most reliable and compre- hensive data for refugee funding.

For the purposes of this report, one of the main limitations of the RFT is that it does not provide disaggregated data on Child Protection needs or funding received.
UNHCR Refugee funding for Child Protection: For the report’s purposes, funding for Child Protection is calculated based on the resource allocation under UNHCR’s results-based management framework.

In this framework, Child Protection constitutes one of five objectives within one the rights group Security from Violence and Exploitation.

Funding allocated to other related objectives (e.g.

GBV) or under other rights groups (e.g.


community-based protection under Community Empowerment) was not included in this study.

UNHCR Refugee funding for Protection: UNHCR’s Protection funding refers to funding for the following rights groups: Fair protection proces- ses and documentation, Favourable protection environment, Durable Solutions, and Security from Violence and Exploitation, in which Child Protection is included as an objective.
The funding figures do not include the rights group Community Empower- ment and Self-service as the objectives hereunder also cover self-reliance and livelihoods.

Bangladesh JRP Child Protection funding: The raw funding data for the Bangladesh JRP is collected from FTS, and the identification of funding for Child Protection follows the same methodology as provided above in Appendix 1.
Syria 3RP: Child Protection funding data for the Syria 3RP here refers to accumulated funding available as of Q3 2019, not the final data as of the end of year.

Therefore, there is an underestimation of the amount going to CP in the Syria 3RP.

Note: All keywords were also translated in French and Spanish and added to the keyword search.
52 • STILL UNPROTECTED: HUMANITARIAN FUNDING FOR CHILD PROTECTION STILL UNPROTECTED: HUMANITARIAN FUNDING FOR CHILD PROTECTION • 53 B - Methodology: funding analysis framework and rationale for refugee settings FIGURE 32 FRAMEWORK OF CP FUNDING ANALYSIS IN REFUGEE SETTINGS APPENDIX 2: ADDITIONAL TABLES Refugee funding tracker (2012-2019) TABLE 5: TOTAL HUMANITARIAN FUNDING REPORTED ON THE FTS 2010-2019 AND RESPONSE PLANS INCLUDED OR EXCLUDED FROM THE FTS Total funding tracked (historic records for RRP funding requrements and received) CP funding in Syria 3RP and Bangladesh JRP Selection of the inter-agency CP funding case study: Both Syria 3RP and Bangladesh JRP are selected as case studues for analysing the chidl protection funding situation in refugee settings..; Child Protection funding tracked across 5 Syria3RP countries by Child Protection Working Group/the No Lost Generation Initiative by UNICEF; Bangladesh JRP funding data is tracked by FTS, and the funding for Child Protection follows the same methodology as provided above.
CP funding in UNHCR Refugee Programme Selection of the agency funding case study: UNHCR funding for asylum-seeker and refugee situations covers a full range of settings – including the large-scale inter-agency refugee responses covered by the Refugee Response Plans described above as well as smaller refugee response programmes.

