Working on (re)integration: going beyond the cliche

By Shuteriqi Mirela, 9 Sep 2008

While anti-child trafficking efforts continue to receive support at large, there is not yet agreement on the ways to address the phenomenon. The entry into force of the Palermo Protocol or of similar regional legal instruments, have brought some harmonization in national legislation, but not enough clarity for service providers on how best they could contribute either in preventing potential victims from being trafficked or in assisting those already trafficked.

For a number of reasons there is also a shift in anti-trafficking with an increased focus placed on prevention efforts. Such shift is very welcomed as it places the intervention in a more sustainable framework seeking to address the root causes. However it does not mean that the learning process and the debate on the other areas of intervention are less important.

It is against this background that this text focuses on the process taking place after the child has withdrawn from an exploitative situation (either in the context of trafficking or not). Looking at what service providers do to assist the child so that (s)he does not fall again under exploitation, few questions are raised as an illustration of the many challenges faced while working on reintegration.

Reintegration versus Integration

For a large number of service providers, after withdraw, the child should per se return to his or her place of origin. As a matter of fact very often service providers claim to work in reintegrating exploited or trafficked children while all what they do is accompanying them back home.

Unicef Guidelines on Protection of Child Victims of Trafficking in SEE sought to address this wrong approach by emphasizing instead the term ‘durable solution’, which requires best interest determination after assessment of different elements, including the will of the child. It also provides three options for children exploited outside their place of origin: return to the place of origin, integration in the place where the child finds him/herself or a third place.

Whilst it was expected that in the context of cross-border trafficking, due to migration concerns, States would resist in endorsing such an approach, it is negatively surprising to see how the approach was ignored by private service providers too. Instead of advocating States for legal opportunities to comply with the Unicef Guidelines, many of the service providers claim to conduct assessments which always conclude in favor of returning the child to his/her place of origin. When the child wishes differently, then such will is either not considered at all, or not found important as such. It then all result in the child’s re-departure from his or her place of origin.

Service providers need to better explore existing legal opportunities through which the child can also be assisted while remaining in the same place (integration). This learning process on support to integration rather than reintegration would then facilitate the advocacy towards States aiming at changing respective legislation. The service providers need to offer to the child more than only an obligation to stay home.

Do we have more than ‘back to your parents or institution’?

Family reunification might be the best option for the child. It does however not necessarily mean return to the place of origin, as the family of the child might also already be in the place of destination. Moreover, a number of elements need careful assessment before deciding on whether this is indeed the best alternative for the child.

Service providers need to carefully assess whether it is safe for the child to return, if the child and family want the reunification and the family would be able to take care of the child. Answering these questions is difficult, especially since on every potential obstacle, the service provider needs to reflect on how it can be overcome. The entire process takes time and should be managed by a multi-disciplinary team. In addition to the team members, the other main actors in this process are the child and the family. Consultations with the community also help in understanding the situation of the family and potential consequences for the child upon return to the family and community.

An overall research into how the various service providers conduct family assessment remains out of reach, but ongoing projects’ evaluations can be better used to look at this issue, presenting evidence on current practices and their consequences on the rights of the child. From some existing evidence it can be argued that service providers find it difficult to support the child and family in deciding on their future without imposing choices on them. They also feel like confronted with only two options: family reunification or institutionalization of the child. Here then the choice often depends on the service provider’s position towards family reunification versus institutionalization rather than on the specificities of the case.

It is indeed true that in anti-trafficking intervention a lot has been invested either in returning the child home or in opening up and running shelters. Regretfully other options remain neglected. Possibilities for foster care, including the more traditional form of extended family or semi-independent living arrangements are still limited. They should be further developed by the same service providers that at present blame the lack of options.

Reintegration: relief or development intervention?

Organizations supporting financially anti-trafficking interventions expect high number of trafficked persons reintegrated within the very limited means and period of the project. The quality of intervention seems to be less of a concern. Consequently, anti-trafficking projects have largely developed into the framework of relief intervention. Whilst such a framework is not necessarily contradictory to a right based approach during withdraw and first emergency assistance to the child, it does not provide sufficient guarantees for success in prevention and reintegration.

Enhancing the child’s capabilities, assets and activities required for a means of living, is a must in ensuring that the child will not be (re)trafficked. Activities aiming at assisting the child in reintegration should be so designed as to build upon the child’s strengths rather than only respond to existing needs. Moreover, except cases when for various reasons (i.e. age of the child, high social stigma, etc) a semi-independent living is arranged, in all other cases, assisting a former trafficked child means also working with the family and community.

The list of activities to be implemented in this context is very large covering potentially from immediate physical protection concerns to sustainable access of financial resources. Because of this diverse nature of services required, it is necessary for the service providers to have experience in working more broadly on child rights- and development issues. Moreover, national and cross-border referral systems should be constructed as to cover the largest part possible of such services and not as simple forum for information sharing among providers of the same services.

There is no doubt that efforts aiming at assisting (re)integration should be further supported. The only question is do we agree on what they entail.