CHALLENGES EXPERIENCED BY ORGANIZATIONS IN HONDURAS IN PROMOTING HUMAN RIGHTS OF RETURNED MIGRANT CHILDREN DURING THEIR REINTEGRATION by Diana Carolina Reyes Perdomo B.A., Universidad Tecnológica Centroamericana, 2010 THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN INTERNATIONAL STUDIES UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN BRITISH COLUMBIA August 2020 © Diana Reyes, 2020 Abstract Over the last decade, the number of Honduran migrant children traveling undocumented to the United States and Mexico increased substantially and both countries have focused on the detention and return of these children. While several organizations in Honduras assist returned children, these efforts have been insufficient as returned children migrate again and more children are migrating for the first time. This thesis aims to examine organizations’ challenges in promoting returned children’s human rights during their reintegration. Through a qualitative research design, data were collected from the literature, institutional documents and interviews with representatives from organizations in the government and non-government sectors. Results reflect challenges to implement the human rights approach and some principles such as non-refoulement, the right to life, survival and development and the best interest of the child. Also, practical challenges were found including the lack of inter-institutional coordination, financial and human resources, and monitoring mechanisms. ii Table of contents Abstract ii Table of contents iii List of tables vi List of figures vii Glossary of acronyms viii Dedication x Acknowledgement xi Chapter 1. Introduction 1 1.1 Background to the problem 1 1.2 Research questions 6 1.3 Importance of the problem 8 Chapter 2. International migrant children, approaches to address international child migration and human rights principles to protect migrant children 12 2.1 Introduction 12 2.2 Migrant children in the different stages of international migration 14 2.2.1 The migrant child in the country of origin 16 2.2.2 The migrant child during transit 18 2.2.3 The migrant child upon arrival at the destination country 19 2.2.4 The migrant child upon return 19 2.3 Approaches influencing migration policies and practices 22 2.4 The human rights approach to address migration 24 2.4.1 The human rights approach applied to the context of international child migration 25 2.4.2 Other approaches related to child protection in the context of child migration 27 2.4.3 Human rights principles for the protection of the rights of migrant children 29 2.4.4 Practical strategies to promote the protection of returned children 36 Chapter 3. Examining the Honduran child migration context 3.1 Introduction 38 38 3.2 The nature of child migration in the Honduran context: causes and problems across the migration stages 40 3.2.1 Causes of migration 40 3.2.2 Problems Honduran migrant children experience across the stages of migration 47 3.3 Characteristics and needs of returned Honduran children 50 iii 3.3.1 Recidivism of child migration 51 3.3.2 Gender 52 3.3.3 Situation of accompaniment 53 3.3.4 Age 54 3.3.5 Honduran municipalities with highest child migration 55 3.4 Summary and implications 56 Chapter 4. Methodology 59 4.1 Introduction 59 4.2 Information from organizations’ public documents and websites 60 4.3 Interview approach 63 4.4 Analysis strategy 69 4.4.1 Identification of the human rights approach and principles used by organizations in Honduras to address returned child migration 70 4.4.2 Analysis of conceptual challenges to promote the human rights of returned Honduran children during reintegration 73 4.4.3 Analysis of practical strategies to promote the reintegration of returned Honduran children from a human rights approach 4.5 Challenges to the data collection Chapter 5. Analysis of results 75 76 79 5.1 The human rights approach and human rights principles used to address Honduran returned child migrants during reintegration 79 5.1.1 Government sector 81 5.1.2 Non-government sector 85 5.1.3 Similarities, and differences between sectors 91 5.2 Potential conceptual challenges experienced by organizations in meeting the human rights of returned Honduran children during reintegration 97 5.2.1 Principle of the recognition of children as subject of rights 98 5.2.2 Principle of non-refoulement 101 5.2.3 Principle of the right to life, survival and development 104 5.2.4 Principle of the best interest of the child 110 5.2.5 Principle of participation 114 5.2.6 Principle of equality and non-discrimination 116 5.2.7 Principle of confidentiality 117 5.2.8 Conclusion, similarities, and differences between sectors 119 5.3 Practical challenges 122 iv 5.3.1 Lack of inter-institutional coordination and support 122 5.3.2 Lack of financial and human resources 126 5.3.3 Lack of training and sensitization 128 5.3.4 Lack of information 130 5.3.5 Lack of monitoring mechanisms 133 5.3.6 Conclusions, similarities, and differences between sectors 134 Chapter 6. Conclusions 137 6.1 Introduction 137 6.2 Main Findings 138 6.3 Policy implications 147 6.3.1 Potential government sector contributions 148 6.3.2 Potential contributions from the non-government sector 153 6.3.3 Potential contributions from both sectors 157 6.4 Potential areas for further research 158 Bibliography 163 Appendix A. Research protocols approved by the UNBC research ethics board (REB) 171 Appendix B UNBC REB approval letters 189 v List of tables Table 1. Human rights principles promoted by government and non-government sector organizations 96 vi List of figures Figure 1. Number of Honduran unaccompanied children apprehended at the Mexico-United States border 3 Figure 2. Number of Honduran family units apprehended at the Mexico-United States border 3 Figure 3. Number of accompanied and unaccompanied Honduran migrant children returned to Honduras 4 Figure 4. Number of international migrant children, selected years 1990 to 2019 (in millions) 14 vii Glossary of acronyms AMHON = Association of Municipalities of Honduras BID = Best Interest Determination CAH = Covenant House Honduras CENISS = National Information Center of the Social Sector CIPPDV = Inter-Institutional Commission for the Protection of Persons Displaced by Violence CONADEH = National Commissioner for Human Rights CONMIGHO = Consular and Migratory Observatory of Honduras CRC = Convention on the Rights of the Child CRRF = Comprehensive Refugee Response Framework CSOs = Civil Society Organizations DINAF = Directorate for Children, Youth, and Family IACHR = Inter-American Commission on Human Rights ICLA = Information Counseling and Legal Assistance program IDEH-PUCP = Institute of Democracy and Human Rights of the Pontifical Catholic University of Peru IHNFA = Honduran Institute for Children and Families ILO = International Labour Organization IOM = International Organization for Migration NGOs = Non-Government Organizations NRC = Norwegian Refugee Council OFAMIR = Office of Assistance for the Returned Migrant OBS = Open Broadcaster Software RCM = Regional Conference on Migration RSD = Refugee Status Determination viii SEDIS = Secretary of Development and Social Inclusion SEFIN = Secretary of Finance SIELHO = Electronic Information System of Honduras SRECI = Secretary of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation UDHR = Universal Declaration of Human Rights UMARs= Municipal Units for Attention to Returned Persons UN = United Nations UNAH = National Autonomous University of Honduras UNBC REB = University of Northern British Columbia Research Ethics Board UNDP = United Nations Development Program UNHCR = United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees UNICEF = United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund U.S. CBP = United States Customs and Border Protection ix Dedication To Honduran migrant children whose dreams are stolen away by having to flee their country to escape violence, lack of opportunities and abandonment. To those children who deserve and have the right to live in a safe environment, where they can develop their potential and fulfill their dreams. x Acknowledgement The development of this thesis would not have been possible without the help of God, who allowed me to start this journey and never let go of my hand. I want to thank my family - my dad, my mom, Karla, German, Héctor, and Santiago - for believing in me and for always giving me strength. I love you. Thank-you also to my Aunt Marlen and Iving who have always inspired and guided me. I would like to extend my thanks to Dr, Fiona MacPhail for having received me as her student at UNBC, for all her support during this journey, and for teaching me to do things with passion and dedication. Thank-you for teaching me how to grow and be a better person. I also extend my thanks and appreciation to Dr. Jacqueline Holler and Dr. Angèle Smith for their valuable contributions which have strengthened this research. Finally, I am grateful to the representatives from a variety of organizations in Honduras who shared their time and effort participating in this study and to all the people who supported me during my field work. xi Chapter 1. Introduction 1.1 Background to the problem Every day a substantial number of children and adolescents are affected by international migration. Normally, the definition of a child used in the migration context, following the definition used in international law instruments, is a person under the age of 18 (UN 1989).1 Cross-border movements affect different categories of children and adolescents: 1) children and adolescents who travel in the company of relatives or other responsible adults, 2) children and adolescents who travel unaccompanied, 3) children and adolescents who are born in the country of destination and are sons or daughters of migrants, 4) children and adolescents who have been left behind in the country of origin whose parents have previously migrated, and 5) children and adolescents who return to their country of origin in a forced or voluntary manner (Ceriani Cernadas 2015, 5). This research focuses on migrant children who return to their country of origin with their families or unaccompanied.2 While migration has occurred around the world for centuries, the focus here is on irregular child migration in the last decade in the context of Honduras.3 During this period, many regions of the world have been affected by international child migration. According to Musalo, Frydman and Ceriani Cernadas (2015, i), the migratory corridor of Central America-Mexico- 1 This definition includes both individuals in the stage of childhood and individuals in the stage of adolescence; and therefore, the terms child and adolescent are used to refer to children in the context of migration. Moreover, the term minor is also used to refer to children in the context of migration. 2 Unaccompanied children are those who travel without their parents or other relatives and are not in the care of an adult who, by law or custom, is responsible for them. In addition, some literature also refers to separated children. These children are those who are detached from both parents, their former legal guardian or the person who usually takes care of them, but not necessarily from other relatives. In practice, the term separated is rarely used on an individual basis, and statistics that refer to unaccompanied children generally include separated children (Camargo 2014, 20). 3 Irregular migration is migration that takes place outside the norms and procedures established by states to manage the orderly flow of migrants into, through, and out of their territories (IOM 2006, 40). The term undocumented migration is also used to refer to irregular migration. 1 United States is considered one of the regions with the highest child migration rates in the world. In recent years, flows of Central American children traveling irregularly to the Unites States and Mexico have increased tenfold (Musalo, Frydman and Ceriani Cernadas 2015, i).4 Within Central America, Honduras is one of the countries with the highest growth of child migration in the last decade. This trend can be observed in official records from immigration authorities in the United States, which is the main country of destination for Honduran migrant children. Since 2009, data from the United States Customs and Border Protection (U.S. CBP) recorded a substantial surge in the number of undocumented Honduran children arriving with their families and unaccompanied. For the case of undocumented unaccompanied children, available data show that arrivals per Fiscal Year (FY) increased from 968 children in 2009 to 20,398 children in 2019 (see figure 1). Meanwhile, data for undocumented family units are only available from FY 2015 to FY 2019. This data show that the number of Honduran family units arriving undocumented to the United States increased from 10,671 in 2015 to 188,416 in 2019 (see figure 2).5 Furthermore, data from the Mexican authorities also reflect an increase in Honduran child migration. According to official data from the government of Mexico, the number of undocumented Honduran children detained in Mexico and returned to their country of origin increased from 1,220 children in 2009 to 17,542 children in 2019 (Gobierno de Mexico 2019). This data includes children returned with their families and unaccompanied. 4 In the last decade, the increase in Central American child migration, comes from Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador (Musalo, Frydman and Ceriani Cernadas 2015, i). These three countries form the area known as the Northern Triangle of Central America. 5 According to the U.S. CBP “Family units represents the number of individuals (either a child under 18 years old, parent or legal guardian) apprehended with a family member by the U.S. Border Patrol” (U.S. CBP 2020). 2 Unaccompanied children apprehended 25,000 20,398 20,000 18,244 15,000 10,468 10,000 10,913 7,784 6,747 5,000 5,409 968 1,017 974 2,997 0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Fiscal Year 2016 2017 2018 2019 Figure 1. Number of Honduran unaccompanied children apprehended at the Mexico-United States border. Source: created by author from U.S.CBP (2016 and 2020). 200,000 188,416 Family units apprehended 180,000 160,000 140,000 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 39,439 20,000 0 10,671 2015 20,226 2016 22,366 2017 Fiscal Year 2018 2019 Figure 2. Number of Honduran family units apprehended at the Mexico-United States border. Source: created by author from U.S. CBP (2020). As Honduran children continue to arrive undocumented to Mexico and the United States, these countries focus their immigration policies on the detention and return of the minors (Ceriani Cernadas 2015, 23-25). As a result, the number of migrant children returned to Honduras has increased. This increase is reflected in Honduran national records. Data from the 3 National Information Center of the Social Sector (CENISS) show that the number of accompanied and unaccompanied children returning to Honduras increased from 20 children in 2009 as can be observed in figure 3. The most notable increase occurred between 2013 and 2014, when the number of returned children increased from 367 in 2013 to 10,873 in 2014. This increase was recognized by the Honduran government as a “Humanitarian Emergency" and a Returned accompanied and unaccompanied children migratory crisis urgent to address (Poder Ejecutivo 2014). 25,000 20,323 20,000 15,000 10,873 10,000 9,470 9,240 8,377 5,000 4,730 20 0 2009 56 18 2 2010 2011 2012 367 2013 2014 Year 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Figure 3. Number of accompanied and unaccompanied Honduran migrant children returned to Honduras. Source: created by author from CENISS (2016 and 2020). It is important to note that the information on child migration from the countries of destination, transit and origin is not collected in a standard way and sometimes is not available for the same periods of time. However, based upon available data, there are clear indicators that Honduran child migration has increased, and the number of accompanied and unaccompanied migrant children who are being returned to Honduras has likewise increased. Honduran migrant children are suffering violations of their human rights at all stages of the migration process, from the moment they leave their home country to the moment they are returned. These situations are described in more detail in chapter 3 of this document. However, 4 to better understand the research problem it is important to highlight some aspects of Honduran child migration. First, many Honduran children are migrating undocumented due to one or more of these reasons including: the situation of structural violence depriving them of their basic human rights (such as, education and health); direct violence from gangs and organized crime; and sometimes due to family reunification, as their parents had previously migrated to the United States or Mexico (Musalo, Frydman and Ceriani Cernadas 2015, iii). During transit and, sometimes, in destination countries, children are exposed to hazards such as human trafficking and denial of asylum applications when there are potential needs for international protection (Rivera et al. 2015, 23). When these children are returned to Honduras, they might be in the same or more vulnerable situation than when they left their country of origin. Additionally, the conditions that pushed children to migrate still prevail in Honduras. Therefore, returned Honduran minors have urgent needs that must be fulfilled during the process of return. There is literature suggesting that to meet the needs of Central American migrant children, including returning children, public policies must start from a human rights approach oriented to restore the rights that have been violated and to guarantee the well-being of the child in a sustainable manner (Ceriani Cernadas 2015, 11). This is also suggested by various international organizations working in the region on the issue of child migration, as well as in several international law instruments oriented to protect children in the migration context (IOM 2016, 48-49; RCM 2016, 25). Under international and national regulations, the Honduran government has the responsibility for protecting children’s human rights, including those of migrant children (Congreso Nacional de Honduras 2014). In fact, the Honduran state has ratified progressive laws regarding child protection; however, in practice, these laws have failed to protect Honduran 5 children and adolescents (Musalo, Frydman and Ceriani Cernadas 2015, iv). Since the migration crisis of 2014, the Honduran government and various Non-Government Organizations (NGOs) have made efforts to assist Honduran returned children. Nonetheless, these efforts have not been enough to stop the emergence of new migrations and prevent returned children from emigrating again. This study aims to examine the reasons of these failures considering the profile of the Honduran returned migrant children and the challenges experienced by organizations in promoting their reintegration. 1.2 Research questions The main purpose of this research is to generate relevant information that contributes to the improvement of national policies and institutional practices implemented in Honduras for the reintegration of Honduran migrant children returned from the United States and Mexico, to promote the fulfillment of their human rights in the long term. In order to do this, my aim is to respond to the following research question: what are the challenges experienced by organizations in Honduras in promoting human rights during the reintegration of irregular migrant children returned to Honduras after the child migration crisis in 2014? The following specific questions will also be answered to assist me in responding to the main research question: 1. What is the human rights approach to child international migration, and what are the key human rights principles to promote children’s human rights in the migration context? 2. What are the human rights violations experienced by Honduran children in the process of irregular migration to, and return from, Mexico and the United States? 3. What are the main characteristics of returned Honduran children? 6 While the migration process has several stages, my research question focuses on the stage of return. According to Hatfield (2010, 244), returning children are considered to be doubly invisible, first, because children have been ignored in the context of migration, and second, because return migration, as King (2000, 7) has argued, is the most neglected stage of the migration process. This argument that there is a lack of attention in the general literature to returned migrant children also applies to the context of Honduras, despite the increase in the number of children being returned from the United States and Mexico in the last decade. Within returned migration, my question focuses on the stage of reintegration. According to Fonseca, Hart and Klink (2015, 9), reintegration is necessary for return migration to be sustainable because this process promotes the protection of returnees and empowers them as part of the community. These authors also emphasize that an effective reintegration process is important because it can minimize the vulnerability of returning migrants (including children). This is an important aspect in the context of Central American child migration, as the return of children is not sustainable and does not contribute to restoring children’s rights. Despite the importance of reintegration, most of the literature that examines child migration in the Central American (and Honduran) context focuses on examining the causes of migration and the experiences of migrant children during transit and upon arrival in the country of destination; but there is little literature that refers to the stage of return and specifically to the reintegration of returned children in this region. Also, although there is limited literature on return and reintegration of Honduran minors, the literature which does exist highlights the need to create and improve reintegration mechanisms to offer a lasting solution to returning Honduran children (Ceriani Cernadas 2015, 60-61). Finally, my research question focuses on the irregular 7 or undocumented migration of Honduran children due to the increase of these flows in the last decade. To respond to my main research question and specific research questions, I used a human rights approach, some complementary approaches and human rights principles applied in the migration context and essential to the promotion of migrant children’s rights. These approaches and principles imply recognizing that all migrant children have the same human rights as any other child, regardless of the country in which they are residing and regardless of their characteristics, such as nationality, gender, situation of accompaniment, among others. However, most Honduran children who migrate irregularly suffer human rights violations in their country of origin, and in the countries of transit and destination. Because of this scenario, I selected a human rights approach and principles which allowed me to better understand the phenomenon of child migration in the Honduran context. In addition, the human rights and complementary approaches and the human rights principles were relevant in guiding the collection and analysis of the information necessary to answer my research question, which is related to the organizational challenges to promoting the human rights of returned children during their reintegration. The study utilizes a qualitative research design, and integrates data collected from a literature review, organizations’ documents and websites, and interviews with representatives of key organizations working to assist returned migrant children in Honduras. 1.3 Importance of the problem Migration can have positive and negative impacts on individuals. Negative effects are usually experienced by irregular migrants, especially children and adolescents (UNICEF 2011, 5). Migrant children from the Central American Northern Triangle are particularly affected, 8 because they suffer from serious violations of their human rights throughout all the migration stages. As described in more detail in chapter 3, the different scenarios Central American children face during migration might affect their right to life, to a safe environment (free from mental and physical harm), to education, to adequate employment opportunities, and to international protection, among other human rights. Projections show that Central American child migration will continue if conditions in the countries of origin keep forcing children to migrate (Rosenblum and Ball 2016, 6). Furthermore, while Mexico and the United States continue to implement migratory policies based on a national security approach, migrant children will continue to be detained and returned to their home country (De la Peña-Padilla 2014). Several organizations in Honduras have reacted to this problem and have initiated joint efforts for assisting children through a process of safe repatriation. However, a considerable number of repatriated children migrate for a second and even for a third time (CENISS 2016). This produces a new migration cycle that is likely to continue violating the rights of children. Statistics that reflect the increase in child migration and the re-migration of returned children are indicators that current efforts are still insufficient to promote the human rights and sustainable reintegration of returned Honduran minors. Currently, the literature that evaluates the care of Honduran returnees, including children, is limited. This literature jointly examines the processes of repatriation, reception and reintegration. This information highlights the necessity of meeting the needs of returned children from a human rights perspective and generates some recommendations to strengthen the reintegration processes. This thesis contributes to the limited information on the reintegration of returned Honduran migrant children from a human rights approach. To this end, this research is 9 exclusively focused on the reintegration stage through the analysis of recent policies and practices of key organizations in the government and non-government sector, working in Honduras to support the processes of child reintegration. The analysis of policies and practices focuses on the main challenges that organizations experience in restoring and promoting returned children’s human rights’ during their reintegration. Organizations experience challenges during the processes of family, school and community reintegration. These challenges hamper the promotion of children’s rights such as the right to: education and adequate employment opportunities; life and a safe environment; mental and physical health; and care within their families or special care in case the family is not able to take care of them. From the human rights approach, there are some human rights principles that should guide organizations in promoting these rights. Some of these human rights principles are used in this study to examine organizations’ challenges in promoting children’s rights during reintegration. These human rights principles include the principles of the recognition of children as subject of rights; non-refoulement; the rights to life, survival and development; the best interest of the child; participation; equality and non-discrimination; and confidentiality. Organizational challenges are also analyzed through the assessment of practical aspects that, according to some international organizations, are key to promote children’s rights during reintegration. The generation and integration of this information will be of relevance to policymakers and different actors working directly or indirectly with returned Honduran children. The identification of constraints in current efforts to assist returned children and promote their human rights can contribute to the improvement, generation and implementation of policies, laws and institutional practices that are more effective and sustainable. The improvement of these 10 processes has as main beneficiary the children who migrate undocumented and are returned with their families and unaccompanied, promoting the restitution of their rights and their well-being in the long term. 11 Chapter 2. International migrant children, approaches to address international child migration and human rights principles to protect migrant children 2.1 Introduction The main purpose of this chapter is to develop the theoretical framework that will guide the research methodology for the collection and analysis of the information needed to answer the specific questions and the main research question of this thesis. To achieve this purpose, the present chapter examines two key aspects of the literature on child migration. First, the chapter provides a review of the literature on child migration in the international context and the experiences of migrant children in the different stages of the international migration process. This information provides a background to the analysis of Honduran child migration returning from the United States and Mexico, which in turn contributes to answering my specific questions two and three related to the human rights violations experienced by Honduran children in the process of irregular migration and the main characteristics of returned Honduran children. Both of these questions are addressed in chapter 3. Second, this chapter describes the different approaches influencing migration policies and practices to address international migration. After recognizing the different approaches used to address international migration, this chapter focuses on examining the human rights approach or rights-based approach applied to the context of child migration.6 This second part of the literature review provides a framework to respond to my specific question one: what is the human rights approach to child international migration, and what are the key human rights principles to promote children’s human rights in the migration context? The answer to this latter question also provides the analytical framework for answering the main thesis question: what are 6 The 'human rights approach' and the 'rights-based approach' are terms used interchangeably in the literature and international agencies’ documents related to migration. Therefore, both terms are used interchangeably in this thesis. 