In 2019, 54% (US$1.65 billion) of UNHCR refugee programme funding was allocated to inter-agency refugee response plan appeals.
Child Protection funding data is made available through systematic tracking under UNHCR's results-based manamgement.
Outside response plans/ap- peals (US$ Billion) Inside response plans / appeal (US$ Billion) Total funding include Response plans excluded from total 8.76 7.90 7.32 6.15 7.25 19 responses: CAP & Flash appeal Burkina Faso, Iraq, Nepal, Pakistan, Iraq regional, Sri Lanka 5.74 5.79 21 responses: CAP & Flash appeals Korea DPR, Mindanao, Sri Lanka 22 responses: CAP & Flash appeals Korea DPR, Pakistan, Sri Lanka 8.33 19 responses: CAP and Syria RRP Cuba, Myanmar Kachin and Rakhine, Zimbabwe Year 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 13.14 11.01 2015 2016 2017 9.38 11.00 7.26 10.82 11.93 14.46 30 responses: Flash appeals, HRPs, South Sudan Regional RRP and Syria Regional RRP Ebola 32 responses: Flash appeals, HRPs, South Sudan Regional RRP, Syria 3RP DPR Korea 36 responses: Flash appeals, HRPs, Syria 3RP Europe RMRP, Korea DPR 32 responses: Flash appeals, HRPs, Syria 3RP Europe RRMP, Bangladesh, Cuba, Korea DPR, Carribean, Pakistan 2018 10.06 15.26 22 responses: HRPs, Syria 3RP Bangladesh JRP, Burkina Faso, Korea DPR, Indonesia , Mauritania, Pakistan, Philippines, Senegal 2019 6.76 17.53 31 responses: Flash appeals, HRPs, Other, Syria 3RP, Bangladesh JRP, Venezuela RRMP Pakistan, Burundi Regional, DRC Regional, Nigeria Regional, South Sudan Regional TABLE 6: FUNDING REPORTED UNDER THE CHILD PROTECTION SECTOR (FTS accessed on 6 August 2020 and 6 July 2020 for 2019 data) Year Total Funding reported for Child Protection (FTS) Response plan/appeal funding for Child Protection (FTS) Response plans/appeals require- ments for Child Protection (FTS) • STILL UNPROTECTED: HUMANITARIAN FUNDING FOR CHILD PROTECTION STILL UNPROTECTED: HUMANITARIAN FUNDING FOR CHILD PROTECTION • 55 TABLE 7: ESTIMATED FUNDING FOR CHILD PROTECTION BY NATIONAL
 GOVERNMENT DONORS (based on FTS, in US$ millions by destination usage year) TABLE 8: SELECTION OF 2019 HRPS – child protection needs and targeted population99 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Grand Total 2019 CP PIN Source CP target Source Target % of total PIN 9.28 3.87 3.48 3.06 12.13 10.68 6.68 11.21 13.33 22.44 96.16 Afghanistan 1 464 000 Protection CIN - HNO 2019 82 451 UNICEF HAC - CP target 2019 National Government (Amount in Million US$) United States of America, Government of Sweden, Government of Japan, Government of Germany, Government of Denmark, Government of Belgium, Government of United Kingdom, Government of Canada, Government of Switzerland, Government of Australia, Government of Norway, Government of Italy, Government of Ireland, Government of Netherlands, Government of Saudi Arabia (Kingdom of), Government of Luxembourg, Government of Spain, Government of France, Government of Finland, Government of Austria, Government of Burkina Faso na 112 000 Child Protection - CP AoR CAR DRC Iraq Mali Niger Nigeria oPt Somalia South Sudan Sudan Syria Ukraine Venezuela Yemen Zimbabwe 1 910 100 Child Protection - HRP 2019 74 000 Child Protection - HRP
 2019 3 448 500 Child Protection - CP AoR 273 602 Child Protection - CP AoR 1 510 000 Child Protection (including caregivers) - HRP 2019 654 000 Child Protection - HRP 2019 406 000 Child Protection - HRP 2019 272 000 Child Protection - HRP 2019 484 000 Child Protection - CP AOR 293 906 Child Protection - CP AoR 3 237 333 Child Protection - HRP 2019 1 541 000 Child Protection - HRP 2019 332 155 Child Protection - HNO 2019 138 789 Protection CIN - HRP 2019 1 519 038 Child Protection - CP AOR 742 000 Child Protection - CP AoR 1 900 000 Child Protection - HNO 2019 – Children in acute and severe protection risks 545 000 Child Protection - CP AoR 1 644 000 Protection CIN - HNO 2019 700 000 Child Protection - HRP 2019 5 600 000 Child Protection - HRP moni- toring Report 2019 1 000 000 Child Protection - HRP monitoring Report 2019 465 000 Protection CIN - HNO 2019 273 000 Protection CIN - HRP 2019 1 300 000 Child Protection - children in need HRP 2019 300 000 Child Protection - children in need HRP 2019 4 264 000 Protection CIN - HNO 2019 - Children in acute protection needs 3 000 000 Child Protection - CP AoR Yemen - Dashboard on need, response and gaps (2019) 150 700 Child Protection - Humanita- rian Appeal Revision 2019 133 300 Child Protection - Humanitarian Appeal Revision Korea, Republic of, Government of 0.90 United Arab Emirates, Government of 0.01 Kuwait, Government of Colombia, Government of 0.97 Estonia, Government of 0.04 0.13 0.18 Portugal, Government of New Zealand, Government of 0.27 Bulgaria, Government of Hungary, Government of 0.00 0.05 Kazakhstan, Government of Slovenia, Government of Lithuania, Government of na na 4 % 8 % 43 % 67 % 61 % 48 % 42 % 49 % 29 % 43 % 18 % 59 % 23 % 70 % 88 % Grand Total 47.87 35.85 36.71 54.29 68.43 45.49 49.26 68.50 63.94 91.20 561.55 56 • STILL UNPROTECTED:
 HUMANITARIAN FUNDING FOR CHILD PROTECTION STILL UNPROTECTED: HUMANITARIAN FUNDING FOR CHILD PROTECTION • 57 APPENDIX 3: SELECTION OF 2019 HUMANITARIAN RESPONSE PLANS: DATA AND SOURCES APPENDIX 4: SELECTION OF 2020 HUMANITARIAN RESPONSE PLANS: DATA AND SOURCES Response plans - 2019 CP requirements (US$ million) ” Estimated CP Funding received (US$ million) based on FTS Data and data sourced from local IMOs ” CP PIN / Protection CIN (million) CP target / Protection CIN target (million) Afghanistan Burkina Faso Central African Republic 5.00 Proxy: UNICEF HAC requirements for CPiE 0.85 2.27 $78.8 K identified on FTS.
$2.27 M reported by the IMO 5.60 CP AoR - local IMO 9.62 CP AoR - local IMO na na 0.08 Child Protection - target UNICEF HAC 2019 0.112 Child Protection - CP AoR/local IMO 9.34 1.910 Child Protection - HRP 2019 0.074 Child Protection - HRP 2019 Democratic Republic of the Congo 12.58 HRP and CP AoR - local IMO 9.99 $5.67 K identified on FTS.
$9.99 M reported by the IMO 3.449 Child Protection - CP AoR/local IMO 0.274 Child Protection - CP AoR/local IMO Iraq Mali Niger Nigeria 39.90 HRP 2019 and FTS 9.83 CP AoR - local IMO 7.85 CP AoR - local IMO 36.64 HRP 2019 and FTS Occupied Palestinian territory 6.46 CP-MHPSS requirements sourced from the Protection Cluster HRP 2019 Overview Somalia South Sudan Sudan Syria Ukraine Venezuela Yemen Zimbabwe 24.50 CP AoR - local IMO 28.50 CP AoR - local IMO 18.12 FTS - HPC tool 72.08 FTS - HPC tool 6.78 FTS - HPC tool 14.50 HRP 2019 40.00 CP AoR - local IMO and CP Dashboard 2019 7.20 HRP 2019 and FTS 32.68 1.33 3.63 8.44 4.79 1.510 Child Protection (including caregivers) - HRP 2019 0.654 Child Protection - HRP 2019 0.406 Child Protection - HRP 2019 0.272 Child Protection - HRP 2019 0.484 Child Protection - CP AOR/local IMO 0.294 Child Protection - CP AoR/local IMO 3.237 Child Protection - HRP 2019 1.541 Child Protection - HRP 2019 & CP AoR 0.332 Child Protection - HNO 2019 0.139 Protection CIN - HRP 2019 9.40 $6.59 K identified on FTS.
$9.40 M reported by the IMO 1.519 Child Protection - CP AOR IMO/ local IMO 0.742 Child Protection - CP AoR/local IMO 10.87 3.42 10.41 3.11 2.47 16.04 1.70 1.900 Child Protection - children in acute and severe protection risks - HNO 2019 0.545 Child Protection - CP AoR/local IMO 1.644 Protection CIN - HNO 2019 0.700 Child Protection - HRP 2019 5.600 Child Protection - HRP monitoring Report Oct 2019 1.000 Child Protection - HRP monitoring Report Oct 2019 0.465 Protection CIN - HNO 2019 0.273 Protection CIN - HRP 2019 1.30 Child Protection - children in need HRP 2019 0.30 Child Protection - children in need HRP 2019 4.264 Protection CIN in acute protection needs - HNO 2019 3.000 Child Protection AoR Yemen - Children in need of Protection - Dashboard on need.
response and gaps (2019) 0.151 Child Protection - Humanitarian Appeal Revision 2019 0.133 Child Protection - Humanitarian Appeal Revision 2019 ALL SECTORS CHILD PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS AND FUNDING RECEIVED CHILD PROTECTION NEEDS AND POPULATION TARGETED BY RESPONSE PLAN Humanitarian response plans (HRPs) - 2020 Total origi- nal require- ments (US$ million) Total revised re- quirements: COVID-19 and non-CO- VID (US$ million) ”Total funding re- ceived (US$ million) FTS - 14/09/20” CP original require- ments HRP (non/ pre-CO- VID) (US$ million) TOTAL revised CP REQUI- REMENTS REVISED COVID & Non-CO- VID (US$ million) Total CP Funding received (US$ million) as of early September 2020 CP PIN (Million) CP Target (Million) Revised CP PIN (Million) Revised CP Target (Million) Afghanistan 735.36 1 131.05 1 131.05 Burkina Faso 318.43 424.36 424.36 Cameroon 309.19 390.92 390.92 Central African Republic Democratic Republic of the Congo 400.81 553.62 553.62 1 794.64 2 069.13 2 069.13 Ethiopia 1 144.21 1 650.23 1 650.23 5.60 (HRP Dec. 2019) 4.46 (HRP Jan.2020) 11.70 (HRP Mar.
2020) 8.90 (HRP Dec. 2019) 17.20 (HRP Feb 2020) 10.90 (HRP Jan. 2020) 17.30 (Revised HRP Jun.

2020) 1.51 (FTS 14/09/2020) 14.70 (CP - Dash- board Mar.

2020) 1.06 (FTS 14/09/2020) 1.000 (HRP Dec. 2019) 0.368 (HRP Jan.2020) 16.52 (Revised HRP Jul.

2020) 1.37 (FTS 14/09/2020) 1.000 (HNO Mar.

2020) 0.698 (HRP Dec. 2019) 0.368 (HRP Jan.2020) 0.250 (HRP Mar.

2020) 1.600 (Revised HRP Jun.

2020) 0.806 (Revised HRP Jun.

2020) 0.571 (Revised HRP Jul.

2020) 0.390 (Revised HRP Jul.


2020) 2.000 (Revised HNO Jun.

2020) 0.765 (Revised HRP Jul.

2020) na Protection requirements increased from $32.5 M (HRP Dec.2019) to $35.6 M (Humanitarian situation Dashboard Jun.

2020) 2.59 (FTS 14/09/2020) 0.798 (HNO Light Feb. 2020) 0.293 (HRP Dec. 2019) na na 19.70 (Revised HRP Jun.

2020) 0.24 (FTS 14/09/2020) 3.316 (HNO Dec. 2020 and Humanitarian InSight website) 0.448 (HRP Feb 2020 and Humani- tarian InSight website) 8.800 (Revised HRP Jun.
2020) 12.27 Local IMO 1.10 (FTS 14/09/2020) 2.600 (HRP Jan. 2020) 0.250 (HRP Jan. 2020) Iraq 397.38 662.17 662.17 38.88 (HRP Jan. 2020) 39.18 (COVID-19 HRP addendum Jul.