12 the challenges experienced by organizations in Honduras in promoting human rights during the reintegration of irregular migrant children returned to Honduras after the child migration crisis in 2014? This chapter is divided into three sub-sections in which the following topics are discussed: 1) the concept of the migrant child in the different stages of the migration process, 2) the different approaches that influence migration policies and practices, and 3) the human rights approach or the rights-based approach in the context of international child migration. The following databases were used to obtain the information reviewed in this section: Academic Search Complete, EconLit and Google Scholar. In addition, I used the following key search terms which have been linked and searched together: children and migration; children and human rights; child migration and human rights; causes/reasons/motives; transit; arrival/destination; return/repatriation; and reintegration. I also examined core international and regional law instruments for the protection of the rights of the child, and applicable to the migratory context. These instruments include: the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC); the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR); the Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees; the General Comment No.6 (2005): Treatment of unaccompanied and separated children outside their country of origin, derived from the CRC; the General Comment No.14 (2013) on the right of the child to have his or her best interests taken as a primary consideration, derived from the CRC; the Advisory Opinion OC-21/14 on the rights and guarantees of children in the context of migration and/or in need of international protection, issued by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR); and the Regional Guidelines for the Comprehensive Protection of Boys, Girls, and Adolescents in the Context of Migration, established at the Regional Conference on Migration (RCM) and approved in 13 Honduras in November 2016. These international and regional law instruments reflect the human rights approach, complementary approaches, and human rights principles used in this thesis as a framework for understanding the rights of children in the context of international migration, as well as the human rights violations suffered by Honduran migrant children. 2.2 Migrant children in the different stages of international migration Before reviewing the concept of the migrant child in the different stages of international migration, it is important to recognize that child migration has increased worldwide in recent decades and there is no evidence of a decline. According to data from United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF), the number of international migrants under the age of eighteen has increased since 1990, when 24 million international migrants were International migrant children (in millions) children. Meanwhile, this number increased to 33 million in 2019 (see figure 4). 35 33 30 30 25 27 24 24 24 1990 1995 2000 25 20 15 10 5 0 2005 Year 2010 2015 2019 Figure 4. Number of international migrant children, selected years 1990 to 2019 (in millions). Source: created by author from UN (2019). The number of migrant children is clearly much greater if undocumented migrants are included, as such migrants are typically invisible in migration statistics. Also, it is important to 14 consider that the trend of increased international child migration is expected to continue as global inequalities persist (Bhabha 2014, 2). As a result, a growing number of children are affected by international migration, which is the first reason that this is an important phenomenon to study. It is important to define the international migrant child as this will later allow me to understand how the Honduran returned migrant child is characterized. In a general way, the Institute of Democracy and Human Rights of the Pontifical Catholic University of Peru (IDEHPUCP) (IDEH-PUCP 2012, 4) defines a migrant child as “any person under the age of 18 who is outside the state of which he or she is a national, with the intention or need to reside there or in another state where he or she is going. It can also be a person under the age of 18 who is in the country of origin and residence and could migrate in a near future.” [Translation from Spanish to English provided by author] However, the definition of a migrant child is further complicated by their perceived state of being more vulnerable than adults and by the stage of migration. The migrant child is typically viewed as a vulnerable individual and as a victim during the process of migration. Therefore, migrant children are a cause of anxiety for society, especially because they are exposed to a variety of dangers, including trafficking (Dobson 2009, 356-58). In this context, advocacy work to protect migrant children has emphasized their dependency and vulnerability, though this may lead to the wrong assumption that all forms of child migration are exploitative (Ensor and Godziak 2010, 3). While the migrant child is often viewed as vulnerable, nevertheless, the migrant child can be viewed as an active agent in the migratory process, and this is especially the case for older children who migrate alone in search of better opportunities (Dobson 2009, 357-58) and who can have a positive impact on their families and their own lives as a result of their displacement (Punch 2007, 95). Furthermore, children migrating with relatives can also be considered important contributors to the success of 15 the family migratory process. For example, some children act as translators for their parents (Orellana 2001, 379), and some migrant children facilitate networking for their families, through school friends and their friends’ parents (Beaverstock 2002, 535). The literature examined here reflects that the nature of the migrant child and his/her needs depend on the child's experiences in the different stages of the migration process. Knowing this is important because the child’s experiences in the various stages of migration impact the condition of the child upon return and during reintegration, with this latter migration stage being the focus of this thesis in the Honduran context. The following sub-sections describe some categories of migrant children, their nature and their needs, based on the child's experiences in the stages of origin, transit, destination and return. For the purposes of this study, I focus on undocumented child migration. 2.2.1 The migrant child in the country of origin The experiences of the migrant child in the country of origin are directly linked to the causes of migration. In this sense, the view of the migrant child and his/her needs depends on the causes of migration. Enzor and Godziak (2010, 1) distinguish between voluntary and forced displacement. While some children migrate in a forced way to escape conflicts, oppressive governments or situations of violence, others migrate voluntarily and perceive migration as an opportunity to improve their quality of life. Furthermore, based on the causes of child migration, Huijsmans (2006, 4-9) defines three types of migrant children relating to the perceived underlying cause of migration: children as social migrants, children as political migrants, and children as economic migrants. Each category implies a specific view of the migrant child. First, children as social migrants are those who migrate with aims to be reunited with their family. This category implies that the children will be better under the protection of their 16 parents. Thus, children are viewed as dependent individuals in need of protection. However, this concept becomes confusing because family reunification does not necessarily mean the wellbeing of the child (Edwards 1996, 815-17). Second, the definition of children as political migrants refers to children who are refugees or applicants for asylum. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has encouraged receiving countries to consider the best interest of children seeking asylum.7 However, despite the international protection needs of many children, some receiving states have focused their practices on the return of children and the denial of asylum applications. These practices are promoted under the assumption that children still have family members in their country of origin and that this agrees with their best interest. However, practices of return generally disregard the well-being and safety of children seeking for asylum (Huijsmans 2006, 67). Finally, children as economic migrants are those in search of better living conditions. White (2003, 9) argues that these children are viewed in a negative way, as individuals who are out of context and who must be rescued, rehabilitated or controlled. Therefore, most interventions to assist these children are focused on their restitution, which in practice means removing them from work in the destination or transit country and returning them to their country of origin. These practices are not aligned with the best interest of the child because they ignore the conditions in the country of origin which are the cause of migration in the first place. 7 The ‘best interest of the child’ is a fundamental principle of the international law for the protection of children. This principle implies that any decision that involves or affects a child should prioritize his/her best interest (UN 1989). In the case of asylum-seeking children, the principle of the best interest is related to the principle of nonrefoulement. According to international law, this principle implies that a child should not be returned to his/her country of origin if this puts at risk the life and integrity of the child (UNHCR n.d.). A broader description of these principles is given in later sections in this chapter. 17 As a result, economic migrant children who have been ‘rescued’ through the process of return often migrate again (Huijsmans 2006, 9). 2.2.2 The migrant child during transit Regardless of the cause of migration, the stage of transit is characterized by certain situations that negatively impact the life of migrant children. These situations reflect the protection needs of children during the transit, especially of children traveling without documentation. One of the most common experiences faced by migrant children is trafficking. In this scenario, children are considered as victims. Any child who is recruited and transported with aims for exploitation is considered a victim of trafficking in the process of migration (O' Connell Davidson 2011, 4-6). Due to the dangerous conditions to which they are exposed, trafficked children can suffer from illness, injuries and even death. These children are also deprived of their basic rights, such as medical attention when they need it. In addition, trafficked children suffer from beatings, psychological violence, sexual abuse, malnutrition and forced drug use, as traffickers use these methods to control them (ILO 2009, 35). Nonetheless, being trafficked or not might not meaningfully affect the nature of the journey as migrant children are exposed to other kinds of dangers. O’Connell Davidson (2011, 79) highlights that child migrants, those who are not victims of trafficking, are also exposed to dangerous situations, especially those who travel without documents. Usually, undocumented migrant children use services of clandestine organizations that include smuggling across borders, falsification of documents, and arranged marriages (Kofman et al. 2000, 31). Furthermore, clandestine migration implies taking invisible, and thus, more dangerous routes with conditions that often threaten the health and the child’s life (IOM 2016, 26-27). 18 2.2.3 The migrant child upon arrival at the destination country Once in the country of destination, undocumented migrant children may still be victims of criminal actors, but also of state actors. It is usual that these children are detained and sent to detention centers. In many cases, it is reported that conditions in detention centers deny children access to legal representation and deprive them of their basic rights. Also, long periods in detention centers hamper the well-being of children (Bloch and Schuster 2006, 500). After arriving at the destination country, migrant children might be integrated into the receiving society, or they might be returned to their country of origin. This thesis focuses on those minors who are returned to their country of origin after their arrival to a destination or transit country. 2.2.4 The migrant child upon return Return migration can positively or negatively impact the lives of migrants, including migrant children. Despite this, and as mentioned in chapter 1, this stage is the most invisible in the study of migration. This section highlights some features of return migration, which, although not exclusive to returned children, include important aspects that characterize the return of international migrants (including children). One of these aspects is the categorization of return migration. Despite the various categories of return migration, one of the most important distinctions is between forced and voluntary return. Forced return occurs when the entry to the country of destination is denied or the stay is no longer authorized. It also occurs when an asylum application is denied. On the other hand, voluntary return is based on the free will and informed decision of migrants and occurs in the absence of coercive measures. The International Organization for Migration (IOM) identifies four types of voluntary return: spontaneous return; assisted return, when migrants receive assistance for their return and reintegration; return when this is part of a labour or study migration arrangement; and the return of refugees to their origin country in a post-crisis situation 19 (IOM 2010, 28-29). The literature indicates that any form of voluntary return might facilitate reintegration and is considered more sustainable than forced return. Voluntary return might also help migrants to avoid the stigma that is sometimes associated with forced return, and it facilitates the promotion of migrants’ rights (10-34). The definition of the returned migrant child from Celesia, Morlachetti and Luna (2014, 10) highlights several types of return including forced or voluntary. This definition of a returned migrant child includes “migrant children or children born in the country of destination of migrant parents who return to their country of origin alone or accompanied, either voluntarily or as a result of proceedings of deportation or repatriation".8 The limited literature referring to return migration of children reflects some problems and aspects related to forced return, children who return with their families after a time living abroad, and return of vulnerable populations. Children returning involuntarily include asylum seekers whose international protection needs were ignored in countries of transit or destination. A clear example of this are the Central American children fleeing violence from organized crime or gangs and seeking asylum in the United States and Mexico. These children are returned to their home countries despite their fear of being re-victimized by members of gangs and other criminal actors that forced them to leave in the first place (Camargo 2014, 63). As a result, many Central American returned children try to migrate again (CENISS 2016). In addition, and as previously mentioned, the forced return of economic migrant children may result in their re-migration when the conditions in the country of origin do not satisfy the basic needs of the child (Huijsmans 2006, 9). Therefore, the successful 8 Deportation is the act of the receiving state by which it sends a foreigner out of its territory, to another place, after refusing admission or having been granted permission to remain in that State (IOM 2006, 16). This is different from repatriation, process in which the country of origin assumes the responsibility to assist and receive returning children (62). 20 and sustainable return of children as political and economic migrants is associated with changing the conditions in the country of origin. Also, Hatfield (2010, 244) refers to the adaptation problems experienced by children returning with their families after a time having lived abroad. For instance, children who return “home” may have trouble adapting to a place that is presumed to be their home, but in which they have not lived or vaguely remember. In this regard, it is important to note that the term “home” should not be viewed as the country per se, but it should be viewed at a smaller scale, considering the environments at home, institutions (such as school), and the community (Philo 2000, 247-53). Additionally, an important group of returned children are those belonging to vulnerable migrant populations. These populations include unaccompanied children, victims of trafficking, minority communities, victims of torture and exploitation, and migrants with serious health problems. The reintegration of these populations requires more attention and should be monitored for longer time periods (IOM 2010, 50). Here it is important to note that some children can be doubly vulnerable because they have more than one characteristic that makes them vulnerable. For example, an unaccompanied child may have been a victim of torture and exploitation and therefore, have serious health problems. IOM guidelines indicate that not all individuals within a vulnerable group of migrants will have the same needs. Their needs might differ according to the level of vulnerability and other factors, such as personal, cultural, religious and social values, as well their country-specific experiences (51). All these factors must be considered in determining the profile of the returned migrant child and to define appropriate routes for his/her reintegration. Here it is important to examine the concept of migrant reintegration. In general, migrant reintegration is the re-inclusion of 21 returned migrants (including children) into the society of their country of origin or current residence. This multidimensional process implies the restoration of economic and psychosocial links. Also, reintegration is key to minimize return migrants’ vulnerability by protecting their human rights (Graviano et al. 2017). This first part of the literature review highlights important definitions and dimensions that I use in chapter 3 to define and evaluate the returned Honduran migrant children, the nature of their migration, the causes of displacement, their experiences during the different stages of migration, the nature of their return, and the rights which must be restored in their reintegration to promote a sustainable return. Knowing the situation of returned Honduran children is a preliminary step before examining and evaluating organizations’ policies, actions and challenges in promoting the rights of returned minors during reintegration. 2.3 Approaches influencing migration policies and practices Understanding the main approaches influencing migration policies and practices is another essential step before assessing organizations’ policies and practices implemented in Honduras to promote returned children’s reintegration. Although states do not make explicit the approach from which they view migration, the policies they adopt to address this phenomenon may be influenced by one or more migration approaches. The IOM (2016, 23-24) identifies three main approaches that influence states’ migration policies, namely, the security approach, the development approach, and the rights-based approach or human rights approach. From a security approach, migration is considered a problem of national security. Therefore, irregular migrants entering a foreign nation are considered illegal. This approach is reflected in measures that restrict the entry of foreigners into 22 a country (23). For instance, the United States implements immigration policies that focus on the detention and expulsion of irregular migrants (Ceriani Cernadas 2015, 23-26). The development approach may influence practices in the countries of destination, transit and origin. From this perspective, migration can be considered an opportunity or a threat to the development of nations. From the point of view of the country of origin, migration can be viewed as a threat if the people who migrate are the most qualified (IOM 2016, 23). In this case, some countries of origin promote practices to attract the return of their nationals. For instance, the Government of Ecuador promotes the return of Ecuadorians with certain profiles through financial aid for productive and social investments in their country of origin, among other incentives (Embajada de Ecuador en Canadá 2017). On the other hand, if the people who migrate contribute through the sending of remittances, migration is viewed as a benefit for the country of origin (IOM 2016, 23). For instance, Mexico promotes local and regional development projects that depend on remittances (Delgado Wise and Márquez Covarrubias 2008, 113-41). Also, remittances are used as an external source to increase national income (113-41), which enhances the recipient country’s sovereign credit rating, and thus lowers borrowing costs and lengthens debt maturity (Ratha et al. 2015). Finally, migration policies can be influenced by a rights-based approach that focuses on the protection of migrants in the countries of origin, transit and destination. This approach refers to the responsibility of states to fulfill human rights in their territories, ensuring safety, health, work, social security, education, housing, and family reunification (IOM 2016, 23). This approach is expressed in national laws and migration policies of some countries. For instance, several Honduran laws are aligned with international instruments oriented to protect the human 23 rights of migrants and their families (Congreso Nacional de Honduras 2014). This approach is expanded upon in the next section of this chapter. In reality, states are not guided exclusively by one approach and their practices can reflect the influence of several approaches (IOM 2016, 24). Depending on this, states promote different practices that have an impact on the countries affected by migration and on the life of migrant individuals. Recognizing that states may adopt several different approaches to migration is important in this thesis as it may help to understand that challenges experienced by organizations may arise from the conflicts between different approaches to migration. The following section expands upon the human rights approach applied to the context of international child migration. 2.4 The human rights approach to address migration As observed in Section 2.2, international migrant children are exposed to various situations that might violate their human rights, such as the right to international protection and the right to a safe environment. As indicated in chapter 1, these violations are not the exception in the migratory process of Central American children, including Honduran children. Most of these children travel irregularly and because of this, they are likely to experience several violations of their human rights at all the stages of migration. Because of this scenario and the nature of my research question, this research uses the rights-based approach applied to the context of international child migration. This approach allowed me to identify and understand important aspects for the development of this study. These aspects include: 1) the human rights of children in the context of international migration and the human rights principles applied to protect these rights; and 2) the human rights violations of Honduran migrant children as a result of the migration process in the region of Central America. These two aspects allowed me to 24 identify key categories for the collection and analysis of the information that help me to answer the main research question in this thesis. The human rights approach in the context of migration is complemented by other related approaches and a series of human rights principles that must be respected for protecting migrant children’s rights. These approaches and principles are reflected in a series of international and regional instruments that establish the responsibility of states to protect the human rights of migrant children. Knowing these elements will allow me to better understand the two key aspects mentioned above, which are important to answer my research question. This section focusses on examining the first aspect mentioned above: the human rights of children in the context of international migration and the human rights principles applied to protect these rights. To do this, the section is divided into the following segments or subsections: 1) the rights-based approach or the human rights approach applied to the context of international child migration; 2) other approaches related to child protection in the context of migration; 3) the human rights principles to protect the human rights of migrant children; and 4) practical strategies to promote the protection of returned migrant children during reintegration. 2.4.1 The human rights approach applied to the context of international child migration For the purpose of this thesis, human rights and complementary approaches described in this chapter are used as the “lenses” to better visualize the issue of child migration in the local context. These approaches avoid seeing all migrant children as a homogeneous group and recognize their particularities and specific conditions. They also contribute to understanding whether the migratory experience of children contributes to the exercise of their human rights or violates them (IOM 2016, 48-49). 