2020) 16.54 (FTS 14/09/2020) 1.640 (HNO Nov. 2019) 0.589 (HRP Jan. 2020) Libya 83.19 129.85 129.85 6.63 (HRP Feb. 2020) na $5.5 M prioritized requirement for direct and indirect contribution to COVID-19 CP response (HRP Prioritization Apr.
2020) 3.62 (FTS 14/09/2020) 0.220 (HRP Feb. 2020) 0.139 (HRP Feb. 2020) na na Mali 398.88 474.29 474.29 Myanmar 216.50 275.30 275.30 11.63 (HRP Mar.

2020) 15.23 (Revised HRP Aug. 2020) 4.82 (FTS 14/09/2020) 1.028 (HNO Jan. 2020 and CP Dashboard Jan- Mar.

2020) 0.240 (HRP Mar.


2020) 1.200 (Revised HRP Aug. 2020) 0.283 (Revised HRP Aug. 2020) 8.30 (HRP Dec. 2019) 10.70 Local IMO 4.52 (FTS 14/09/2020) 0.380 (HRP Dec. 2019) 0.240 (HRP Dec. 2019) 0.380 (No revision - confirmed by local IMO) 0.351 (Local IMO) Niger 433.76 516.07 516.07 8.83 (HRP Feb. 2020) 13.14 (Revised HRP Jul.

2020 - $4.3 M additional requ- irements for CP COVID-19) 2.06 (FTS 14/09/2020) 0.433 (HNO Jan. 2020) 0.210 (HRP Feb. 2020) na 0.248 (Revised HRP Jul.

2020) 3.360 (Revised HRP Jun.


2020 and CP Dashboard Jun.

2020 ) 1.872 (Local IMO) 0.589 (No revision as per -COVID-19 HRP addendum Jul.

2020 and Humanitarian response overvi- ew - Dashboard Jan-Jun.
2020) na na 58 • STILL UNPROTECTED: HUMANITARIAN FUNDING FOR CHILD PROTECTION STILL UNPROTECTED: HUMANITARIAN FUNDING FOR CHILD PROTECTION • 59 ALL SECTORS CHILD PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS AND FUNDING RECEIVED CHILD PROTECTION NEEDS AND POPULATION TARGETED BY RESPONSE PLAN Humanitarian response plans (HRPs) - 2020 Total origi- nal require- ments (US$ million) Total revised re- quirements: COVID-19 and non-CO- VID (US$ million) ”Total funding re- ceived (US$ million) FTS - 14/09/20” CP original require- ments HRP (non/ pre-CO- VID) (US$ million) TOTAL revised CP REQUI- REMENTS REVISED COVID & Non-CO- VID (US$ million) Total CP Funding received (US$ million) as of early September 2020 CP PIN (Million) CP Target (Million) Revised CP PIN (Million) Revised CP Target (Million) Nigeria 838.00 1 080.45 1 080.45 22.75 (HRP Mar.
2020) 27.20 (COVID-19 HRP addendum Jun.2020 ) 0.26 (FTS 14/09/2020) 1.800 (HRP Mar.

2020) Occupied Palestinian territory 347.98 390.42 390.42 9.82 Local IMO 10.57 Local IMO 3.07 (Local IMO - $0 on FTS 07/09/2020) 0.342 (Local IMO and HNO Dec. 2019) 1.070 (HRP Mar.

2020 and CP Monitoring Dashboard Jun.


2020) 0.081 (Local IMO) Somalia 784.32 1 009.93 1 009.93 South Sudan 1 517.77 1 900.80 1 900.80 Sudan 1 349.86 1 633.40 1 633.40 Syria 3 433.38 3 817.53 3 817.53 Ukraine 157.75 204.65 204.65 Zimbabwe 715.78 800.77 800.77 24.30 (HRP Jan. 2020) 25.00 (HRP Dec. 2019) 15.62 (HRP Jan. 2020) 27.06 Local IMO 27.50 FTS - HPC Tool 20.60 FTS - HPC Tool 5.22 (Local IMO - $0.6 M on FTS 14/09/2020) 5.51 (FTS 14/09/2020) 5.07 (FTS 14/09/2020) 1.600 (HRP Jan. 2020) 2.500 (HRP No.
2019) 0.921 (Local IMO) 0.525 (HRP Dec. 2019) 1.840 (HRP Jan. 2020 and CP Dashboard Jan- Mar.

2020) 0.739 (HRP Jan. 2020 and CP Dashboard Jan- Mar.

2020) 75.75 (Syria Humani- tarian Funding Gaps Jun.

2020) 3.80 (HRP Jan. 2020) 10.00 (HRP 2020) na Additional $12.8 M in Protection requirements for COVID-19 response (Syria Humanitarian Funding Gaps Jun.

2020) 6.04 Local IMO 12.75 (Revised HRP Apr.

2020 additional $2.8 M for CP COVID-19 response) 2.96 (FTS 14/09/2020) 5.700 (WoS CP AoR Dashboard Jun.
2020) 0.599 (WoS CP AoR Dashboard Jun.

2020) 5.700 (No revision - confirmed by local IMO) 0.599 (No revision - confirmed by local IMO) 0.85 (Local IMO - $0.6 M on FTS 14/09/2020) 0.811 (HNO Jan. 2020 - children and caregivers in need of PSS or CP services) 0.406 (Local IMO) na 0.427 (Local IMO) 0.00 (FTS 14/09/2020) 1.200 (HRP 2020) 0.422 (HRP 2020) 2.200 (Revised HRP Apr.
2020) 0.422 (No revision - confirmed by local IMO) 1.800 (COVID-19 HRP addendum Jun.2020 ) 1.800 (COVID-19 HRP addendum Jun.2020) na na na na na na 2.282 (Local IMO) 0.916 (Local IMO) ENDNOTES 1) We are here looking at the overall humanitarian context and appeals under the COVID-19 pandemic area, without analysing other contributing drivers of humanitarian needs, or example natural disasters and armed conflict.
2) Other estimates put the number as high as 215.6 million people in need assistance in 69 countries.
Development Initiatives, Global Humanitarian Assistance Report 2020, 2020. https://www.devinit.org/resources/global-humanitarian-assistance-report-2020/ 3) UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, Global Humanitarian Needs Overview, December 2019 https://reliefweb.int/report/world/global-humanitarian-overview-2020-enarfrzh 4) This is well illustrated by the Global Humanitarian Response Plan, which required US$2 billion when first presented on 25 March 2020, US$6.7 billion in its update on 7 May 2020, and US$10.3 billion with its third update on 17 July 2020.
5) Unprotected: Crisis in humanitarian funding for child protection, The Alliance for Child Protection in Humanitarian Action, Save the Children Internati- onal and the Child Protection Area of Responsibility, 2019 https://resourcecentre.savethechildren.net/node/15501/pdf/child-protection-funding-report-web.pdf 6) Overall humanitarian data for 2010-2020 was updated with data downloaded from FTS on 6 and 7 August 2020.

Estimated Child Protection fun- ding for 2010-2018 is from the 2019 Unprotected report.
Estimated child protection funding for 2019 is based on FTS data downloaded on 6 July 2020.

7) 23 Humanitarian Response Plans, 6 regional Refugee Response Plans (including Venezuela RMRP), 2 flash appeals for Madagascar and Zimbabwe, and 4 other responses for Bangladesh JRP, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Burkina Faso and Iran.
8) Data from OCHA, https://fts.unocha.org/appeals/overview/2019 9) US$15.26 billion received against US$25.08 billion required 10) Mine Action is one of the areas of responsibility under the Global Protection Cluster it is however tracked separately from the Protection sector on the FTS.
See the list of humanitarian sectors and activities tracked on the FTS and what activities they include https://fts.unocha.org/sites/default/files/criteria_for_inclusion_2017.pdf 11) Based on data accessed on the FTS on 6 July 2020 and including the share attributed by the FTS to CP of the following funding flows: 192653 / 200414 / 194249 / 186890 12) This does not include funding for Child Protection in the Syria 3RP, which is not tracked in the FTS.
13) CP FTS = Funding reported on the FTS under the CP sector ; CP est.
= Funding reported on the FTS under the Protection sector and identified by the study as funding for CP; CP integrated across sectors – CP PIN = Funding reported on the FTS under the CP or the Protection sector where the description of the funding flow mentions other sectoral activities but focusing on people in need of Child Protection (children and caregivers); CP component = funding reported on the FTS under the Protection sector where CP is one component, funding is including CP activities but not limited to CP.
14) The FTS allows a funding flow to be linked to multiple values of destination parameters, this can be the case for multiple destination countries, multiple destination years, or multiple destination sectors.

It allows funding with such details to be recorded although the breakdown is unavailable.
A total of 5 entries are multi-year (US$362 million for 2018-2022); these were omitted from the main analysis as no detail is available to disaggre- gate funding and estimate the share of funding for CP per year.

15) Figures are estimates from the Unprotected 2019 report and the present study, based on FTS data.

Figures for 2016, 2017 and 2018 have been revised from Unprotected 2019.
16) Same methodology used to identify CP funding on the FTS (Protection and Child Protection sectors), the list of keywords has been revised and improved for the year 2019.
17) https://www.humanitarianresponse.info/en/operations/iraq/ihf 18) Global Protection Cluster, Revised HPC Template for HPC 2020, 2020. https://www.globalprotectioncluster.org/wp-content/uploads/2019_HPC-Key-Protection-Messages.pdf 19) Countries covered : Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of Con- go, Ethiopia, Haiti, Iraq, Libya, Mali, Myanmar, Niger, Nigeria, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan and Ukraine.
20) PRIO, Østby, Gudrun; Siri Aas Rustad & Andreas Forø Tollefsen (2020) ‘Children Affected by Armed Conflict 1990–2018’ in Conflict Trends 1 2020 21) UN Secretary-General (2019) Report of the Secretary-General: Children and Armed Conflict, https://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/2019/509&Lang=E&Area=UNDOC 22) Iraq HRP 2019, https://www.humanitarianresponse.info/sites/www.humanitarianresponse.info/files/documents/files/iraq_2019_hrp_26_02_2019final_english.pdf 23) Based on availability of data, we are in this study focusing on 17 countries.
In the 2019 Unprotected report, 13 countries were covered.

A compa- rison is only possible for 11 of the countries.

24) For Afghanistan and South Sudan, UNICEF Humanitarian Action for Children CP requirements are used as a proxy.