25 As mentioned in Section 2.3, the rights-based approach or the human rights approach refers to the importance of protecting the human rights of migrants throughout the migration process. According to this approach, migrant children are also the subjects of rights and require greater protection due to their vulnerable situation arising from their state as minors and because they are migrants (RCM 2016, 26). In this sense, the human rights approach allows the identification of the rights that must be respected and restored to protect migrant children, regardless of the country in which these individuals are. The first right that children have in the context of migration is the right to migrate and return to their country of origin (UN 1948). Starting from this fact, and under international law, states are responsible for protecting the rights of migrant children, and the well-being of these individuals should be the center of public policies and social actions (RCM 2016, 26). Furthermore, all migrant children, regardless of where they are, have the same rights as any child. These rights are established in the CRC, which is the legal basis for the protection of the children’s rights and states the responsibility of governments and international organizations for the protection of these rights. According to this instrument, all children, including migrant children, have the right to a nationality; to family reunification (when this does not harm the child's integrity); to be protected against abuses such as kidnapping; to express themselves; to be protected when they cannot be cared for by their parents; to be protected against any physical or mental abuse; to international protection (when they have been forced to emigrate from their origin country); to education, health, food clothing and a safe environment; to practice their own culture and language; to be protected against labor exploitation, sexual abuse, and trafficking; to be protected against any punishment that might be harmful in any way; to legal support and a fair treatment in a justice system that guarantees their rights; and to know and be informed of their 26 rights (UN 1989). Under the rights-based approach, states of origin have the responsibility to protect these rights in the stage of return, including during the process of reintegration. 2.4.2 Other approaches related to child protection in the context of child migration In the migration context, the human rights approach implies promoting the rights of all migrant children throughout the migration process. However, to recognize these rights, it is necessary to consider some complementary approaches that avoid seeing all migrant children as a homogeneous group. These approaches contribute to consideration of some specific characteristics and experiences of migrant children. The IOM and documents derived from the RCM indicate that these approaches complement the rights-based approach and are necessary to protect the human rights of migrant children in the region of North and Central America (IOM 2016, 48-52; RCM 2016, 25-29). These approaches are explicitly expressed in the ‘Regional Guidelines for the Comprehensive Protection of Boys, Girls, and Adolescents in the Context of Migration’ (hereinafter referred to as the RCM Guidelines), established at the RCM and approved in Honduras in November 2016. They are also reflected in the CRC and other international and regional instruments listed at the beginning of this chapter. Like the human rights approach, these approaches are lenses through which child migration is analyzed. Considering them implies examining the situation of each migrant girl, boy and adolescent without falling into the error of treating them as a homogeneous group (RCM 2016, 25). A brief description of each approach is given below: 1) The diversity approach involves recognizing the specific characteristics of the child migrant, such as gender, ethnicity, causes of migration, age, language, sexual orientation, and whether the child has a disability. It also involves the recognition of the child’s individual experiences. This approach implies that the child should not be discriminated against based on 27 any of these characteristics and that he/she might have specific needs related to these characteristics (IOM 2016, 50; RCM 2016, 28). 2) The participation approach indicates that children have the right, according to their age and understanding, to be informed about their rights and their legal and migratory situation so that they are able to express their opinions. This approach also implies that migrant children should be enabled, with the support of other people, to identify possible solutions to their situation (IOM 2016, 52). 3) The progressive autonomy approach is directly related to the approach of participation and implies recognizing that the child progressively matures and acquires the capacity to act for his/her rights and to demand their fulfillment, without intermediaries (IOM 2016, 52; RCM 2016, 27). 4) The gender approach is fundamental to identifying and understanding that the experiences of migrant girls and boys during migration might be different. In this way, actions can be proposed that correspond to the satisfaction of specific needs resulting from these realities. For instance, in some migratory contexts, it is found that migrant girls are more likely to suffer sexual abuse during transit (IOM 2016, 49-50; RCM 2016, 26-27). 5) The generational approach implies that institutional policies and practices should correspond to the needs of children according to their life cycle and to avoid having an adultcentered approach (RCM 2016, 27). 6) The contextual approach recognizes the historical context of society as well as the family, community, institutional, economic and socio-cultural contexts in which migrant children are immersed (RCM 2016, 28). 28 7) Finally, the intercultural approach allows the identification of ethnic and cultural characteristics of migrant children as well as any inequality based on these characteristics (IOM 2016, 51; RCM 2016, 29). Like the human rights approach, these approaches allow the identification of the specific characteristics and human rights violations experienced by Honduran children during migration. These approaches also encourage the creation and implementation of policies, laws and institutional practices aimed to assist returned migrant children and restore and promote their human rights. 2.4.3 Human rights principles for the protection of the rights of migrant children The human rights and complementary approaches are lenses to visualize the issue of child migration and to recognize the specific experiences and characteristics of migrant children. Meanwhile, the human rights principles applied in the context of migration are ways of thinking, feeling and acting that should guide organizations assisting migrant children, including government, civil society and international organizations (RCM 2016, 31). That is, the principles establish specific guidelines, norms or rules that should guide organizations’ processes to promote migrant children’s rights. The human rights principles are derived from international and regional law instruments, such as the CRC, the General Comments of the Committee on the Rights of the Child and the Advisory Opinions of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (RCM 2016, 31). In this sub-section, I chose to examine human rights principles that encompass key aspects that should be considered in the stage of reintegration, the focus of this research. The first principle highlighted here is the principle of the recognition of children as holders of rights. Recognizing this principle is a starting point to promote children’s rights in the migration 29 context. According to the RCM Guidelines (2016, 33), this principle implies acting from a human rights approach, recognizing that children have many of the same rights as adults, but also have special rights and needs because of their age. It also implies recognizing the ability of children to act in relation to their plans associated with migration (RCM 2016, 33). This principle is relevant in the reintegration stage because it involves identifying the human rights violations experienced by children during migration, information that should be used to create strategies to promote the restoration of those rights during child reintegration. Another important principle is the principle of non-refoulement which states that no child should be returned to a country where his/her life is endangered because of race, religion, nationality, or membership in any social or political group (UNHCR n.d., 30). Although nonrefoulement must be applied before the return of children, countries of origin should consider this principle in the case of children who are returned to their country of origin despite their potential international protection needs. In this case, the country of origin should consider other alternatives to support children with protection needs, such as supporting the child to be reconsidered as a refugee or supporting resettlement in a third country. Another principle that is very important to protect migrant children is the principle of the best interest of the child. Because of its complexity and its various implications, this principle is examined more in depth than the other principles examined in this sub-section. According to the CRC, the best interest principle implies that any decision that involves or affects children should prioritize their best interest (UN 1989). For example, when a foreign child irregularly enters a country, the receiving state must assess the child's situation before deciding whether he/she will be returned to the country of origin or whether he/she can remain in the country of destination. The decision should be based on guaranteeing the child’s best interest, that is, his/her well-being. 30 The best interest of the child must be respected in all phases of the migration process, where each decision must be supported by the Best Interest Determination (BID). The BID is a process to determine what is the best interest of children given their specific circumstances and the concrete evaluation of each case. Although this process is not about ‘having a recipe’, it is about having references to avoid the risk of decisions being made arbitrarily. The BID comprises two stages: 1) the assessment; and 2) the determination of the best interest of the child (RCM 2016, 32-33). Both stages must consider at least certain elements, as expressed in the General Comment No. 14 of the Committee on the Rights of the Child, an international instrument derived from the CRC. According to the General Comment No. 14, the assessment of the best interest is about determining the relevant elements for the assessment of each case, examining and gathering information about these elements, and weighing their importance. Some of these elements are: the child’s view; the child’s identity; the preservation of the family environment; the care, protection and safety of the child; the situation of vulnerability; the child’s right to health; and the child’s right to education. This list identifies important elements for assessing the child’s best interest and is intended to be applied with discretion and with other elements being considered if required by a special case (UN 2013). The determination of the best interest of the child is described in General Comment No.14 as “the formal procedure with strict procedural safeguards designed to determine the child’s best interest on the basis of the best interest assessment” (UN 2013). This process encompasses making decisions for assisting children and considering the impact of these decisions. The process also involves taking care that the legal guarantees and the proper 31 application of the law are fulfilled; and it requires the consideration of the people involved in taking decisions (IOM 2016, 82). To determine the best interest of the child, General Comment No. 14 invites organizations to pay special attention to specific “safeguards and guarantees” described from paragraph 89. The first guarantee is the “Right of the child to express his or her own views”. According to paragraph 89 in the General Comment No. 14, “[A] vital element of the process [of the best interest determination] is communicating with children to facilitate meaningful child participation and identify their best interests. Such communication should include informing children about the process and possible sustainable solutions and services, as well as collecting information from children and seeking their views” (UN 2013). It can be observed that the view of children is an important element that, according to General Comment No. 14, should be considered in both the assessment and the determination of the best interest. The second guarantee is the “Establishment of facts.” In paragraph 92 it is described that “[F]acts and information relevant to a particular case must be obtained by well-trained professionals in order to draw up all the elements necessary for the best-interests assessment. This could involve interviewing persons close to the child, other people who are in contact with the child on a daily basis, witnesses to certain incidents, among others” (UN 2013). The third guarantee is “Time perception”. Paragraph 93 indicates that “[T]he passing of time is not perceived in the same way by children and adults. Delays in or prolonged decisionmaking have particularly adverse effects on children as they evolve. It is therefore advisable that procedures or processes regarding or impacting children be prioritized and completed in the shortest time possible” (UN 2013). This guarantee also requires that all decisions concerning the 32 child should be reviewed periodically in terms of the child’s perception of time and his/her evolving capacities and development (UN 2013). The fourth guarantee is “Qualified professionals”. As described in paragraph 94 “[C]hildren are a diverse group, with each having his or her own characteristics and needs that can only be adequately assessed by professionals who have expertise in matters related to child and adolescent development” (UN 2013). Professionals should be trained, inter alia, in child psychology and child development (UN 2013). The fifth guarantee is “Legal representation”. Paragraph 96 emphasizes that “[T]he child will need appropriate legal representation when his or her best interests are to be formally assessed and determined by courts and equivalent bodies” (UN 2013). The sixth guarantee is “Legal reasoning”. Paragraph 97 highlights that “[I]n order to demonstrate that the right of the child to have his or her best interests assessed and taken as a primary consideration has been respected, any decision concerning the child or children must be motivated, justified and explained” (UN 2013). The seventh guarantee is “Mechanisms to review or revise decisions”. According to paragraph 98, “[S]tates should establish mechanisms within their legal systems to appeal or revise decisions concerning children when a decision seems not to be in accordance with the appropriate procedure of assessing and determining the child's or children’s best interests. There should always be the possibility to request a review or to appeal such a decision at the national level” (UN 2013). The existence of this mechanisms should be made known to children and should be accessible by them or their legal representative (UN 2013). Finally, a last guarantee important to consider is “[T]he child-rights impact assessment”. According to paragraph 97, “[T]he child-rights impact assessment (CRIA) can predict the impact 33 of any proposed policy, legislation, regulation, budget or other administrative decision which affect children and the enjoyment of their rights and should complement ongoing monitoring and evaluation of the impact of measures on children’s rights” (UN 2013). The best interest principle is key in the reintegration stage to promote optimal decisions that do not endanger the life and/or physical and mental integrity of the child during reintegration. For instance, the best interest contributes the determination of whether the child should be reintegrated with his/her family and his/her community of origin. The other principles examined in this sub-section are the principles of family unification; protection of the right to life, survival and development; non-revictimization; participation; equality and non-discrimination; and confidentiality (RCM 2016, 33-34, 37-38). The principle of family unification implies that the child must remain with his/her parents or whoever plays this role, unless this contradicts the best interest of the child (IACHR 2014). In the reintegration stage, this principle is very much related to the best interest principle. Family reintegration should be considered as the first option for the care of returned children. However, if this represents a risk to the minor, other alternatives for care of the child should be considered. The principle of the protection of the right to life, survival and development establishes the obligation of states to ensure survival and development of children. This is especially relevant in the case of migrant children because they are at greater risk of being victims of violence and exploitation (RCM 2016, 34). In the reintegration stage, this principle is key as it encourages strategies aimed at promoting a safe environment in which the returned child can develop. The principle of non-revictimization is important to ensure that the child who has been victim of any type of abuse does not become a victim for a second time. In this sense, states must 34 establish institutional, inter-institutional and bilateral mechanisms to prevent the child from being forced to make repeated and unnecessary declarations about any traumatic experience that caused him or her physical or emotional damage. Unnecessary declarations should be avoided at the stage of return and reintegration (RCM 2016, 38-39). In the reintegration stage, this principle is important so as not to revictimize the child when information is required to evaluate the case and define the reintegration route. The principle of participation means to hear the opinion of children in accordance with their age and maturity. It also implies that children should be informed about their rights and the services available for them at every stage of the migration process (RCM 2016, 35). This principle is relevant in reintegration because it promotes the creation of responses that adapt to the needs of children during reintegration, based on their experiences, opinions and desires. In addition, it contributes to empower children because it informs them about their rights in their country of origin and about the services available to support their reintegration. The principle of equality and non-discrimination refers to the protection of children against all forms of discrimination. At the same time, it implies that the rights of children should be applied equally without distinctions of any kind (RCM 2016, 34). In the reintegration process, this principle promotes the rights of all returned children, regardless of their characteristics, and requires that there be no discrimination against returned minors during the family, school and community reintegration processes. Finally, the principle of confidentiality implies that states should protect information about migrant and refugee children and ensure that this information is used appropriately (RCM 2016, 36). In the reintegration process, organizations must promote the physical and mental 35 integrity of children by protecting their personal information, especially in cases of children who have been abused or who were victims of criminal actors. When examining the context of child migration in Honduras (as described in chapter 3), it is important to identify which approaches and principles are the most relevant to protect the rights of Honduran migrant children. The approaches and principles to be considered will depend on the experiences faced by Honduran children throughout the migration process, and on their characteristics and needs upon return. 2.4.4 Practical strategies to promote the protection of returned children Based on the RCM Guidelines and some recommendations from UNICEF (2011) and UNHCR, UNICEF, IOM and International Labour Organization (ILO) (2013), some practical strategies have been identified aimed at promoting the application of the human rights approach and principles to protect the rights of migrant children in the Central American region. These practical strategies are applicable in the process of reintegration and represent important actions to promote returned children’s rights: a) Diagnosis of the child's situation before determining the reintegration route. To achieve diagnosis, it is important to create interinstitutional teams that contribute to the assessment of the child's situation. In this regard, it is suggested that institutions carry out a diagnosis which identifies the specific needs of returned children in order to create an optimum reintegration plan for each one of them (RCM 2016, 68). b) Improvement of the sources of information, the integration of databases and the exchange of information between countries of the region and between organizations at the national level. This will allow the generation of evidence for advocacy, decision-making and the design of public policies (UNICEF 2011, 33). 36 c) Articulation of inter-institutional efforts at the national level between government institutions and among government, civil society, international organizations and academia. Also, articulation of inter-institutional efforts at the regional level, among governments and non-government institutions of other countries in the region of North and Central America (UNICEF 2011, 34). d) Sensitization and training of organizational representatives assisting returned migrant children, so they can operationalize international instruments applicable for the protection of migrant children and apply the approaches and fundamental principles to protect the human rights of migrant children (UNHCR, ILO, IOM, UNICEF 2013, 81). e) Implementation of monitoring and follow-up mechanisms that periodically assess the situation of returned children (RM 2016, 70). 37 Chapter 3. Examining the Honduran child migration context 3.1 Introduction Drawing on the literature, this chapter describes the phenomenon of irregular child migration originating from the countries of the Central American Northern Triangle, with an emphasis on Honduran child migration. The main purpose of this chapter is to collect the relevant information to help me to respond to the specific questions two and three of this research. The answers to these questions contribute to identifying the needs of returned children from a human rights approach that must be addressed in the reintegration process to promote the sustainable return and well-being of returned minors. For the purpose of this research, I focus on Honduran children who have migrated since 2014, the year that the Honduran government declared child migration as a ‘Humanitarian Emergency’ that needed to be addressed (Poder Ejecutivo 2014). As described in chapter 1, this emergency was the product of the substantial increase in the number of Honduran children migrating undocumented to Mexico and the United States, with their families and unaccompanied, during the summer of 2014. Because of this increased migration and the restrictive immigration policies of the Mexico and the United States, the Honduran government recorded an increase in the number of migrant children returning to the country. This chapter is divided in three sections that examine: 1) the nature of child migration in the Honduran context: causes and problems across the migration stages; 2) the characteristics and needs of returned Honduran children; and 4) Summary and implications. The human rights approach and principles, described in section 2.4 of the previous chapter, allow me to identify the human rights that children have in the context of international migration, and which are likely to 38 be violated in the context of Honduran child migration. The identification of these violations helps me to determine the conditions of Honduran migrant children upon return. The information in this chapter was obtained from the literature and particularly, secondary sources describing the problem of child migration in the Northern Triangle countries, with an emphasis on Honduras. These data were collected through a review of academic literature and studies from several international organizations, such as the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF) and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). I also reviewed national reports from the National Information Center of the Social Sector (CENISS), and statistics from international institutions on the Honduran context and some human rights indicators. In this regard, I focused on examining indicators of violence, education and employment in the context of Honduran children. To gather information from the literature, I used several online databases, such as Academic Search Complete, EconLit, UN Data, and Google Scholar. I also examined websites of relevant national and international institutions. To carry out my search, I used the following key search terms which were linked and searched together: migration/displacement; child/children/childhood/adolescent(s)/kid(s)/minor(s)/teenager(s); child migration; Central America/Northern Triangle/Honduras/Guatemala/El Salvador/Mexico/United States/U.S.; causes/motives/reasons/context/country of origin; transit; destination; return/repatriation/reintegration/reinsertion; human rights/human rights needs/human rights violations. 39 3.2 The nature of child migration in the Honduran context: causes and problems across the migration stages The analysis in this section addresses the specific question 2 in this thesis: what are the human rights violations experienced by Honduran children in the process of irregular migration to, and return from, Mexico and the United States? The causes and experiences of Honduran migrant children in the different stages of migration are described and their implications for human rights violations are analyzed. 3.2.1 Causes of migration In general, the situation of Honduran children is characterized by precarious living conditions that imply serious violations of their human rights and force many of them to migrate. More specifically, children are migrating due to deprivation of basic human rights (such as the lack of education and employment opportunities), situations of violence, and desire for family reunification (Musalo, Frydman and Ceriani Cernadas 2015, iii). It is important to highlight that Honduran child migration is a multidimensional phenomenon, as children might migrate for more than a single reason (Ceriani Cernadas 2015, 12-19). In terms of education, many Honduran children do not attend school. According to data from the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), the average educational attainment of Hondurans 25 years and older in 2017 was 6.5 years which indicates that most children do not start high school. The same organization indicates that that 17.4 percent of Honduran children of primary school age drop-out of school (UNDP 2018, 24, 56). One reason that prevents children from attending school is child labour.9 According to the National Commissioner for Human Rights (CONADEH), many Honduran children start working 9 Child labour refers to work that is mentally, physically, socially or morally dangerous and harmful to children, and interferes with their schooling (ILO n.d.). 