Funding received for CP for Burkina Faso, DRC and Somalia only accounts for funding identified on the FTS and not the additional funding identified as received at country level.
Total requirements and total funding received exclude requirements and funding for refugee responses, as no sectoral information is available at the time of the study, on the refugee response within HRPs.

25) Total requirements and funding are sourced from FTS, accessed on 2 September 2020 26) IASC, Humanitarian Population Figures, April 2016, https://www.humanitarianresponse.info/sites/www.humanitarianresponse.info/files/documents/files/humanitarianprofilesupportguidance_final_ may2016.pdf 27) Ibid.
28) OCHA, Humanitarian Response Plan: Guidance on Response Analysis, Formulation of Strategic and Specific Objectives, and Targeting, August 2020. https://assessments.hpc.tools/km/response-analysis-and-prioritization-guidance-2021 29) Ibid.

30) Syria HRP, Monitoring report January-May 2019, published in October 2019.

31) Afghanistan HRP 2020: US$10/15 for community-based awareness on child protection.

DRC HRP 2020: US$8 for prevention activities and monitoring children’s rights.
Iraq Child Protection Operational Framework with costing (30 December 2018) and indications from Global Protection Cluster, Unit-based Costing Methodologies for HRPs and Protection Clusters, 2018 https://www.globalprotectioncluster.org/wp-content/uploads/Protection-Cluster-HRPs-unit-based-costing.pdf 32) DRC HRP 2020: US$16 for psychosocial activities for vulnerable children and/or children affected by humanitarian emergencies.

Afghanistan’s HRP for 2020: US$30/80 for psychosocial support for children.
Ethiopia’s HRP for 2019: US$40 per child for psychosocial support through child-fri- endly spaces; Iraq Child Protection Operational Framework with costing (30 December 2018): US$40 to US$50 per child for structured psychosoci- al support.

33) Afghanistan’s HRP 2020: US$150 revised to US$1,000 for victim assistance for children in conflict.

DRC HRP 2020: US$83 for identification, care and assistance for children victims of violence.
34) Afghanistan’s HRP 2020 revisions: US$150 for case management, psychosocial support and referrals for at-risk children as well as for family tra- cing and reunification of unaccompanied and separated children.

DRC HRP 2020: US$250/300 for identification, case management, assistance and family tracing for children associated with armed forces and groups and unaccompanied and separated children.
The International Rescue Commit- tee’s case management services cost an average of US$764 per child over the course of one year in urban settings in the Middle East, US$187 in refugee/IDP camps in eastern Africa, and US$874 in rural Sahel areas.

Case management services cost an average of US$167 in camp settings in Tanzania, and US$2,423 in rural Mali.
International Rescue Committee, Cost efficiency Analysis: Child Protection Case Management, IRC, 2016, https://www.rescue.org/sites/default/files/document/955/cpcmdesignedbrieffinal.pdf 60 • STILL UNPROTECTED: HUMANITARIAN FUNDING FOR CHILD PROTECTION STILL UNPROTECTED: HUMANITARIAN FUNDING FOR CHILD PROTECTION • 61 84) ibid.
85) Lilly, D (19 June 2020),‘What Happened to the Nexus Approach in the COVID-19 Response?’, The Global Observatory / International Peace Institute, https://theglobalobservatory.org/2020/06/what-happened-to-nexus-approach-in-covid-19-response/ 86) Ibid.

87) OCHA FTS, COVID-19 Global Humanitarian Response Plan, accessed on 15 September 2020 https://fts.unocha.org/appeals/952/summary 88) OCHA FTS, accessed on 14 September 2020 89) Selection based on availability and completeness of data collected.
90) UNHCR – Consequences of underfunding in 2020, September 2020, https://www.unhcr.org/underfunding-2020/wp-content/uploads/sites/107/2020/09/Underfunding-2020-Full-Report.pdf 91) Global Protection Cluster, HRP Revision Related to COVID-19: Orientation Note, April 2020 https://www.globalprotectioncluster.org/wp-content/uploads/GPC-AORs-HRP-Revision-Short-Guidance-Note_Final_11Apr20-1.pdf 92) Ibid.
93) Funding requirements for refugee responses were excluded for Burkina Faso, Cameroon, CAR, DRC, Niger, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan and Zimbabwe, as no information was available on the share of CP requirements for refugee response in these HRPs.

94) Funding received for a selection of 19 HRPs as reported on the FTS.

Total funding received excludes funding for refugee responses.
95) Alliance for Child Protection in Humanitarian Action, Webinar on Covid-19 and CAAFAG, 8 September 2020 https://alliancecpha.org/en/child-protection-webinars/webinar-caafag-and-covid-19-english-version 96) The Alliance for Child Protection in Humanitarian Action, Minimum Standards for Child Protection in Humanitarian Action (CPMS), 2019 edition https://handbook.spherestandards.org/en/cpms/#ch001 97) OCHA, COVID-19 Global Humanitarian Response Plan FTS accessed on 6 August 2020 98) 2019 figures are based on data accessed on the FTS on 6 July 2020 and include the share attributed by the FTS to CP for the following funding flows: 192653 / 200414 / 194249 / 186890.
99) When the CP PIN and CP target are not available, the research team had to refer to the Children in Need of Protection figures and target.