40 at an early age to contribute to family income, and this hampers their schooling (CONADEH 2015, 116-17). According to CONADEH, there has been little progress in Honduras in reducing child labour, especially for children in rural areas, who work from an early age and in dangerous conditions (CONADEH 2015, 116-17). For 2019, World Vision reported that around 400,000 children between the ages of 5 and 17 work in Honduras. Of these, most children work in agriculture in precarious conditions (CELAM 2019). This context is one of the reasons underlying Honduran child migration. Also, some Honduran children migrate because of their desire for family reunification, since some children’s parents have previously migrated to the United States. This reflects the fragmented family structure and the situation of abandonment of Honduran migrant children. A UNHCR study shows that only 29 percent of Honduran migrant children interviewed at migratory stations in Mexico were raised by both parents. Moreover, 42 percent of all children interviewed at migratory stations had one parent living in the United States (UNHR n.d.). The parents of these children left Honduras in search of safety, some were killed and some disappeared. For this reason, a large percentage of migrant children were being raised by their grandmothers, who can barely support them and ensure their safety (Camargo 2014). Some literature suggests that more than a direct cause of Central American child migration (including Honduran child migration), family reunification might be a consequence of Central American children fleeing violence (Camargo 2014, 28). For children who are victims of violence and have their parents in the United States, they perceive migration to the north and search for their parents as a way to escape violence and seek protection. Also, a UNHCR report highlights that although many Honduran migrant children mention their hope to be reunited with their families, very few mention family reunification as the only cause of their displacement. The 41 other causes they mentioned include violence in society, abuse in home, and deprivation of their basic human rights (UNHCR n.d., 10). It is also important to mention that, sometimes, left behind children are more vulnerable to dropping out of school, being victims of gangs and suffering from domestic violence, since they often do not live within solid family structures (Rivera et al. 2015, 116). Another cause of child migration is the prevalence of violence in Honduras. Violence affecting Honduran children stems from organized crime groups, such as gangs, and, to a lesser extent, from home (Camargo 2014, 50). Gangs, locally known as maras, are criminal groups that exercise control over the national territory through extortion, drug trafficking, physical and psychological violence and homicides (29). Of the three countries of the Northern Triangle, Honduras has the largest number of people involved in gangs (World Bank 2011, 15). Maras usually recruit children under the age of 18 to carry out their activities. If children refuse to join the mara, they suffer from threats, physical violence and even death. As a result, many children flee the country. Meanwhile, violence coming from home includes physical, psychological, sexual and economic abuse. To a lesser extent this is also a cause of Honduran child migration (Rivera et al. 2015, 82-83). The literature reflects that economic reasons, family reunification and violence are the main causes of Honduran child migration. However, some differences were found between national reports from CENISS and two studies coordinated by UNHCR (UNHCR n.d. and Camargo 2014) regarding the percentage of children who migrate for each one of these causes. Before examining potential reasons for this matter, it is important to highlight the nature of these differences. 42 CENISS data show that most Honduran children migrated for economic reasons (including the search for better education and employment opportunities). Data from the period 2014-2016 show that, on average, from children who provided the cause of their migration, 43.9 percent emigrated because of economic reasons; 39.2 percent because of family reunification; 6.1 percent due to violence and insecurity; and 1.1 due to domestic violence (CENISS 2014, 2015, and 2016). The UNHCR reports also acknowledge the search for jobs and education opportunities as causes of Honduran child migration. However, UNHCR reports emphasize that these are not the main factors pushing Honduran children to migrate (UNHCR n.d.). A study coordinated by the UNHCR in migratory stations in the United States points out that in recent years, violence has become one of the strongest causes of Honduran unaccompanied child migration in Honduras. According to UNHCR (n.d., 10), 44 percent of Honduran children interviewed in this study reported having been victims of organized criminal actors such as, gangs. In addition, 57 percent of the minors interviewed raised international protection concerns (UNHCR n.d., 10). Since this UNHCR study only includes unaccompanied children, it can be inferred that there is a relationship between violence as the main cause of migration and children traveling alone. This also indicates that unaccompanied children are more vulnerable since they are more exposed to situations of violence in Honduras and during transit. Furthermore, interviews coordinated by UNHCR with unaccompanied Honduran children in migratory stations and shelters in Mexico showed similar results. According to results from these interviews, 60 percent of Honduran children migrated due to the violence and insecurity that prevails in the country. This percentage was higher than that of children from El Salvador and Guatemala (Camargo 2014, 16). This study also shows that Honduran children are so accustomed to living in conditions of violence, that some end up normalizing it. Although many 43 interviewed children did not mention violence as the cause of migration, 100 percent of these individuals said they were victims of or witnessed an act of violence, such as assaults, threats or murders in the street (Camargo 2014, 51). This shows the difficulty of identifying violence as a cause of child migration in Honduras. In addition, UNHCR documents a higher number of children fleeing from domestic violence than that reported by CENISS. The UNHCR (n.d., 24-28) reports that 24 percent of Honduran children interviewed by staff at migratory stations in the United States, disclosed abuse in the home when they were asked if someone hurt them at some point in their country or their home. This study indicates that this type of violence is the most difficult to identify due to the stigma and shame associated with these situations. It is also possible that some children do not recognize experiences of abuse since it is the only thing they know. In addition, some children might consider it unsafe to mention abuse in their homes (UNHCR n.d., 21, 28). If children are going to be returned to their families, they may fear that identifying domestic violence might lead to retribution from family members if returned home. To identify potential reasons for the differences between the CENISS and UNHCR reports, it is important to examine differences in the methodology, size and nature of the sample, and the stage of migration at which the data was collected. In terms of methodology, UNHCR collected data through individual interviews with open-ended and some close-ended questions. The UNHCR study on migratory stations in Mexico also involved discussion groups. The studies in both Mexico and the United States incorporated an extensive set of questions with the aim of understanding the causes of migration, identifying whether children experienced any kind of harm in their countries and/or their home, the desire to apply for asylum and the fear of returning to their country. (UNHCR n.d., 21; Camargo 2014, 41-42). 44 The CENISS reports do not have a section that describes the research methodology implemented. The limited description indicates that the data was obtained by the Honduran Institute for Children and Families (IHNFA) and was “provided to CENISS in charts” (CENISS 2016, 7) [Author’s translation]; and from the Directorate for Children, Youth, and Family (DINAF), through “interview forms” (CENISS 2015, 5) [Author’s translation].10 This latter term does not make it clear if the DINAF instruments were interviews with open-ended questions or forms with close-ended questions. Regardless, CENISS reports are quite general since they only present statistics on the main cause of migration. In contrast, the UNHCR reports are more exhaustive since they include questions such as: “why did you leave your country?”, as well as, “what was the most important reason?”, “did anyone hurt you at some point in your country or in your home?” (UNHCR n.d., 21), “would you like to apply for asylum in Mexico?” and “is there any reason why you should not return to your country?” (Camargo 2014, 41-42). These differences in the methodologies could explain why UNHCR identified more cases of children who migrated due to violence, even though the samples in the UNHCR studies are much smaller compared to the samples in the CENISS reports. The UNHCR studies include 98 children interviewed in the United States, 72 children who participated in discussion groups in Mexico and 37 children interviewed individually in Mexico (UNHCR n.d., 20; Camargo 2014, 33). In contrast, samples in CENISS reports include the total number of children returned in each year (10,873 in 2014, 8,377 in 2015 and 5,284 in 2016) (CENISS 2016). However, the methodologies used for the creation of these reports might not facilitate the easy identification of violence as a migration cause. Along these lines a UNHCR report suggests that the interview 10 IHNFA was the former DINAF and operated with this name until 2014 (Poder Ejecutivo 2014). 45 tools applied to returnees in Honduras (including to children) are not the most adequate and make it difficult to identify the specific causes of migration (UNHCR, Asociación de Hermanas Scalabrinianas, Pastoral de Movilidad Humana n.d., 20). Another difference between the CENISS and UNHCR reports are the nature of the sample and the migration stage in which data was collected. UNHCR reports only include unaccompanied children and CENISS reports include both accompanied and unaccompanied children. From this it can be inferred that the causes of migration differ between children who migrate unaccompanied and children who migrate with their families. In terms of the migration stage, UNHCR reports include data collected during transit and at destination, while CENISS data were collected upon children’s return. In this sense, it is possible that children's responses vary depending on the country/stage of migration when they are interviewed. In the case of the CENISS data, as mentioned above, returned children may not disclose violence as a cause of migration due to fears of becoming victims of criminal actors and abusive family members that forced them to leave in the first place To summarize, Honduran children experience several human rights violations in their origin country which lead them to migrate. These violations imply the need to promote human rights principles to protect children in the migration context. For instance, the lack of education and adequate job opportunities and the situation of abandonment by one or both parents indicate the need to promote the principles of the recognition of children as subjects of rights and the principle of the right to life, survival and development. In addition, the existence of violence as a cause of migration reaffirms the need for protection of returned children, especially those who migrate unaccompanied, as these children are more vulnerable during the journey and might not have a solid family structure when they return. The presence of violence indicates the need to 46 promote the principle of the best interest of the child linked to the principle of non-refoulement and to the principle of family unification; the right to life, survival and development; participation and the right to an opinion; confidentiality; and non-revictimization. In addition, it is important to consider the human rights, diversity and contextual approaches to be able to identify violence as a cause of migration and the nature of this violence. These approaches also allow the identification of specific groups (and their experiences) that might be more vulnerable within the group of children migrating due to violence, for instance, unaccompanied children. 3.2.2 Problems Honduran migrant children experience across the stages of migration The situations faced by Honduran migrant children are characterized by severe violations of human rights during transit, upon arrival in the country of destination, and upon return to their country of origin. For children from the Central American Northern Triangle, transit is one of the most dangerous stages of migration. Caballeros (2011, 87) highlights that the migratory corridor transited by the irregular migrant children from Central America is considered one of the largest and most dangerous in the world. Criminal groups operating in this area expose migrant children to different dangers, such as trafficking, sexual abuse and child labour. In addition, many migrant children experience indignities and danger when traveling, such as hiding on the roof of a train to cross Mexican territory. Many children experience serious injuries when they fall off this train, known as La Bestia [The Beast]. Also, children have to walk long distances while enduring hunger, thirst and bad weather conditions (UNICEF 2016, 6-7). Violations of children's rights are also a product of migratory practices implemented in Mexico, a country of transit, and in the United States as a country of destination. As mentioned above, both countries focus their immigration practices on the immediate detention and the return of Central American children, including those from Honduras. Long wait times in 47 detention centers violate the right to freedom, and immediate return sometimes ignores potential needs of international child protection, violating the principle of non-refoulement (Ceriani Cernadas 2015, 19-25). Meanwhile, the majority of children who start an asylum application procedure are not provided with a legal representative, and therefore, these children are more likely to be deported (UNICEF 2016, 9). Finally, violations of children’s rights continue at the stage of return, specifically in the process of repatriation and reintegration. When it comes to repatriation, the Honduran government assumes its obligation to receive undocumented children who have not been accepted in Mexico and the United States. According to DINAF, the objective of the Honduran government is to repatriate these children in a dignified, safe and orderly way. Besides this, the Honduran government is making some effort to receive children in a safe manner and to support them to be reintegrated in their families and communities (DINAF and Gobierno de la República de Honduras 2016, 11). Despite these efforts, the return is not sustainable as many returned children migrate again despite the dangers of the journey (CENISS 2015 and 2016). This indicates that Honduran children’s return is not completely voluntary, especially because some of these children were asylum applicants or have an international protection need. Further, Huijsmans (2006, 4-9) stresses that economic migrant children who are forcibly returned migrate again if conditions in their home country remain unchanged. In addition, Honduran returned children may be as vulnerable as when they left, since conditions in their family and community context have not changed; or they could be in a more vulnerable situation than when they left if they experienced traumatic situations during transit and destination. Therefore, Honduran returned children are a very vulnerable population. Moreover, within the group of returned children, some children are more vulnerable than others, 48 such as unaccompanied children; victims of trafficking, sexual or labour exploitation; and children with physical disabilities or health problems due to injuries during the migration journey. The literature reviewed in chapter 2 highlights that these groups of returned children require more attention during reintegration and should be monitored and assisted for a longer time. As for the process of reintegration, this can be hindered by the characteristics of the return itself, as described in chapter 2. For example, reintegration will be more difficult for children who did not return completely voluntarily. It seems that this coincides with the limited literature that assesses the reintegration of returned children in Honduras. This literature highlights that there is a lack of programs for the sustainable reintegration of Honduran returned children in their families, communities and school. Furthermore, the process of reintegration lacks mechanisms for the monitoring and follow-up of returned Honduran children (Musalo, Frydman and Ceriani Cernadas 2015, v). The information in this sub-section shows that Honduran undocumented migrant children are vulnerable during their migration process and could be more vulnerable upon return. In summary, from the experiences that children face in transit and destination countries, the nature of their return and their conditions at this stage, the following violations of human rights are identified: right to protection against any physical or psychological harm; the right to healthcare, education and other basic needs, such as food, clothing and a safe environment; the right to freedom; and the right to international protection. The failure to meet these rights amounts to violations of some human rights principles that should be endorsed by organizations in order to promote children’s well-being. For the purposes of this study, I have focused on highlighting those principles that are most relevant 49 upon return in order to restore the rights of children during the process of reintegration. These include the principles of the recognition of children as subjects of rights; non-refoulement; the best interest of the child; the right to life, survival and development; family unification; participation; equality and non-discrimination; confidentiality; and non-revictimization. As will be discussed in chapter 4, the identification of these elements is important for the creation of categories used in my research methodology. 3.3 Characteristics and needs of returned Honduran children This section responds to the specific question 3 of this thesis: what are the main characteristics of returned Honduran children? The information provided below on the characteristics of returned migrants was obtained from CENISS annual reports from 2014 to 2016.11 Each report provides data to generate a general description of the main characteristics of Honduran returned children. The main characteristics of the returnees come from the analysis of variables such as recidivism of migration, gender, situation of accompaniment of children, age and place of origin of the child. To analyze these variables, I averaged the available data from children returned during the period 2014-2016. It is important to note that some variables are only available for the year 2015 and 2016, in this case, I averaged data available for these two years. Unfortunately, CENISS reports were discontinued for the years 2017 to 2019. While data for this more recent period are unavailable from CENISS reports, data at a more general level are available from the CENISS website and are reported upon here. CENISS information has been complemented with reports from UNHCR and some global Non-Government Organizations 11 The information presented in these reports has some limitations. For instance, the information from the 2014 report only includes data from January to September; and the information from the 2016 report only includes information from January to July. Also, some variables are not presented in a standardized way throughout the three reports which make it difficult to make comparisons and to draw accurate conclusions for some characteristics. However, available information gives important insights into key characteristics of returned children, important to consider upon return and reintegration. 50 (NGOs). I also examined some indicators of violence from the National Observatory of Violence from the National Autonomous University of Honduras (UNAH) and the Citizen's Council for Public Safety and Criminal Justice, a Mexican NGO that publishes annual reports on the most violent cities in the world. 3.3.1 Recidivism of child migration The recidivism or recurrence of migration is measured by the percentage of children repatriated to Honduras for the second time. The high percentage of children repatriated for the second time is an important indicator that return is not voluntary. CENISS data show that, on average, 61 percent of children returned between 2015-2016 were children who were being repatriated for the second time. Additionally, CENISS annual reports highlight that many children have been repatriated up to three times (CENISS 2015 and 2016). Furthermore, a study, conducted by Covenant House Honduras (CAH) in 2016, reflects that (of the children interviewed in that study) 83 percent of the minors repatriated for the first time had intentions to migrate again. In this study, of children repatriated for the second time, 67 percent said they would migrate again for a third time (CAH, Pastoral de Movilidad Humana, and CRF 2016). These data indicate that, to some extent, countries of destination, transit and origin are ignoring potential needs for protection. Furthermore, policies to assist returned children fail to meet their basic needs, such as education, employment and safety. If these conditions remain unchanged, children will continue to migrate after their repatriation. In this context. There is a necessity of creating more effective reintegration programs that restore returned children’s rights in the long term. Organizations should consider assisting returned children from human rights and contextual approach, which will help to further understand the root causes of child migration and 51 to know the experiences and needs of returned children from a human rights perspective. Similarly organizations should consider strategies to promote the principles of the recognition of children as subject of rights; the right to life, survival and development; the best interest of the child; non- revictimization; and participation, to better identify and address the migration causes during reintegration. 3.3.2 Gender Information from the government of Mexico reports that 65 percent of Honduran minors who arrived undocumented in Mexico in 2019 were boys and 34.9 percent were girls (Gobierno de Mexico 2020). Similarly, in the return stage, national data from CENISS show that, for the period of 2017-2019, 65 percent of the returned children were boys and 35 percent were girls (CENISS 2020). A study conducted by Kids in Need of Defense (KIND) and the Human Rights Centre Fray Matías de Córdova highlights that sexual and gendered-based violence (SGBV) is a cause of migration for many children in the Northern Triangle of Central America. Of the 30 study participants who were victims of SGBV in their countries, 21 stated that they migrated to escape this kind of violence (KIND and Human Rights Center Fray Matías de Córdova 2017). Two kinds of SGBV are examined here which are the most common as a cause of Honduran child migration, as described in subsection 3.2.1. These include sexual violence in the home and gangrelated violence. The study carried out by KIND and the Human Rights Center Fray Matías de Córdova indicates that in Honduras, 85 percent of the cases of sexual violence that occurred in the country in 2014 were against girls (migrants and non-migrants) under the age of 19 families. Most cases of sexual violence occur in the home and are perpetrated by members of children’s families 52 (KIND and Human Rights Center Fray Matías de Córdova 2017). Hence the importance of considering a gender approach and promoting the principles of best interest and participation before the family reintegration process. In the case of gang-related violence, a study from UNHCR indicates that boys are more likely to be recruited by gangs, than girls (UNHCR n.d., 38) and receive threats or are victims of physical abuse or even death if they do not join this group. Girls are also victims of gangs, and the violence they experience from this groups is likely sexual harassment and/or sexual violence. Another kind of gang-related SGBV experienced by girls is trafficking for sexual exploitation. Sometimes gang leaders force girls to have sexual relations with gang members in exchange for a kind of payment. Gang members also take girls to prisons and force them to have sexual relations with imprisoned gang members (KIND and Human Rights Center Fray Matías de Córdova 2017). These scenarios reaffirm the need to consider a contextual and gender approach to establish adequate reintegration routes for boys and girls who have migrated for any of these reasons, specifically when they are reintegrated in their communities. 3.3.3 Situation of accompaniment For the years 2014 to 2016, CENISS data indicate roughly half of the returned children were returned with their families with the other half returned alone (CENISS 2014, 2015, and 2016). However, in the years 2017 to 2019, CENISS data shows that 63 percent of children migrated and returned with their families (CENISS 2020). The children returned with their families may be less vulnerable, since they traveled with their parents and upon returning, they have this family structure that might support the reintegration process. Despite this, it is important that reintegration actions are not dominated by an adult-centered approach that only considers the voice of children’s parents. For this, organizations must act from a generational 53 approach, and implement strategies that promote the principles of recognition of children as subject of rights and participation. 3.3.4 Age Another important characteristic of returned children is their age. CENISS data show that, on average, of children returned during the period 2015-2016, 57 percent were adolescents in the ages of 13 to 17 years and 43 percent were younger than 13 years (CENISS 2015 and 2016). The characteristic of age has important implications particularly when analyzed in conjunction with gender and situation of accompaniment. Among the returned adolescents, again for the period 2015-2016, 66 percent were unaccompanied migrant children with the remaining 34 percent being returned adolescent accompanied by their parents or another adult (CENISS 2015 and 2016). As for the age of returned children and their gender, CENISS data, from the period of 2015-2016, show that 72 percent of all returned children in the stage of adolescence (including accompanied and unaccompanied children) were boys and 28 percent were girls (CENISS 2015 and 2016). This data indicates that among returned adolescents (between the ages 13 to 17 years), there is a significant number of unaccompanied children (66 percent), and boys (72 percent). To restore the human rights of these children, organizations should consider a generational, gender and diversity approach which allow to identify specific needs related to age, gender and situation of accompaniment. It is important to note that there are limited data examining the causes of migration of children in the ages of 13 to 17 years. The little information available suggests that adolescents are more likely than adults to be recruited by gangs (UNCHR n.d., 93-94). However, further 54 research might be key to create strategies that promote the human rights of children between the ages of 13 to 17 years. To promote the rights of returned adolescents, organizations must create strategies to promote the principle of participation, which allows the opinions, experiences and wishes of children to be heard according to their age; and also informs children about their rights and opportunities to develop upon return. 