The Global Protection Cluster identifies the population in need of protection and targeted, and the number of children within this population is the Protection CIN.
35) DRC HRP 2020: US$300 for identification, assistance and care to children associated with armed forces and groups; US$450 for documentati- on, family tracing and socio-economic reintegration of children associated with armed forces and groups.

Somalia HRP 2020: US$1500 for reinte- gration of children released from armed groups or armed forces.

Afghanistan HRP 2020: US$30 for advocacy and response to child recruitment.
36) UNHCR, Global focus: Populations https://reporting.unhcr.org/population 37) Joint UNHCR-OCHA Note on Mixed Situations Coordination in Practice, 2014 https://www.unhcr.org/53679e679.pdf 38) The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) has the mandate for Palestinian refugees in Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt and Palestine.

Funding for Child Protection programmes under UNRWA is not included in this report.
39) Data on funding for the JRP is taken from the FTS and covers 2018-2019 while data for the 3RP is taken from both the RFT and the No Lost Generation Initiative (the former for overall funding and the latter for Child Protection funding) and covers 2017-2019.

40) Due to time constraints for publishing this report, the Child Protection funding data for the Syria 3RP here refers to accumulated funding availa- ble as of Q3 2019, not the final data as of the end of year.
Therefore there is an underestimation of the amount going to CP in the Syria 3RP.

41) Note this data reflects funding levels at end of Q3 in 2019, but similar uneven levels of funding across countries were seen in 2017 and 2018.

42) Lebanon: Protection 2019 Annual Dashboard, https://data2.unhcr.org/en/documents/details/76230.
43) For the purposes of this report, UNHCR’s Protection funding herein does not include the rights group Community Empowerment and Self-re- liance as the objectives hereunder also covers ‘self-reliance and livelihoods’ in addition to other community-based Protection objectives.

For this reason there is an underestimate of the total funding for Protection.
More about the UNHCR Results Framework, available here: https://cms.emergency.unhcr.org/documents/11982/52631/UNHCR%E2%80%99s+Results+Framework++(English)/eaa92b3f-84a0-4f68-a081- 43148ebba3bb Nonetheless, for the purpose of this report, the funding allocated to the rights group Security from Violence and Exploitation is used as a proxy indicator for Protection funding.
44) The consequences of underfunding in 2020, UNHCR, https://www.unhcr.org/underfunding-2020/ 45) The consequences of underfunding in 2020, UNHCR, https://www.unhcr.org/underfunding-2020/ 46) IASC, Key Protection Advocacy Messages COVID-19, September 2020, https://reliefweb.int/report/world/iasc-key-protection-advocacy-messages-covid-19-iasc-results-group-3-collective-advocacy 47) World Bank, October 2020, ’COVID-19 to Add as Many as 150 Million Extreme Poor by 2021’, https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2020/10/07/covid-19-to-add-as-many-as-150-million-extreme-poor-by-2021 48) World Food Programme, June 2020, ‘New report shows hunger is due to soar as coronavirus obliterates lives and livelihoods’, https://www.wfp.org/news/new-report-shows-hunger-due-soar-coronavirus-obliterates-lives-and-livelihoods 49) UNESCO, Education: From disruption to recovery, https://en.unesco.org/covid19/educationresponse 50) The Hidden Impact of Covid-19 on Child Protection and Wellbeing, Save the Children, September 2020 https://resourcecentre.savethechildren.net/library/hidden-impact-covid-19-children-global-research-series 51) Nicolai, S., et.
al.
(2016) Education Cannot Wait: proposing a fund for education in emergencies, May 2016 https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/resource-documents/10497.pdf 52) A Right to be Heard, Save the Children (2019) https://resourcecentre.savethechildren.net/library/right-be-heard-qualitative-synthesis-childrens-consultations 53) Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Violence against Children, September 2020, ‘#CovidUnder19: Fulfilling children’s right to be heard for a participatory response to the pandemic’, https://violenceagainstchildren.un.org/content/covidunder19 54) Save the Children (2020) Protect a generation, https://resourcecentre.savethechildren.net/node/18218/pdf/vr59-01_protect_a_generation_report_en_0.pdf 55) Global Partnership to End Violence against Children (2020), ‘Protecting children during Covid-19: Resources to reduce violence and abuse’, https://www.end-violence.org/protecting-children-during-covid-19-outbreak 56) Rubenstein, B. et al (2017) Predictors of Interpersonal Violence in the Household in Humanitarian Settings: A Systematic Review 57) Global Protection Cluster (August 2020) Covid-19 Protection Risks and Responses Situation Report No 7 https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/ resources/COVID%2019%20PROTECTION%20RISKS%20%26%20RESPONSES%20S...UGUST%202020%20_%20Global%20Protection%20Cluster.pdf 58) Alliance for Child Protection in Humanitarian Action (September 2020) Podcast: Phoning for Help: the 10-9-8 Helpline in Nepal 59) Interview with War Child, May 2020, https://www.warchild.org.uk/sites/default/files/link-files/War%20Child%20UK_COVID%2019%20in%20fra- gile%20humanitarian%20contexts%20Report_July%202020_Final.pdf 60) UNFPA (April 2020) ‘New UNFPA projections predict calamitous impact on women’s health as COVID-19 pandemic continues’, https://www.unfpa.org/press/new-unfpa-projections-predict-calamitous-impact-womens-health-covid-19-pandemic-continues 61) Global Protection Cluster (August 2020) Covid-19 Protection Risks and Responses Situation Report No 7,
 https://www.globalprotectioncluster.org/2020/08/24/covid-19-protection-risks-responses-situation-report-no-7-as-of-24-august-2020/ 62) Oxfam (2020) A New Scourge on Afghan Women: Covid-19, https://asia.oxfam.org/latest/policy-paper/new-scourge-afghan-women-covid-19 63) Global Protection Cluster (August 2020) Covid-19 Protection Risks and Responses Situation Report No 7, https://www.globalprotectioncluster.org/2020/08/24/covid-19-protection-risks-responses-situation-report-no-7-as-of-24-august-2020/ 64) Brown, W. 19 May 2020, ‘Female genital mutilation surges in Somalia with girls stuck at home during lockdown’, The Telegraph, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/05/19/female-genital-mutilation-surges-somalia-girls-stuck-home-lockdown/ 65) World Vision (May 2020) Covid-19 Aftershocks: A Perfect Storm, https://www.wvi.org/publications/report/coronavirus-health-crisis/covid-19-aftershocks-perfect-storm 66) Global Protection Cluster (August 2020) Covid-19 Protection Risks and Responses Situation Report No 7, https://www.globalprotectioncluster.org/2020/08/24/covid-19-protection-risks-responses-situation-report-no-7-as-of-24-august-2020/ 67) Interview with War Child, May 2020, https://www.warchild.org.uk/sites/default/files/link-files/War%20Child%20UK_COVID%2019%20in%20 fragile%20humanitarian%20contexts%20Report_July%202020_Final.pdf 68) Save the Children (2020) Protect a Generation https://resourcecentre.savethechildren.net/node/18218/pdf/vr59-01_protect_a_generation_report_en_0.pdf 69) Global Protection Cluster (August 2020) Covid-19 Protection Risks and Responses Situation Report No 7, https://www.globalprotectioncluster.org/2020/08/24/covid-19-protection-risks-responses-situation-report-no-7-as-of-24-august-2020/ 70) Save the Children, (September 2020)The Hidden Impact of Covid-18 on Child Protection and Wellbeing, Save the Children, https://resourcecentre.savethechildren.net/library/hidden-impact-covid-19-children-global-research-series 71) Goldman, P, Lizendoorn, M.&
 Sonuga-Barke, E. (April 2020).
‘The Implications of COVID-19 for the care of children living in residential care’.