3.3.5 Honduran municipalities with highest child migration According to CENISS (2014, 2015, and 2016), the municipalities that continue to have the highest incidence of child migration were San Pedro Sula, Distrito Central, Choloma, Villanueva, El Progreso, La Ceiba, and Tocoa. For 2019, the municipalities of Yoro and Puerto Cortés also had a high incidence of child migration (CENISS 2020). From these data, it can be concluded that these areas have a higher need of institutional intervention through the implementation of reintegration and protection programs and mechanisms for monitoring returned children. Some of the municipalities with the highest rates of child migration are also those with the highest rates of violence in the country and even in the world. With regard to the former, Distrito Central and San Pedro Sula were two of the municipalities with the highest numbers of migrant children in Honduras in 2016 (CENISS 2016). Regarding the latter, for the same year, these two municipalities were classified as the two most violent cities in the country (UNAH 2017). More specifically, according to the National Observatory of Violence, in 2016, these two cities recorded the highest rate of homicides in the country. Data show that San Pedro Sula recorded a total of 84.1 homicides per 100,000 inhabitants, of which 78.7 percent were people 55 between 15 and 39 years. Meanwhile, the Distrito Central recorded a total of 63.8 homicides per 100,000 inhabitants, of which 80 percent were people between 15 and 39 years (UNAH 2017). The intensity of the violence in these municipalities is also noticeable in international figures that reflect the most violent cities in the world. According to the Citizen's Council for Public Safety and Criminal Justice, in 2016, San Pedro Sula and Distrito Central were considered as two of the most violent cities in the world. In this ranking, San Pedro Sula is classified as the third most dangerous city in the world and Distrito Central is classified as the fourth most dangerous city worldwide (Consejo Ciudadano para la Seguridad Pública y Justicia Penal A.C. 2014). These indicators show the importance of examining the local context in order to identify specific needs per municipality and department. In this case, organizations should consider a contextual approach that facilitates understanding the context of the community and socio-cultural situation to which children will return. In addition, the principle of the best interest will contribute to determine if is safe that children return to their communities of origin. The municipalities with the highest incidence of child migration and highest rate of violence must be priority areas for institutional intervention. It is in these areas where returned children might be more vulnerable and therefore need more protection during the process of reintegration. 3.4 Summary and implications In summary, the literature reviewed here to address specific questions two and three demonstrates that Honduran children who migrate undocumented to Mexico and the United States suffer from a range of human rights violations in the various stages of migration. Given these violations, it is concluded that undocumented Honduran migrant children are likely to be vulnerable individuals more than active agents in the migration process. In some cases, returned 56 children may be more vulnerable than when they left due to the traumatic experiences endured during the migration trip and because conditions in their country of origin have not changed. It can also be concluded that most Honduran migrant children return involuntarily, especially when their migration is caused by violence. Also, there are particularly vulnerable groups within returned children. Among these vulnerable groups are returned migrant children who traveled unaccompanied; returned girls, who are more likely than boys to be victims of sexual abuse in the family or by gang members; boys in the stage of adolescence who are more likely than girls and adults to be recruited by gangs; children who were victims of trafficking, and labour exploitation; and children with physical disabilities or health problems caused by illnesses or injuries during the journey. There are many children who experience one or more of these situations, therefore they are even more vulnerable. It is important to notice that there are no studies that examine in depth the most vulnerable groups within returned children. For instance, no statistics were found on the number of children in these particularly vulnerable groups and there is limited qualitative information about their needs and conditions. In some cases, the lack of accurate information derives from the difficulty in identifying situations of violence affecting vulnerable groups throughout migration. The experiences of Honduran children in the stages of migration and the characteristics of the returned Honduran children have several implications in the reintegration stage, based on the human rights approach used in this thesis. It is necessary to address returned children’s needs and particularly: 1) school reintegration; 2) reintegration to work, under the right conditions; 3) protection to life and safety; 4) medical and psychological attention; and/or 5) family 57 reintegration or safe alternatives to parental care, when necessary. These needs should be promoted through application of human rights principles. Given the characteristics of returned migrant children, it is important that a human rights approach is complemented with contextual, gender and generational approaches. 58 Chapter 4. Methodology 4.1 Introduction This thesis is designed to address one main research question and three specific questions. Chapter 2 examines the first specific question related to the human rights approach and principles to promote children's rights in the context of migration. Chapter 3 responds to specific questions two and three related to: the human rights violations experienced by Honduran children through an examination of the different stages of migration; and to the characteristics and needs of returned Honduran migrant children. The methodologies for collecting the relevant information to answer these questions are described in each chapter accordingly. The answers to these three questions enable me to respond to the main research question: what are the challenges experienced by organizations in Honduras in promoting human rights during the reintegration of irregular migrant children returned to Honduras after the child migration crisis in 2014? To answer the main research question, I use a qualitative research design. As defined by Creswell (2009, 4), “[q]ualitative research is a means for exploring and understanding the meaning individuals or groups ascribe to a social or human problem”. In this study, a qualitative research design allows me to explore and understand the meaning of Honduran child migration from the experiences of two important groups involved in the problem: a) the Honduran migrant children, whose experiences were described in chapter 3; and b) the people working to create and implement policies and practices for assisting returned Honduran children, more specifically during reintegration. Also, a qualitative design provides the possibility to collect multiple forms of data, rather than relying on a single source (Creswell 2009, 175). This characteristic facilitates the collection of data obtained from primary and secondary sources to answer the research question 59 To answer my main research question, I gathered information from: the literature related to the issue of Central American child migration, with a focus on Honduras; key organizations’ public documents and websites; and interviews with representatives of organizations in Honduras responsible for or implementing policies and programs relevant for the reintegration of returned child migrants. This chapter describes the strategies used to collect and analyze the relevant information from organizations’ documents and websites and interviews with key organizations’ representatives. The chapter is divided into four sections, namely: 1) information from organizations’ public documents and websites; 2) interview approach; 3) analysis strategy; and 4) challenges and limitations of the research. 4.2 Information from organizations’ public documents and websites The information obtained from public organizations’ documents and websites is important because it allows me to identify the main institutions from different sectors working in Honduras to assist returned migrant children, as well as the relevant programs, projects and interventions implemented by these organizations. These programs, projects or interventions are oriented to promote children’s rights in the stage of return including the stage of repatriation, reception and reintegration. 12 Projects aimed to promote reintegration can be oriented to school, family and community reintegration. In addition, there might be actions implemented to protect the life of returned children and to promote alternative options for the care of the child, when reintegration with the family or community reintegration is not a safe option. For the purpose of 12 Although this thesis focuses on the reintegration stage, some actions aimed at repatriation and reception are examined. This analysis provides the background on some previous actions that may facilitate or hinder the reintegration process. For example, the prior diagnosis of the returned child's situation is timely during the reception stage and is key in developing an effective reintegration route. 60 this research, I examined programs or projects implemented by organizations or units within the Honduran government sector and non-government sector to assist Honduran children returned after the child migration crisis of 2014. Within the Honduran government sector, government units at both the national and municipal levels are considered; and within the non-government sector, domestic Non-Government Organizations (NGOs), international NGOs, and United Nations (UN) organizations are examined. I selected organizations’ documents and websites which provide information related to organizations’ programs, projects or interventions and particularly those expressed in the form of strategic plans, proposals, reports, information sheets or other documents describing general or specific information about an organization’s work to assist returned children. In this regard, organizations’ documents and websites contain elements, such as organizations’ mandates, project objectives, migration stage on which the project focuses, target population group, geographical scope, execution period and strategic lines or actions to promote reintegration. The collection of organizations’ documents and websites involved a series of formal and informal procedures. I started with a review of key organizations’ websites. For this search, I used the google.hn and google.com search engines to search for key organizations in the government and non-government sectors. I used key words and phrases which were combined and searched together and included: organizations/institutions/entities; government/public; nongovernment/NGOs; reintegration; assistance; returned migrant children; and Honduras. Through this search I identified some websites with a list of institutions involved in the protection of Honduran migrants in general. These websites are the Consular and Migratory Observatory of Honduras (CONMIGHO) and the website of the National Information Center of the Social Sector (CENISS). These websites provide a list of the main government agencies and some civil 61 society organizations involved in assisting migrant children in Honduras. I also reviewed the websites of key international organizations involved in the protection of children, migrants and child migrants worldwide and which have a presence in Honduras. Key organizations’ websites provided me with general information about organizations’ mandates, and some specific information regarding projects, programs and interventions related to migrant children protection. I was able to find some documents on organizations’ websites. In addition, websites of key organizations provided contact information such as email addresses and telephone numbers which I used to directly contact organizations to request relevant documents. Some organizations’ public documents were requested via email or telephone or from organizations’ representatives when I first met with them to ask their availability to participate in this thesis. I also obtained some documents through the Electronic Information System of Honduras (SIELHO). This is an online platform through which Honduran citizens may request information from government institutions; being a Honduran citizen, I was able to access material following this process.13 It is important to mention that the review of key websites and the request for documents via email and telephone and through the SIELHO platform began before the approval of this research by the UNBC Research Ethics Board (REB). This was possible given that all documents requested at this stage are public documents. This step was taken in order to assess the feasibility of this thesis and specifically, whether sufficient information is available and projects oriented toward the reintegration of returned migrant children exist. This procedure was outlined in my research ethics protocol submitted to the UNBC REB. Meanwhile the collection of any non- 13 This platform allows the applicant to create an account in which they can receive feedback on the status of their application, which must be answered within a maximum period of ten working days (SIELHO n.d.). 62 publicly available documents through the Information Letter/Consent Form and during the interviews was only carried out after the UNBC REB approved my research ethics protocol. Information about the research protocols and UNBC REB approval are elaborated upon below in section 4.3. From these informal and formal procedures, I collected 12 institutional documents: seven from government organizations and five from the non-government sector (including national and international organizations). In addition, I identified a total of 19 websites of which eight were from government organizations and 11 from the non-government sector. The documents and websites describe a total of 13 programs, projects or interventions: three implemented by government organizations and 10 implemented by organizations in the non-government sector. The names of these organizations and their projects are referenced in chapter 5. This information is used in the first stage of the analysis, as described in section 4.4. 4.3 Interview approach In the context of research, Berg (2009, 110) states that the interview is a technique of collecting information from people to be used to answer certain types of research questions. When the researcher focusses on understanding the perception of participants or on learning how they give meaning to specific problems, the interview is a method that provides valuable information (Taylor and Bogdan 1998, 98). As mentioned in the introduction of this chapter, my research is focused on understanding the problem from the experiences of two important groups: a) the Honduran migrant children; and b) the people who are involved in the protection of these children in the stage of return, specifically in the process of reintegration. Experiences of children are reflected through the existing literature and reports of national and international organizations described in chapter 3 of this document. Meanwhile, information on the 63 experiences of people assisting returned children has been obtained through the interview process. The research methodology used in this thesis does not include direct interviews with returned children. I chose not to interview returned migrant children because of the concern that such interviews might revictimize children and/or contribute to further trauma. In addition, the process for obtaining permission from Honduran institutions to access and interview minors is unclear. Because of this situation, I decided to conduct the interviews with key organizations’ representatives. This information is complemented by the reports described in chapter 3 which directly analyze the experiences of children. However, it is important to recognize that if I had interviewed returned child migrants directly, the information collected would enrich the understanding of returned children’s needs and challenges organizations experience in promoting their human rights. Information on the experiences of people assisting returned children has been obtained through the interview process. The objective of interviews with key organizations’ representatives is to expand upon the limited literature that assesses policies and practices carried out to protect and reintegrate returned Honduran children. This method of data collection allows me to further understand the experiences of people working on the ground through several activities related to the process of child reintegration. Even though there is some literature that reflects the experiences of local actors involved in the protection of returned Honduran children, this literature is very limited, and the information provided is very general. The purpose of my interviews is to generate more specific information to understand the challenges faced by government and non-government sector organizations’ workers in fulfilling their task of 64 promoting the human rights of returned children and thus promoting their sustainable reintegration. Unlike questionnaires, interviews allow me to build trust with the participants and to have more forthright communication with the participants, thereby also facilitating the collection of richer and more complete information. I used semi-structured interviews. According to Berg (2009, 107), a semi-structured interview involves a number of predetermined questions and special topics. The questions are asked to each participant in a systematic order, but the interviewer has certain flexibility to make some changes during the interview. For example, the order or the wording of some questions might change during the interview. In addition, the interviewer is allowed, and even expected, to probe beyond the answers to the predetermined questions (Berg 2009, 105). This type of interview allowed me to use a set of predetermined questions that are relevant to all actors involved in the reintegration of returned children, but also gave me the flexibility to follow-up on responses that might indicate specific matters, pertinent to a particular sector, organization and/or or institutional projects/programs/interventions. Another important feature of semi-structured interviews is the facility to clarify questions participants might have and to adjust the level of language in case participants do not understand certain questions (Berg 2009, 105). Additionally, interviews with different groups of actors permitted me to reflect the holistic approach that is intended through a qualitative design. According to Creswell (2009, 176), this approach involves reporting multiple perspectives of a problem. In this regard, I interviewed key actors working in the protection of returned children from different organizations within the government and non-government sectors. 65 The research process for conducting the interviews was approved by the UNBC REB. The application to the REB contains a detailed discussion of the risk assessment, physical and psychological/emotional risks, social risks and strategies to reduce risks, security procedures for recording interviews and storage of information, safety procedures for the use/disclosure and disposal of information and safety procedures for conducting community-based research. As well, a set of supporting documents were included, namely: the information letter/consent forms; interview questions; confidentiality agreements for academic supervisor and family members who supported me with transportation to organizations’ facilities in Honduras; check-in forms for use with family members and academic supervisor; list of local emergency phone numbers; incident report form; and guidelines for participants on increasing security and privacy of communication by Skype. The key supporting documents, and specifically, the Information Letter/Consent Form for the organizations/project directors and the interview participants and the Interview Questions, are included as appendix A. The letters from the UNBC REB approving the research are included as appendix B.14 After receiving the UNBC REB approval, I started recruiting interview participants. At the first stage, I contacted the organizations/project directors through institutional emails or phone numbers available on websites to ask if their organization would be willing to participate in the research. Each organization/project director was given the Information Letter/Consent Form so that he or she could take an informed decision about the organization’s participation in the study. Most letters to organizations/project directors were delivered in person in case they had questions regarding the study. 14 The application and complete set of supporting documents amounts to 74 pages and given the length, the full file is not included as an appendix; however, it is available on request. 66 If the organization/project director agreed that the organization could participate in the study, I then started the second stage of interviewee recruitment. I contacted organization employees through email or phone using information from the organization’s website. I followed up by sending the Information Letter/Consent Form to each of the potential individual interview participants. After providing the letter, I followed up with potential interviewees in case they had any questions about the interview process. I sent a total of 32 Information Letter/Consent Forms including organizations/project directors and interview participants. All interviews were conducted in the cities of Tegucigalpa and San Pedro Sula because the headquarters of key organizations included in this research are located in these two cities. Moreover, both cities have remained in the top five municipalities with highest child migration rates (CENISS 2016 and 2020), and some local projects are executed in these cities. Interviews were conducted between June and September of 2018. A total of 20 people accepted to participate in the interview process, including seven representatives from the government sector and 13 from the non-government sector. All interviews were conducted with the verbal and written consent of organizations/projects directors and interview participants. A total of 15 interviews were conducted face-to-face; four interviews were conducted by Skype; and one of the participants (due to time constraints) requested that I email him/her the questions, and then emailed me back the responses. This participant did not fill out the Information Letter/Consent Form, but his/her consent and anonymity requirements were obtained in writing via email. It is worth mentioning that this participant is not quoted in this thesis.15 15 It is worth mentioning that this participant is not quoted in this thesis. 67 From the interviews conducted in person, twelve participants granted consent to audiorecord the interviews. These interviews were recorded with my mobile phone. Meanwhile, three participants did not grant consent to audio-record the face-to-face interviews. Therefore, information from these interviews was collected through written notes. Additionally, all interviews conducted by Skype were audio-recorded with the Open Broadcaster Software (OBS) program, with participants’ written consent. On average, each interview lasted 45 minutes. After the initial interviews, I conducted 10 follow-up interviews in order to clarify some points and to seek elaboration on the information regarding some relevant topics. All the followup interviews were conducted by Skype and recorded with the OBS program, after obtaining participants’ written consent by email. The follow-up interviews were carried up between September and October 2019. Even though I planned to use the help of a transcriber, I transcribed the interviews which allowed me to become more familiar with the interview material and reduced the cost of the research. As both interviews and follow-up interviews were conducted in Spanish, I personally translated from Spanish to English all direct quotes from interview participants used in the analysis of results in chapter 5. Understanding of participants’ requirements around confidentiality was attained through the Information Letter/Consent Form provided to organizations’/projects’ directors and interviewees. Through this document, organizational representatives expressed their preference for the management of their identity, the identity of the organization and the management of the information provided in the interviews. Of the total of 11 organizations that participated in the interview process, nine requested that the organizations’ name remain anonymous. However, regardless of the anonymity requirements of interview participants, this thesis does not reveal the 68 identity of any interviewee. All requirements related to anonymity, permission to record interviews and the management of interview information, were specified by the directors of the organizations/projects and interview participants through the Information/Consent Form provided to them before conducting the interviews. In order to preserve confidentiality of organizations and individuals participating in the interviews, when analyzing the data, no organizations and no individuals are named. Given the high level of violence in Honduras, I developed and followed a set of protocols to reduce the physical risks to participants and myself related to the interviews. It is important to highlight that no incidents occurred during the fieldwork that put me or research participants at risk.16 The interview instrument comprises10 open-ended questions (see appendix A). Some of these questions were aimed at obtaining information about the context regarding returned children’s needs and organizations’ work to promote these needs from a human rights approach; other questions were aimed to identify organizations’ challenges in implementing the human rights approach and principles during reintegration; and some questions were aimed at identifying potential recommendations for overcoming existing organizations’ challenges. 4.4 Analysis strategy The information obtained from the literature, organizations’ documents and websites and interviews is analyzed in three main categories: 1) identification of the human rights approach and human rights principles used by organizations in Honduras to address return child migration; 2) analysis of potential conceptual challenges to promote the human rights of returned Honduran 16 These are outlined in the research ethics protocols which are available upon request and are not included in this thesis given the length of this document. 69 children during reintegration; and 3) analysis of practical challenges to promote reintegration of returned Honduran children from a human rights approach. For the analysis of each category, I used a deductive coding approach which involves using a pre-determined list of codes (Miles, Huberman and Saldaña 2014). This allowed me to focus on the topics that are known to be important according to the literature (Skjott and Korsgaard 2019). Thus, the codes are pre-determined in the sense that I chose these codes based upon topics in the theoretical framework developed in chapter 2 and the characterization of Honduran child migration in chapter 3. The predetermined codes used in each category of analysis are highlighted in the sub-sections. For the process of coding I used the NVivo software, available at UNBC for all students. 4.4.1 Identification of the human rights approach and principles used by organizations in Honduras to address returned child migration The first category of analysis aims to identify the presence of the human rights approach, and the use of human rights principles in the strategies used by organizations in Honduras to address returned child migration during reintegration. This information sets the scene for the analysis of the main research question of this thesis. This first part of the analysis is based upon a review of publicly available documents and organization’s websites. Since this information is publicly available, this part of the analysis identifies the sectors and names of specific organizations, programs, and projects aimed at supporting returned migrant children in Honduras. Identifying key sectors, organizations and projects is a necessary step in this part of the analysis, before evaluating whether organizations implement a human rights approach and principles. It is important to highlight that the list of organizations assessed in this part of the analysis is not the same as the list of organizations participating in the interview process. The organizations included in this section of the analysis 70 are those with available public documents and websites describing projects, programs or interventions that are relevant in the scope of this thesis. These organizations represent an important sample of all the organizations working on assisting returned migrant children in Honduras, as they implement relevant projects or programs related with returned child reintegration. The analysis is aimed at establishing whether organizations work from a human rights approach in the assistance to returned migrant children and if they use human rights principles to promote returned children’s rights during their reintegration. Therefore, this analysis is guided by a human rights approach applied to the context of international migration (IOM 2016; RCM 2016). The human rights principles described in chapter 2 were used as pre-determined codes to organize the data in this first stage of the analysis. As described in chapter 2, there are nine human rights principles which are important to promote migrant children’s rights in the stage of return and reintegration. However, in order to make a brief and general analysis, this section focuses on assessing only four human rights principles which are non-refoulement, the right to life, survival and development, the best interest of the child, and participation. I chose to examine these four principles because they are essential in strategies to promote the human rights that are most violated in all the stages of Honduran child migration. As described in chapter 3, these violations are related with violence, lack of access to education and adequate employment, trafficking, sexual abuse, labour exploitation, immediate detention and long times in detention centers and deportation or repatriation without assessing the child’s situation. In addition, an exhaustive review of all nine principles is not needed here since the emphasis is on establishing whether organizations adopt a human rights approach and some of the similarities and differences among the organizations. 71 Taking in consideration the human rights approach and these four principles, this first stage of the analysis is structured in three sections including: 1) government sector organizations, 2) non-government sector organizations and 3) similarities and differences between sectors. In the first two sections, I identify relevant organizations, organizational mandates and programs/projects/interventions related to the care of returned migrant children in Honduras. I divided organizations into these two sectors because the two sectors have different roles and levels of responsibility in assisting returned Honduran migrant children. In the case of the government sector, by law, the state holds the overall responsibility for protecting Honduran children’s rights, especially those of children who are in vulnerable situations (such as migrant children). The national government is responsible for designing and passing laws and regulations which guide its own policies and programs but also guide the programs of organizations in the other sector. In addition, the government has greater capacity to fund reintegration programs, compared to other organizations, particularly, Honduran civil society organizations. For fulfilling this responsibility, there are various government organizations assigned responsibility for the protection of migrants, children and migrant children. The second sector, organizations outside of the government sector, is comprised of a heterogenous set of organizations but yet they are grouped together because they do not have the same overall responsibility as the Honduran government for protecting the human rights of returned migrant children. Such organizations may have their own goals and guidelines but are expected still to implement programs under the overall responsibility of the Honduran government. While not holding the primary responsibility for protecting children’s rights, nonetheless, their work is essential in complementing and supporting the work carried out by the government. In addition, the guidelines of government organizations depend on the laws and 72 policies of the state, while organizations in the non-government sector may have additional guidelines coming from headquarters abroad, or members of Honduran civil society. Within the non-government sector, there are a variety of organizations including UN agencies, global nongovernment organizations, and Honduran civil society organizations. The third section in this stage of the analysis is focused on the identification of some similarities and differences found between the organizational strategies of government and nongovernment sectors. The analysis here emphasizes some differences in the nature of the programs/projects/interventions to assist returned migrant children in Honduras; and some variations on how the government sector and non-government sectors implement human rights principles. This kind of analysis is important as the identification of similarities and differences among sectors may contribute to identify strengths and weaknesses in strategies to assist returned children and thus, this information may be used for the improvement and creation of policies oriented to reintegrate returned children. This analysis is also aimed to promote collaboration between organizations to efficiently and effectively assist reintegrate returned children through more integrated strategies. 4.4.2 Analysis of conceptual challenges to promote the human rights of returned Honduran children during reintegration Having established whether organizations in the different sectors recognize and use a human rights approach and principles to address returned child migration, I am able to focus on the core aspect of my main research question: organizations’ challenges in promoting returned children’s rights during reintegration. This analysis is mostly based on information from interviews with key organizational representatives; and it is complemented with information from organizations’ documents and websites, as well as material from the literature review (pertinent to child migration in Central America, with a focus in Honduras). The names of some 73 organizations and projects that appear in public documents, websites and the literature are mentioned in this section. However, it is important to highlight that the identity of all organizations and individuals who participated in the interview process remains confidential. As previously described in this chapter, the organizational challenges to promoting the human rights of returned children during reintegration are analyzed from two main categories including potential conceptual challenges and practical challenges. The purpose of this second segment of the analysis focuses on analyzing the potential conceptual challenges. The human rights and some complementary approaches (contextual, diversity, generational and gender) applied to the child migration context (IOM 2016; RCM 2016) are used as “lenses” to analyze organizations’ challenges. These approaches are reflected in a series of international and regional law instruments listed in chapter 2. These approaches are deemed relevant given the experiences of Honduran children during migration and their main characteristics upon return. These approaches are directly related to the implementation of the nine human rights principles that are used as pre-determined codes for the analysis of this section. As described in chapter 2, the human rights principles are ways of thinking, feeling and acting that should guide organizations in different sectors in assisting migrant children, including returned children (RCM 2016, 31). Based on this definition, the experiences of Honduran children during migration and the characteristics of these children upon return, the analysis of conceptual challenges focus on the assessment of the following nine human rights principles: the recognition of children as subject of rights; non-refoulement; the right to life, survival and development; the best interest of the child; family unification; participation; equality and nondiscrimination; non-revictimization; and confidentiality. 74 Finally, similarities and differences between the two sectors regarding the organizational conceptual challenges to recognize and implement the human rights principles during reintegration are analyzed. It is important to highlight that this analysis does not name specific organizations, only sectors. This is done with the objective to maintain organizations’ anonymity. The analysis on this sub-section might have important implications for overcoming organizational challenges and strengthening strategies to promote children's rights during reintegration. 4.4.3 Analysis of practical strategies to promote the reintegration of returned Honduran children from a human rights approach The third stage of the analysis aims to identify the practical challenges organizations experience when promoting reintegration of returned migrant children, from a human rights approach. This part of the analysis is mostly based on information from interviews, although it also draws upon selected public institutional documents and literature pertaining to child migration in Central America, with a focus on Honduras. As in the previous section, this part of the analysis does not include the names of specific organizations and individuals who participated in the interview process. However, the names of some organizations and projects described in public documents are mentioned. Based on the Regional Conference on Migration (RCM) Guidelines (2016) and recommendations from UNICEF (2011) and UNHCR, UNICEF, IOM and ILO (2013), chapter 2 refers to some practical strategies that are considered to be important for promoting reintegration of returned Central American children from a human rights approach. These practical strategies are used as the main analytical categories in this part of the analysis. These strategies include: inter-institutional coordination and support; human and financial resources; training and sensitization from a human rights perspective; information management; and mechanisms for 75 monitoring of returned children. These strategies are used as pre-determined codes for organizing the interview data in this section of the analysis. The analysis also includes some strategies proposed by the interviewees to overcome the practical challenges related with these analysis categories. Given the reasons discussed above, this section also examines the similarities and differences between the two sectors in regards of the practical challenges in promoting child reintegration. The analysis of the results is described in chapter 5. 4.5 Challenges to the data collection This section describes the challenges encountered during the fieldwork. All these challenges are related to the interview process and include difficulties during the process of recruitment, scheduling of interviews, permission to audio-record the interviews, and the ability of some participants to properly articulate their responses or understand some questions. The first challenge encountered in the fieldwork concerns the Information Letter/Consent Form used for recruiting organizations which was provided to organizations/project directors. As explained earlier in this chapter, the purpose of this document is to provide information about the research project and to seek consent from organizations, before obtaining individual consent from interview participants. In practice, this document hindered the interview process since the directors did not have time to read the letter. In addition, some organizational managers felt intimidated or scared by the amount of information in this document, which some people indicated was too lengthy and complex. Consequently, the recruitment process was slower than expected. To optimize my recruitment process, I gave a verbal explanation about my research to organizations’ directors, in addition to providing the written document. In practice, I could 76 observe that a verbal explanation was more effective; and in retrospect, the Information Letter/Consent Form could have been shorter. In some cases, after a brief verbal explanation, organizations’ directors felt more confident and willing to provide written consent and to participate in the study. One possible reason for this challenge is that there is not a strong research culture in Honduras, or familiarity with formal research ethics procedures. In my experience as a university student in the country, I could see that academic research does not tend to utilize formal and structured research protocols. Usually, organizations that participate in this type of study provide their written or oral consent through less detailed instruments and through more casual procedures. It is worth mentioning that in Honduras, there is no state law that regulates research, nor do all universities have internal laws or policies to regulate academic research. A second challenge encountered during the recruitment process was the reluctance of some UN agencies, such as UNICEF and IOM, to participate in the interview process. To some extent, this limited my data collection, considering that these organizations have relevant projects oriented to promote reintegration of returned children and returned migrants in general (including children). A third challenge encountered during fieldwork concerns the scheduling of interviews. This was a little complicated, especially when some civil protests were occurring in the city of Tegucigalpa. These protests intensified after the elections in November 2017. Even though these protests did not pose a threat to my safety or that of the interviewees, they hindered my timely mobility around the city. In addition, some government organizations suspended their activities during one or two days as protests hindered transportation within the city. Because of this, some interviews had to be re-scheduled. In some cases, scheduling interviews took time due to 77 organizations representatives’ busy agendas. To cope with this challenge, I was very flexible in changing meeting times and if it was necessary, I offered the option of conducting the interview by Skype. Fourth, some interviewees did not consent to have the interview audio-recorded. This potentially might limit the accurate capture of information in terms of quantity and quality. To handle this situation, I took detailed written notes. After reviewing my notes, I followed up by phone to clarify any points that where not clear or to seek further detail. It should be mentioned that these cases were very few. Finally, there is variation among the respondents in terms of participants’ ability to articulate their experiences (for a discussion of this point generally, see Creswell 2009, 179). This was a practical challenge I observed with some interview participants and was more apparent at the local government level. When participants were unable to express their response in a clear way, I used probing questions to follow up and asked them to explain their ideas in more detail. In case participants needed clarifications of any question, the semi-structured interview allowed me to provide them. I was also flexible in adjusting my language as required. 78 Chapter 5. Analysis of results This chapter analyses the information collected from organizations’ public documents and websites, interviews and literature related to the issue of Central American child migration, with a focus on Honduras. The analysis involves key organizations from the government and non-government sectors working to directly or indirectly assist returned migrant children in Honduras. In order to do this, the chapter is divided into three sections. Section 5.1 analyses the human rights approach and principles used by key organizations to reintegrate returned Honduran children. Section 5.2 analyzes the potential conceptual challenges experienced by organizations to promote returned children’s rights during their reintegration in Honduras. Section 5.3 analyzes the organizational challenges at the practical level which prevent promoting the sustainable reintegration of returned children. Section 5.2 and 5.3 also highlight participants’ suggestions on overcoming organizations’ challenges. 5.1 The human rights approach and human rights principles used to address Honduran returned child migrants during reintegration The purpose of this section is to acknowledge the presence of the human rights approach, and the use of some human rights principles in the strategies used by organizations in Honduras to address returned child migrants during reintegration. This information sets the scene for the analysis of the main research question in this study: what are the challenges experienced by organizations in Honduras in promoting human rights during the reintegration of irregular migrant children returned to Honduras after the child migration crisis in 2014? Based on information analyzed here, it is possible to infer that organizations or units in both sectors analyzed here (government and non-government) use a human rights approach to migration, even if they adopt other approaches in different stages of migration and different 79 population groups. The information also indicates that both sectors, to varying degrees, utilize strategies related to the promotion of some human rights principles. This section focuses on analyzing organizations’ strategies which reflect a human rights approach and principles. With the purpose of establishing whether organizations use human rights principles, this section focuses on four principles, namely: non-refoulement; the right to life, survival and development; the best interest of the child; and participation. These principles are selected here because, in the Honduran child migration context, they are essential for the restoration of human rights, and, according to the literature in chapter 3, they are the most violated rights during migration from Central America to the north. These violations are related to violence, lack of access to education and adequate employment, trafficking, sexual abuse, labour exploitation, immediate detention and long times in detention centers, and deportation or repatriation without assessing the child’s situation in his/her origin country. In addition, an exhaustive review of all nine principles is not needed here since the emphasis is on establishing whether organizations adopt a human rights approach and some of the similarities and differences among the organizations. To develop this analysis, this section is divided into three sub-sections. The first two subsections correspond to the analysis of organizations in the government and non-government sectors. The organizations or units considered in each sector are those with public information available on projects or interventions to assist returned Honduran children. Also, these organizations represent an important sample of all the organizations working on this issue as they have relevant strategies to reintegrate returned Honduran children. The third sub-section analyzes the similarities or differences in the organizational strategies of the two sectors to promote returned children’s rights. 80 The information in these sub-sections is based upon a review of publicly available documents and websites. Based on public documents and websites, the names of key organizations and projects are identified in this stage as identifying these institutions is important to establish if organizations in Honduras recognize a human rights approach and implement human rights principles during child reintegration. The names of Honduran organizations have been translated from Spanish to English by the author. 5.1.1 Government sector In general, the Honduran government adopts elements of the three approaches to migration depending upon the stage of migration and population group. Some projects focusing upon reintegration of returned adults reflect a development approach; and some practices focusing on stopping adult and child migration reflect a security approach. Nonetheless, the main approach of government organizations with respect to returned child migrants is a human rights approach. In terms of human rights principles, the government establishes clear guidelines to promote the principle of non-refoulement. However, the evidence reflects that greater efforts may be needed to create guidelines to materialize the principles of the right to life, survival and development, the best interests of the child and participation. First, the human rights approach to migration from the government sector is identified in national laws and policies referring to migration and child migration. These national instruments include the Law for the Protection of Honduran Migrants and their Families (hereinafter referred to as the Migrant Protection Law), the Declaration of Migrant Children as a Humanitarian Emergency and the Protocol for Immediate Protection, Repatriation, Reception and Monitoring of Migrant Girls and Boys (hereinafter referred to as the DINAF Protocol). The design of these instruments is informed by international law instruments focused on promoting human rights, 81 such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and the Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. The Honduran government also recognizes regional instruments such as the Regional Guidelines for the Comprehensive Protection of Boys, Girls and Adolescents in the Context of Migration, established at the Regional Conference on Migration (RCM) and approved in Honduras in 2016. The human rights approach and principles recognized by the government are also reflected in organizations’ mandates, project objectives and some strategies to promote child reintegration. There are two main government organizations responsible for coordinating and implementing programs to assist returned migrant children in Honduras: 1) the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation (SRECI), and 2) the Directorate for Children, Youth, and Family (DINAF). Through the Office of Assistance for the Returned Migrant (OFAMIR), the SRECI coordinates the Municipal Units for Attention to Returned Persons (UMARs). According to public documents, UMARs’ mandate is to promote the local school, social and economic reintegration of returned children and their families at the local level (Gobierno de la República de Honduras n.d.). Educational and social reintegration allows people to have access to basic services which, according to Mehrotra, Vandemoortele and Delamonica (2000), are recognized as human rights. With the support of DINAF, the UMARs also aims to provide psychological and medical assistance, legal advice and legal service delivery to parents or guardians, food and protection of the rights of returned children and their families (Gobierno de la República de Honduras n.d.). These objectives also reflect the human rights approach because they contribute to the promotion of returned children’s rights, including the rights to mental and physical health. 82 Despite these objectives, it is important to note that available information regarding the work of the UMARs does not reflect strategies or mechanisms to promote the principles of nonrefoulement, the right to life, survival and development, the best interest of the child and participation. On the other hand, DINAF’s mission is to “direct policies and regulations for the comprehensive protection of the rights and well-being of children, adolescents and families in Honduras” (DINAF 2019) [Author’s translation]. Also, DINAF coordinates the Program Migration and International Abduction of Children and Adolescents, responsible for coordinating the implementation of the DINAF Protocol (DINAF 2019) based on international law instruments promoting children’s and migrants’ rights, such as the CRC (DINAF and Gobierno de la República de Honduras 2016). Here it is important to highlight that, although the DINAF Protocol reflects a human rights approach, this tool is very general at the stage of reintegration and is more focused on the stage of repatriation and reception of children. For instance, the protocol establishes guidelines for promoting the non-refoulement principle, and this principle is more relevant in the decision to repatriate. However, the protocol does not establish guidelines to protect children displaced by violence during their reintegration. The DINAF Protocol indicates that the government will implement “protective measures that DINAF or the [public]institution designated by DINAF will take to prevent the child from being revictimized and to assist in his/her full reintegration into his/her family environment, society, and the educational and health systems”. (DINAF and Gobierno de la República de Honduras 2016, 38) [Translation from Spanish to English provided by author]. This statement reflects the recognition of the principle of the right to life, survival and development. However, the DINAF Protocol remains as a theoretical tool or guideline only, as no government projects 83 were found that apply protection measures. Even at the local-municipal level, no evidence was found that UMARs implement mechanisms to promote the protection of returned children during reintegration. When indicating the need for protection measures to prevent the revictimization of children and to assist them in their family and social reintegration, the previous quote also reflects the recognition of the best interest principle in the DINAF Protocol. Preventing revictimization in the family and community is aligned with the best interest of the child. Additionally, the DINAF Protocol establishes, "[w]hen decisions are made that affect people under the age of 18, their best interest must be considered and be a priority. This implies that in each specific situation the respect to the fundamental rights of children will be sought, striving for a balance between rights and guarantees” (DINAF and Gobierno de la República de Honduras 2016, 38). [Translation from Spanish to English provided by author] The best interest of the child is also recognized in national laws, such as the Migrant Protection Law (Congreso Nacional de Honduras 2014), and the Declaration of Migrant Children as a Humanitarian Emergency (Poder Ejecutivo 2014). However, these documents do not stipulate specific mechanisms or guidelines to assess this principle in the context of reintegration. With regards to the participation principle, little evidence was found of mechanisms to promote this principle during the reintegration stage. For instance, the office for the Local Advocacy for Children in the municipality of San Pedro Sula has conducted talks in schools to inform children about their human rights in the migration context (Calidonio Alcalde 2014; El Diario 2018). However, these talks are not exclusively oriented to returned children and no evidence was found on government strategies to consider returned children’s opinions during reintegration. 