The Lancet.
Retrieved from: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanchi/article/PIIS2352-4642(20)30130-9/fulltext 72) Humanitarian Response Plan Sudan, March – December 2020: Covid-19 Addendum https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/Sudan_20200719_HRP_COVID19Addendum_.pdf 73) UNICEF (August 2020): Statement: Children in detention are at heightened risk of contracting COVID-19 and should be released https://www.unicef.org/madagascar/en/press-releases/children-detention-are-heightened-risk-contracting-covid-19-and-should-be-released 74) Alliance for Child Protection in Humanitarian Action Webinar on Covid-19 and CAAFAG, 08/09/2020 75) Defense for Children International – Palestine, (6 August 2020), ‘Palestinian child detainee tests positive for COVID-19 in Israeli prison’, https://www.dci-palestine.org/palestinian_child_detainee_tests_positive_for_coronavirus_in_israeli_prison 76) https://www.icrc.org/en/document/webinar-humanitarian-action-time-covid-19 77) Save the Children, (June 2020) COVID-19 Impacts on African Children, https://resourcecentre.savethechildren.net/library/covid-19-impacts-african-children-how-protect-generation-risk 78) Global Protection Cluster (August 2020) Covid-19 Protection Risks and Responses Situation Report No 7, https://www.globalprotectioncluster.org/2020/08/24/covid-19-protection-risks-responses-situation-report-no-7-as-of-24-august-2020/ 79) Interview with War Child, May 2020, https://www.warchild.org.uk/sites/default/files/link-files/War%20Child%20UK_COVID%2019%20in%20fra- gile%20humanitarian%20contexts%20Report_July%202020_Final.pdf 80) Save the Children (2020) Protect a Generation, https://resourcecentre.savethechildren.net/node/18218/pdf/vr59-01_protect_a_generation_report_en_0.pdf 81)GHRP COVID-19, July Update - see p.99 and 100 https://www.unocha.org/sites/unocha/files/GHRP-COVID19_July_update.pdf 82) OCHA, COVID-19 Global Humanitarian Response Plan, accessed on 15 September 2020 https://fts.unocha.org/appeals/952/summary 83) Konyndyk, J, Saez, P and Worden, R (18 June
 2020), Center for Global Development , ‘Humanitarian Financing Is Failing the COVID-19 Frontlines’.
https://www.cgdev.org/blog/humanitarian-financing-failing-covid-19-frontlines 62 • STILL UNPROTECTED: HUMANITARIAN FUNDING FOR CHILD PROTECTION STILL UNPROTECTED: HUMANITARIAN FUNDING FOR CHILD PROTECTION • 63