84 5.1.2 Non-government sector The analysis in this section includes a variety of organizations outside of the Honduran government sector and includes: United Nations (UN) agencies such as, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF) and the International Organization for Migration (IOM); global NonGovernment Organizations (NGOs) such as, the Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC) and Covenant House which has a branch in Honduras (CAH); and Honduran civil society organizations such as, the Association of Municipalities of Honduras (AMHON). The organizations and projects included here are those for which public information (in documents or websites) was found. While these are not all the organizations and projects related to child reintegration in Honduras, they represent an important sample as they have relevant strategies to promote children’s rights during their return and reintegration. For organizations in the non-government sector, a review of publicly available documents suggests that organizations do incorporate the human rights approach for assisting returned Honduran children. From a review of mandates and project objectives, it is found that several organizations and projects in this sector have strategies to promote the rights to international protection, education, life and a safe environment, mental and physical health, participation, and family unification or special care in case the family is not able to take care of the child. In terms of human rights principles, to varying degrees, these organizations implement strategies to promote the four principles examined in this section. Due to their nature, some projects focus on promoting certain principles instead of others. However, according to evidence it is found that, in general, some principles could still be strengthened. UN agencies have implemented several projects and interventions linked to child reintegration in Honduras. For example, the IOM implemented the Project for Return and 85 Reintegration in the Northern Triangle of Central America. Although this is not the only IOM project to address reintegration of returned migrants in Honduras, it is the only one for which publicly available information was found. This project focuses in promoting the reintegration of returned migrants in general. The objectives of this project include the collaboration with the Northern Triangle governments to expand local public services for returnees, particularly psychosocial assistance; and to strengthen institutional capacities to facilitate reintegration and mitigate the root causes of irregular migration (IOM n.d.) which are related to human rights violations. Available information on this project does not show concrete strategies to promote the principle of non-refoulement, the right to life, survival and development, the best interest of the child, and participation. UNICEF implemented a project named “Return to Joy” designed to provide psychological interventions to assist children affected by emergencies. The project was implemented in schools to promote the continuity of returned children’s education. Return to Joy (which has been used in other countries) was adapted in Honduras to assist the reintegration of returned Honduran children and promote their psychosocial recovery after the experience of irregular migration. To do this, the methodology includes activities such as directed games, group dynamics, stories, puppets, drawings, songs, etc. The activities are designed to encourage children to express their feelings and experiences associated with traumatic situations (UNICEF 2014, 30). Therefore, the methodology reflects strategies to promote the principle of participation by providing spaces to actively listen to returned children. However, given its nature and based on the review of the available documents, the Return to Joy methodology does not reflect concrete strategies to promote the principles of non-refoulement, the rights to life survival and development, and the best interest of the child. 86 The UNHCR is another UN agency with strategies designed to promote migrants’ protection. The main mandate of this organization is to protect the life and rights of people affected by displacements (including returned migrant children) (UNHCR 2019). More specifically, through the San Jose Statement, the UNHCR created a framework to encourage the Honduras government’s commitment to strengthen mechanisms for the identification and documentation of displaced people (including children); the fair and efficient procedures for protection; finding alternatives for the detention of asylum seekers; and ensuring access to legal aid (UNHCR n.d.). Meanwhile, through the creation of the Comprehensive Refugee Response Framework (CRRF) the UNHCR encouraged the Honduran government’s commitments to improve the care of returned people with protection needs (UNHCR n.d.). Through the San Jose Statement and the CRRF, the UNHCR aims to promote the principle of non-refoulement, the right to life, survival and development and the best interest. However, the documents referring to commitments do not necessarily imply the materialization of these principles. In this sense, no public information was found of UNHCR programs/projects/mechanisms implemented to actually achieve or promote the principles of the right to life, survival and development, and the best interest during reintegration at the localmunicipal level. Regarding the participation principle, there is little evidence demonstrating the promotion of this principle. For instance, the UNHCR created the mobile application El Jaguar (The Jaguar) which is used to inform displaced people about their rights and ways to remain safe during the migration journey (UNHCR n.d.). Although this application promotes information to help displaced people, its efforts are minimal as it does not provide a space to listen to their opinions. 87 Secondly, there are global NGOs such as the NRC and CAH which also implement some programs related to the reintegration of returned children in Honduras. The NRC programs in Honduras focus on assisting people displaced for a variety of reasons (including returned migration) and on promoting processes related to the reintegration stage. The general objective of the NRC is to protect and address the needs of people displaced by violence and who perceive problems returning to their communities of origin. In Honduras, the NRC implements two programs related to child reintegration. First, the Education Program aims to assist children (including returned children) by identifying out-of-school minors, preparing them to return to school, and promoting safe education opportunities (since gangs use some schools as recruitment spaces) (NRC n.d.). The strategies of this program focus on promoting the right to education which is also related to the principle of the right to life, survival and development. However, the objectives of this program do not appear to be associated with the promotion of the principles of non-refoulement, the best interest of the child and participation during school reintegration. Additionally, the NRC implements the program Information Counseling and Legal Assistance (ICLA) with the objectives of providing displaced people (including children accompanied by their families) with information about their human rights; promoting access to Refugee Status Determination (RSD); providing housing to displaced people in Panama and Costa Rica; and supporting the Honduran government to create a legal framework and improve mechanisms to protect the rights of displaced people (NCR n.d.).17 The strategies of this program are related with the promotion of the principles of non-refoulement; the right to life survival and development and the best interest (related to the decision of repatriation). However, documents 17 Refugee Status Determination (RSD) is the legal or administrative process by which governments or some international organizations determine whether a person seeking international protection can get the status of refugee under international law (UNHCR 2020). 88 describing this program do not reflect clear mechanisms that can be related to the principles of participation and the best interest (in relation to the decision of family reintegration). Another global NGO with relevant projects related to child reintegration and which provides public information is CAH. For instance, the Residential Program of CAH focuses on providing care for children (including returned migrant children) who express that they cannot live in their communities or families (due to threats of violence), or who do not have a family that is able to ensure their well-being. While children are in a care center, the Residential Program also focuses on promoting school reintegration and providing medical and psychological attention to children. These strategies encourage the process of child reintegration as protection in the care centers is provided for up to two years. It is important to highlight that this program is not exclusively oriented to assisting returned migrant children, but all kinds of children including street children, etc. (Covenant House 2018). By providing different protection alternatives depending on the situation of the child, the Residential Program also promotes the principles of the right to life, survival and development, and the best interest of the child. Another strategy of the Residential Program of CAH is the creation of a “Life Plan” which is built between the psychologist and the child and is tailored to meet the needs and goals of each child during his/her stay at the care center (Covenant House 2018). This strategy promotes the principle of participation, as it implies informing and listening to each child during reintegration. Another program implemented by CAH is the Family Reintegration Program. Like the Residential Program, this program does not only address returned children. The program is oriented to promote school reintegration and medical and psychological attention while promoting the reintegration of children into their families. Family reintegration only occurs after an evaluation to examine the child's family situation and determine that family reintegration is in 89 the best interest of the child. The Life Plan is also used as a strategy to listen to the child and consider his/her needs and goals during the process of family reintegration (Covenant House 2018). Therefore, the program of Family Reintegration also promotes the principle of the right to life, survival and development, the best interest of the child and participation. It is important to note that CAH programs do not include specific strategies to address the non-refoulement principle. In the case of children that have already been returned and still have international protection needs, strategies to promote the reconsideration of cases in countries of transit and destination would be needed, as well as strategies to promote the internal resettlement of children or the resettlement in a third country. Third, there are relevant Honduran civil society organizations involved in projects to assist returned migrant children. For example, AMHON implemented the project Assistance for the Community Reintegration of Returned Migrant Boys, Girls and Adolescents. The program focused on promoting school reintegration and providing psychological support to returned children through the implementation of the 'Psychosocial Support Guide for Migrant Children and Adolescents' (AMHON 2015). These objectives are oriented to promoting children’s right to education and mental health which also promote the principle of the right to life, survival, and development. However, documents do not describe mechanisms reflecting the promotion of the principles of non-refoulement and the best interest of the child. On the other hand, the AMHON project involved field visits to learn about the experiences of the beneficiaries and their points of view about the project (AMHON 2016). This strategy could contribute to promote the principle of participation as it is a mechanism to listen returned children. 90 5.1.3 Similarities, and differences between sectors Based on a review of documents and websites, the information in this sub-section highlights some similarities and differences between the government and non-government sectors to address returned child migration from a human rights approach and principles. First, this section emphasizes some differences in the nature of the laws, policies and programs/projects/interventions oriented to assist returned migrant children in Honduras. Second, there are some variations between sectors regarding the extent to which some principles are recognized in the design of programs/projects/interventions to assist returned children. As for the nature of laws, policies and programs/projects/interventions, the differences between the two sectors focus on the stage of return (repatriation, reception, and reintegration) and the population targeted. In the case of the government sector, national laws and policies refer to returned child reintegration in a general way. For instance, the Migrant Protection Law has a segment referring to the reintegration of returned migrants, but this is not narrowed to reintegration of children. Moreover, the Declaration of Migrant Children as a Humanitarian Emergency is also very general in terms of reintegration as it does not specify reintegration in the family and school, the recovery of the physical and mental health of returned children and mechanisms for the protection of the life and integrity of children once they return to their community. Finally, the DINAF Protocol is more focused on the stages of child repatriation and reception than in child reintegration. In terms of projects/programs/interventions, government interventions from Honduran consulates and the reception centre Belén are oriented to providing protection, food, shelter, medical care and psychological support during the repatriation and reception of children. However, it seems that some human rights and principles cease to be promoted once children leave the reception center. More specifically, local reintegration projects, such as UMARs, are 91 not designed to promote the protection of the child's life and integrity during reintegration into the family, school and community. As it is described further in this section, this implies the nonpromotion of some human rights principles during the reintegration stage. As per the population they target, government laws, policies and projects have components focused on returned migrant children (even though these components are mostly focused on the repatriation and reception of these children). In contrast with the government sector, organizations in the non-government sector seem to have more concrete strategies to promote children’s rights beyond the stages of repatriation and reception. The projects are oriented to assisting reintegration in one or more of these aspects: reintegration through psychological assistance, medical attention, school reintegration, options for resettlement in a third country (for children displaced with their families) and family reintegration. The support provided by some projects lasts months or some up to two years, and some projects have mechanisms for monitoring children once they return to their school, community and family. However, unlike the government, few organizations in the nongovernment sector have projects or interventions focused exclusively on returned migrant children. Most projects and interventions target returned children as part of a larger group such as, returned migrants, people displaced by violence and other categories of children such as street and out of school children. Second, there are some similarities and differences in the approach and human rights principles that organizations in the government and non-government sector focus upon in promoting returned children’s rights. In terms of the approach to address returned child migration, both the government and non-government sectors recognize a human rights approach 92 in the design of their projects and programs to assist returned children. The human rights principles are implemented by organizations in the two sectors to varying degrees. For instance, the non-refoulement principle is promoted by the government through strategies oriented to carry out repatriation if this is in the child’s best interest. Similarly, this principle is promoted by organizations in the non-government sector such as UN agencies and some global NGOs. On the contrary, no evidence was found of this principle being promoted by Honduran civil society organizations. As for the principle to the right to life, survival and development, no evidence was found for the existence of concrete government strategies designed to protect the life of returned children who flee different types of violence, during reintegration at the local-municipal level. Contrary to the government, some organizations in the non-government sector have more concrete strategies to promote the life and integrity of children displaced by violence. According to evidence obtained here, these strategies are mostly promoted by global NGOs, such as NRC and CAH. These strategies provide options for resettlement in a third country and options for the alternative care of children when the family does not represent a safe environment or is not able to take care of the minor. On the other hand, UN agencies focus more on promoting the principle of the right to life, survival and development by encouraging Honduran government commitments. In the case of the best interest principle, available documents do not show evidence of government mechanisms to assess and determine the best interest of the child before and after family and community reintegration. This is despite the fact that the best principle is recognized in national laws and government organizations’ documents. On the contrary, some global NGOs, such as CAH, have concrete mechanisms to promote the best interest when this is related with 93 family and community reintegration. Other organizations such as UN agencies and the NRC promote this principle when this is related with the decision to return children, which is also related to the non-refoulement principle. Finally, little evidence was found concerning government strategies to promote the principle of participation. The little evidence found involves informative talks to inform children of their rights, although these talks are not exclusively directed at migrant children and do not provide a space to listen to children’s needs and opinions. In contrast, several organizations in the non-government sector have used strategies to promote returned children’s participation, including UN agencies (such as UNICEF), global NGOs (such as CAH), and civil society organizations (such as AMHON). These strategies include spaces to listen children’s difficult experiences during migration, their needs, desires and goals during the reintegration process and their point of view about reintegration projects. It is important to note that in both the government and non-government sectors, few mechanisms were found to inform children about their rights, which is also an important aspect of the participation principle. In summary, public documents show that the government has fewer strategies to promote children's rights at the reintegration stage than does the non-government sector. However, there are government projects focused on assisting returned migrant children, while organizations in the non-government sector assist a broader population range such as returned adult migrants and other categories of children. Regarding human rights principles, it was found that the government sector needs to create more concrete strategies to implement the principles of right to life, survival and development, the best interest and participation during local-municipal reintegration. As for the non-government sector, UN agencies implement some strategies to promote the principles of 94 non-refoulement, the rights to life, survival and development and the best interest. However, the efforts of these organizations are mostly focused on promoting government commitments. Also, it was found that global NGOs have well-structured strategies to promote the right to life, survival and development, the best interest and participation during reintegration. Finally, Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) do not have strategies designed to promote the principles of nonrefoulement and the best interest of the child. Table 1 provides a summary with the human rights principles that organizations in different sectors promote. 95 Organization SRECI DINAF City Hall of San Pedro Sula Government sector Right to life, NonProgram/project/intervention survival and refoulement development UMARs √ DINAF Protocol Best interest of the child Informative talks about migrants’ rights Participation Observation √ Efforts are minimal as these talks focused on children in general and do not provide spaces to listen to children's opinions. Non-government sector UN agencies IOM Reintegration in the NTC UNICEF Return to Joy √ San Jose Statement √ √ √ CRRF √ √ √ UNHCR √ El Jaguar application Efforts are focused in encouraging government commitments. Efforts are focused in encouraging government commitments. Efforts are minimal as this application informs displaced people about their rights but does not provide spaces to listen to their needs and opinions. Global NGOs NRC √ Education Program √ √ Residential Program √ √ √ Family Reintegration Program √ √ √ ICLA CAH √ National CSOs AMHON Assistance for the Community Reintegration of Returned Migrant Boys, Girls and Adolescents √ √ Table 1. Human rights principles promoted by government and non-government sector organizations. 96 Identifying these differences and similarities among sectors provides a first insight into the context and the potential challenges of organizations in different sectors to reintegrate Honduran returned children. However, this information is only based on documents and organizational websites. Thus, the information in this sub-section is complemented by the following sub-sections, which includes primary data obtained from interviews. 5.2 Potential conceptual challenges experienced by organizations in meeting the human rights of returned Honduran children during reintegration The previous section recognizes that organizations in Honduras, in both the government and non-government sectors, use a human rights approach and some human rights principles to address returned child migration. The section also gives a first insight into some limitations experienced by these sectors in addressing this issue. This section seeks to expand this first insight on potential challenges experienced by organizations in Honduras to assist returned migrant children and promote their human rights during reintegration. The analysis here is mainly based on information from interviews with key organization representatives and is complemented with information obtained from organizations’ documents and websites and literature pertaining to child migration in Central America, with a focus in Honduras. It is important to note that, although the name of some organizations and projects (that appear in public documents, websites and the literature) are mentioned in this section, the names of organizations and individuals who participated in the interview process remain anonymous. To promote the anonymity of organizations and interviewees, distinctions in this section are only made between the government and non-government sector. The challenges in this section are analyzed at a conceptual level, using as “lenses” the human rights, contextual, diversity, gender and generational approaches applied to the child migration context. I selected these approaches because in order to promote the rights of all 97 migrant children it is important to understand variation in needs and not view all migrant children as an homogeneous group; thus, it is important to understand the experiences of Honduran children during migration and their main characteristics upon return, as discussed in chapters 2 and 3. These approaches are directly related to the implementation of the nine human rights principles used as pre-determined codes for the analysis of this section. These principles include: the 1) recognition of children as subjects of rights; 2) non-refoulement; 3) the right to life, survival and development; 4) the best interest of the child; 5) family unification; 6) participation; 7) equality and non-discrimination; 8) non-revictimization; and 9) confidentiality. These principles have been selected based on the experiences of Honduran children during migration, and the characteristics of these children upon return. It is important to highlight that the principle of family unification is discussed with the principle of the best interest of the child. Also, it is important to mention that no substantial evidence was found on the organizational challenges related to the principle of non-revictimization. However, the following sections describe the challenges related to the other principles used here as categories of analysis. 5.2.1 Principle of the recognition of children as subject of rights The implementation of the principle of the recognition of children as subject of rights is derived from a human rights approach and is also related to the contextual approach. Recognizing the human rights approach and promoting the principle that children are rights holders is a necessary starting point for restoring the human rights of returned Honduran children, which were violated during the migration process. These rights include the right to physical and mental health, education, adequate employment and life and a safe environment. To promote these rights, organizations must also act from a contextual approach, which implies considering the society, family, community and institutional contexts in which Honduran 98 migrant children are immersed. Herein, the context of Honduran migrant children in their country of origin is directly related to the causes of child migration. Evidence from the interviews and organizations’ documents demonstrates that organizations experience challenges in recognizing the human rights and contextual approaches, and therefore, they encounter obstacles in promoting the principle of the recognition of children as rights holders. These challenges are related to the pervasiveness of structural and direct violence, the national emphasis on the security approach to migration and the lack of mechanisms to address the root causes of child migration. The situation of widespread and extreme structural and direct violence in Honduras means that organizations struggle to address the needs of the non-migrant population as well as the returning migrant population. A representative from the non-government sector highlighted that institutions in Honduras must first meet the needs of millions of Hondurans who live in extreme poverty and lack opportunities. In addition to this population, there are thousands of migrants who are returned every month with many more needs. Therefore, the problem has a dimension that cannot be absorbed by the existing institutional capacity [Participant 8]. In addition to this, another representative from this sector expressed: The situation of structural violence is quite strong. In the economic aspect, there is not enough generation of sources of income, access to education, jobs, and other opportunities. Then, there is an issue of violence in the communities producing migrants, which limits the opportunities of children. Even if there is a school in the community, children might not be able to attend because they are afraid that they will be approached by gangs on their way to school. Even if there are twenty schools in that community, access to education is difficult because gangs exert control among territories. [Participant 9] Added to the context of direct and structural violence, representatives from several organizations within the non-government sector agree that some state actions ignore the human rights of returned children because of a national focus on the security approach to migration. For 99 instance, one representative stated: “I think migration is taken more as a national security issue… In fact, there are state campaigns oriented to forbid the mother to let her children leave the country” [Participant 6]. There are radio and TV campaigns aimed to discourage child migration by emphasizing the dangers of travelling undocumented due to the presence of criminal groups operating in the migratory route (CONMIGHO 2017). These are real dangers threatening migrant children’s lives. However, this security approach ignores the right of children to migrate, which is especially important when minors are victims of violence in their communities and they do not find any kind of protection within Honduras. Further evidence of the presence of the security approach is provided by another representative from the non-government sector who highlighted: In terms of violence and related matters there is a strong security approach, militarization of schools, and those issues that oh my God! I won’t say that it’s wrong because we know that every city needs security but focusing only on that is as if you give me a car without the wheels. The protection approach isn’t still strong enough… The police aren’t the only contact with the state that a person in a dangerous neighbourhood must have. [Participant 14] Also, the security approach does not address the root causes of migration which in turn implies ignoring a contextual approach. Ignoring the root causes of violence and the Honduran context only contributes to ongoing displacement. This was stated by a representative in the nongovernment sector: The attention to forced displacement is the response to the effect of something, but if the causes are not addressed, forced displacement will continue to exist. Then children will arrive to their same community or they will go to a similar or more dangerous community because their families do not have the conditions to resettle in a safe neighbourhood. Therefore, children return to the same conditions that made them leave and they must migrate again. If this cycle does not change, the migratory flow of minors will not change. [Participant 10] According to this evidence, it can be inferred that the strong focus on a security approach and the lack of a strategy designed to address the root causes of migration hinder the recognition 100 of the human rights and contextual approach. This situation implies a challenge to organizations in implementing the principle of the recognition of the child as the subject of rights. In addition, it is important to mention that non-compliance with this principle may hinder the implementation of other principles, such as the best interest and the right to life, survival and development. 5.2.2 Principle of non-refoulement The principle of non-refoulement is directly related to the human rights approach as this principle is essential to protect migrant children’s right to life. This principle is important in the context studied here because many Honduran children migrate due to situations of violence and being returned to their origin country threatens their right to life. Evidence shows that the challenges to the implementation of this principle are related to the lack of clarity in the interpretation of the concept of non-refoulement and the passive role of Honduran consulates. The interpretation of the non-refoulement concept lacks clarity in the context of Central American migration where many Honduran children are forcibly displaced due to gang violence, rather than by reasons such as civil war or political opinions which are explicitly acknowledged in UN Conventions. According to the Protocol and Convention to the Status of Refugees (hereafter refer to as the Refugees Protocol), no state should return a refugee to a territory where his/her life or freedom is endangered because of his/her race and nationality, religion, membership in a social group, or political opinions (UNHCR n.d., 30). The interpretation of gang-related asylum applications in relation to the grounds stated in this definition is complex. Usually, gang-related asylum applications are analyzed within the grounds of “membership in a social group” and “political opinion”, although this does not exclude the applicability of the other grounds as well (UNHCR n.d., 103). The UNHCR defines a social group as “a group of persons who share a common characteristic other than their risk of being persecuted, or who are perceived as a group by 101 society. The characteristic will often be one which is innate, unchangeable, or which is otherwise fundamental to identity, conscience or the exercise of one’s human rights” (UNHCR n.d.,107). Two approaches emerge from state practices linked to this definition: the protected characteristics and the social perception approach. The protected characteristics approach implies that individuals who resist joining a gang can share some innate or immutable characteristics, such as age, gender, and social status. Some Central American young people are more vulnerable to be recruited by gangs due to these characteristics. From the social perception approach, those targeted for gang recruitment may be perceived as a social group due to their origin, social background, or social class (UNHCR n.d., 105-108). Within these approaches, claims concerning people with present or past voluntary association with gangs require a careful evaluation of whether the asylum applicant is indeed a member of a particular social group. From a UNHCR view, past or current gang members are not considered as members of a social group, under the definition of the Refugees Protocol. Due to the criminal nature of gangs, it would be inconsistent with human rights or the Refugees Protocol to consider this affiliation as constituting a social group. In these cases, it is important to consider the circumstances under which the asylum applicant joined the gang. For instance, a person who was forcibly recruited into a gang would primarily be considered a victim of gang practices, rather than a person associated with crime. However, even if gang membership occurred voluntarily, former gang members (including those who engaged in criminal activities) may be considered as members of a social group under some circumstances, if they declared their affiliation with the gang and credibly deserted from it (UNHCR n.d., 108-109). This is an example of the complexity in the interpretation of the principle of nonrefoulement in the Central American migration context. Evidence shows that, in practice, states 102 have different interpretations or may use different criteria or guidelines to evaluate asylum claims related to gang violence. According to some interview participants, some of these evaluations ignore potential needs for international protection. In this regard, a representative of an organization in the non-government sector stated: “There is no clear line on what is nonrefoulement since Central America's context is quite new in terms of international protection. The concept was more traditional in times of civil war in the region, but now it is quite new…Here we are not on a border between Turkey and Syria where the non-refoulement concept is very clear” [Participant 14]. The same participant also emphasized: We have experience in other migratory contexts, for instance, children from armed groups in Somalia, or we have specific guidelines in Ethiopia that tell us when a child can be linked with or was affected by armed forces groups. However, guidelines are always linked to what is asylum in formal conflicts. Contexts like this, in Central America, where there is recruitment by organized crime groups, this is something new. [Participant 14] Moreover, displaced people from countries in armed conflict are prioritized (by countries receiving asylum applications) before displaced people from countries with other types of violence, such as Honduras.18 In this regard, a representative from the Honduran government sector indicated: “In the international context, countries in armed conflict are considered a priority. Honduras has problems of violence, but this is due to common crime. Gangs are not terrorist groups, and why not? Because terrorists have a political end and gangs don’t” [Participant 3]. As a result, the protection needs of many children are ignored when they are immediately returned to Honduras, without even having a chance to request asylum or after their asylum application was denied (despite their need of international protection). This was expressed by a government representative who said: “Maybe from one hundred children at least 18 According to the International Humanitarian Law (IHL), an armed conflict is a violent confrontation between two massive groups of people and that will generally result in deaths and material destruction (UNHCR 2018). IHL is based on the protection of people in armed conflicts and is reflected in the 1949 Geneva Convention which promotes the protection of people affected by wars (ICRC 2014). 103 fifty percent, to be conservative, are children who shouldn’t be returned to Honduras” [Participant 3]. Similarly, a representative from the non-government sector stated: Many children and their families shouldn’t have been deported because upon arriving in their country, community, and neighbourhood, there is a high possibility that they will be killed ... Even with all the efforts that are being done, the United States and Mexico governments continue to deport children who seek international protection. Many of these children are not even able to start the asylum application process. [Participant 20] Furthermore, Honduran consulates in destination and transit countries do not appear to prioritize the non-refoulement principle because they do not always inform migrants about their right to request asylum and sometimes might discourage them from initiating the asylum application process. Referring to this, a non-government representative said: “Many consulates say to migrants that without the proper documentation no one is going to believe them, that they [United States and Mexico immigration authorities] will not approve the asylum application, and that they might not be recognized as refugees” [Participant 20]. This quote is consistent with Rivera et al. (2015, 136-143), who argue that consular and migration authorities are oriented towards repatriation and fail to consider asylum and other alternatives of international protection. They further highlight the passive role of Honduran consular authorities in focusing on the management of the repatriation process, rather than taking actions to protect the rights of children. 5.2.3 Principle of the right to life, survival and development The principle of the right to life, survival and development is directly related to the human rights approach as all children, according to the article six of CRC, have the right to life, survival and development. In the context studied here, this principle is also related to the recognition of the contextual, diversity and gender approach, as these approaches help to identify the context to which children are returned and some of their specific characteristics. 104 Ideally, children whose lives are at risk if returned to their families or communities of origin should not be returned to Honduras. However, in most cases, this is not what happens due to immigration policies in destination and transit countries. Given this scenario, the principle of the right to life, survival and development is very important to protect returned Honduran children during reintegration. From a human rights and contextual approach to the analysis, organizations face challenges to uphold the principle of the right to life, survival and development due to the ongoing violence in Honduras. As a result, reintegration cannot be sustainable since children need to live in a safe environment in order to develop and exercise their other rights. Despite this scenario, the Honduran government does not have strategies to provide protection to returning international migrants with protection needs, including children. Also, it was found that the historical migration in Honduras has affected the family context in the country, and this hinders the protection of children during their reintegration. From a diversity approach, some challenges were found to promote the principle of the right to life, survival and development to protect children with certain characteristics, for instance, children who migrated unaccompanied. From a gender approach, no evidence was found regarding strategies to provide differentiated care according to the protection needs of returned boys and girls, despite the fact that migrant girls and boys might have different experiences of the migration stages and needs arising from the process. The context of direct violence limits the organizations’ ability to promote the principle of the right to life, survival and development during child reintegration. Although government figures show that violence rates have dropped (Presidencia de la República 2018), evidence from some literature and interviews indicates that violence in Honduras has worsened. A 105 representative from a non-government sector organization indicates that the government figures on the issue of violence are underestimated. Furthermore, according to Rivera et al. (2015, 23), the expansion and territorial control of gangs, the increase in drugs and arms trafficking, and the prevalence of impunity, have resulted in the increase of violence including homicides, massacres, kidnappings and extortions. Along the same lines, organizational representatives emphasized that there has been an increase in violence which adversely impacts their work on a daily basis in the community. For instance, a representative in the non-government sector highlighted that mobility within communities is now more restricted due to new ‘invisible borders’ imposed by gangs; and that this is also preventing children from reaching their schools.19 This participant also stated: “Every day we see how schools that weren’t controlled by gangs before, are now places where forced recruitment occurs” [Participant 10]. This participant emphasizes that increasing invisible borders and gang recruitment at schools are elements that limit the work of the organization at the local level. One problem of this context of violence is the risk that organizations’ staff run when they are working in communities with high levels of crime. This hampers the reintegration work in several communities. The same representative highlighted: The context of communities where we operate limits us to implement our work because we must adapt to this context. This context of violence forces us to take security measures to protect the physical integrity of both the project staff and the children we support. For example, always in these areas there are murders, confrontations between gangs, crossfire, etc. We must follow security protocols and many times trust in some community leaders who inform us. For instance, community leaders call us when we have an event in the community and tell us ‘please don't come today because they killed someone, and the situation is serious’… Then we don’t go. [Participant 10] 19 Invisible borders are the frontiers that divide gang territories in urban neighbourhoods in Honduras where these groups have a presence (InSight Crime 2015). 106 This is consistent with the comment of a government sector representative who said: “Another limitation is the issue of security for the staff visiting dangerous communities where migrants are afraid... The gang members believe that one is testifying to the police... This is a big limitation” [Participant 3]. In the same way, a non-government sector representative expressed: “Access to certain communities remains complicated not only for us, but for the authorities. Remember that there are many communities that are controlled by criminal groups” [Participant 14]. The violence context also limits organizations to work openly from a human rights approach. This hinders the protection of returned children during reintegration processes. In this regard, a non-government sector representative mentioned: Our willingness to provide or strengthen the knowledge of communities on the issue of protection and human rights is limited by the context. Sadly, we cannot speak directly to these communities about human rights, we cannot provide information about access to rights. If you go with a speech like this to those communities, the gang members will kill you. How are you going to tell someone ‘look if you are raped by a gang member you must make a complaint’? You can't because there are situations where you can't talk, the context limits you… Therefore, our speech must be more humanitarian, ‘we are organizations that come to support children.’ Just indirectly we try to include the issue of protection. [Participant 10] Given this scenario, evidence shows that the state does not have defined mechanisms to respond to the context of violence in the child reintegration process. Based on a review of public documents, the duration of state-provided protection is too short for the required assessment of returned child migrants’ needs. The reception center Belén has a protection officer who examines the situation of returnees and offers them protection alternatives. However, these alternatives only include shelter in reception centers for up to three days or the referral of cases to NGOs (DGPHM; UNHCR 2017). 107 At the local level, public documents describing the role of the municipal units UMARs do not reflect mechanisms to extend state protection during reintegration (Gobierno de la República de Honduras n.d.). Finally, according to available documents, the Inter-Institutional Commission for the Protection of Persons Displaced by Violence (CIPPDV) has the objective to protect internally displaced persons (CIPPDV n.d.). However, this commission still does not include strategies to protect people (including children) who migrated abroad and were returned to Honduras. The short duration of state protection and associated problems observed from the document analysis is consistent with the statements of some interviewees of both sectors analyzed here, which highlight the lack of state mechanisms to protect people displaced by violence. For instance, interviewees highlighted the lack of strategies for the internal resettlement of returned international migrants, including children. A government representative highlighted that there are still no state mechanisms to assist victims of violence; that temporary shelters do not admit complete family units and cases related to organized crime; and that there is a lack of opportunities for internal resettlement. As a result, many people with protection needs opt for irregular migration to safeguard their lives [Participant 18]. Along the same lines, a representative from the non-government sector highlighted: “A topic that systematically comes up when we talk about forced displacement is forced recruitment by gangs in schools, the community, and social networks; and there isn’t a national plan for the prevention of forced recruitment” [Participant 14]. This is consistent with the following statement from another representative of this sector: “The state itself does not have a defined route to handle cases of forced displacement. This is very complex because the simple fact of relocating a family implies not only a cost but a series of coordinations to ensure that they have 108 dignified conditions and above all, the necessary protection to ensure that these people’s lives are not in danger” [Participant 2]. From the contextual approach, the migration history of Honduras is another challenge to promote the principle of the right to life, survival and development during reintegration. For several decades, many Honduran families have been impacted by the previous migration of one or both parents, and/or other family members. As a result, organizations do not have the support of a solid family structure that provides a space for protection during reintegration. This was emphasized by a non-government sector representative: “The migratory context had an impact in Honduras at the level of family structure. Considerable family disintegration exists, with many families having a relative or two abroad, with children being raised by grandmothers. There is not, as elsewhere, a strong family structure where organizations can systematically support themselves for reintegration” [Participant 14]. From a diversity approach, it was found that there are no special mechanisms to protect the life and integrity of returned children with certain characteristics such as the situation of accompaniment. In the case of children returning unaccompanied, this aspect is important because a significant group of returned Honduran children are unaccompanied (CENISS 2015, 2016, and 2019) and because these children are more vulnerable, since they were more exposed to the dangerous experiences of the journey (UNICEF 2016, 23) and usually do not have a solid family structure that gives them protection when they return. For instance, the Migrant Protection Law (Congreso Nacional de Honduras 2014), the Declaration of Migrant Children as a Humanitarian Emergency (Poder Ejecutivo 2014) and the Law for the creation of the CIPPDV (Poder Ejecutivo 2013), do not have guidelines aimed at specifically protecting unaccompanied 109 returned children. In additions, no documents were found describing organizations’ objectives to provide differentiated care to this population. The finding that there is a lack of attention in laws and project objectives to the population of unaccompanied child migrants is supported by a government representative who emphasized that, "There aren’t many places where returned migrant children who traveled unaccompanied more than two or three times can go" [Participant 16]. Moreover, a representative from the non-government sector stated that the government does not take the full responsibility for cases of unaccompanied children and that “there is a tremendous helplessness of unaccompanied children” [Participant 20]. From a gender approach, the principle of the right to life, survival and development is important to protect returned migrant boys and girls who sometimes experience different traumas related to their gender. In the case of boys, data shows that they can be more exposed to gang recruitment; in the case of girls they are more vulnerable to sexual abuse from home or gang members (UNHCR n.d., 29, 38, 96). In this context, no evidence was found of organizations’ strategies to protect the life and integrity of children according to these realities. This is a challenge for organizations to promote more effective reintegration processes. 5.2.4 Principle of the best interest of the child The principle of the best interest of the child is directly related with the human rights approach as this principle is oriented to promote children’s well-being in decisions that affect them. Also, in the context studied here, the promotion of this principle should consider the contextual approach in which Honduran children are immersed. From a human rights and contextual approach, determining the best interest of the child is necessary when making decisions about effective mechanisms for the reintegration of children 110 into their family, school and community; and this is especially the case because these spaces might represent dangerous situations that forced Honduran children to migrate in the first place. Representatives of the non-government sector and the literature agree that the government does not take enough time to assess the situation of each returned child and thus determine what is in his/her best interest. Within this argument it is emphasized that children are sometimes reintegrated into abusive families and that this is not aligned with their best interest. In contrast, representatives of the government sector argue that separating children from their families (even when there is a situation of extreme violence in the family) could cause harm to the child. The contrast of this arguments reflects that there is a lack of clarity to interpret the principle of the best interest of the child. Overall, this confusion is recognized by representatives of both sectors included here. The best interest of Honduran returned children is determined immediately when minors arrive at the reception center, where they stay from two to a maximum of seventy-two hours (DGPHM; UNHCR 2017). However, representatives of the non-government sector indicate that the determination of this principle requires much more time since a thorough evaluation is required to determine if and how he/she should be reintegrated into family, school and community. One representative indicated: “The determination of the best interest must be done up to two years after the identification of the child; it is not something that is done immediately. It is a measure that must be worked on, and there, in the reception centers, we are only in a place of transit” [Participant 14]. This position is consistent with that of Rivera et al. (2015, 123) who argue that the short time children stay in the reception center before being reunited with their families does not allow a comprehensive assessment to detect the human rights violations children experienced within their families or communities. As a result, some children are 111 returned to abusive families or unsafe schools and communities. This hinders the work of some organizations supporting the child reintegration process. From a contextual approach, there are difficulties implementing the best interest of the child principle because it is linked with the family reunification principle and it is difficult to assess the relative benefits (or harms). Assessing the family context is important when determining the best interest principle. According to international law, family reunification should generally be considered as the first option for the care of the child, as long as this is consistent with his/her best interest (UNHCR 2008). However, interviews provide evidence that government organizations assume that family reunification is synonymous with the best interest without taking the time to assess the situation of each child. When returned children arrive to Honduras, government officials contact their parents or guardians to reunite them without fully assessing the child’s family context and determine if family reunification and reintegration are safe for the child. For instance, a representative from the non-government sector expressed: “Many returned children are being delivered to relatives or extended families. Later, organizations realize that the violator of these children's rights are their parents, or a grandparent with whom minors lived before” [Participant 20]. Further information from interviews and literature reflects that the government perceives family reunifications as the same thing as family reintegration. For instance, Rivera et al. (2015, 119) highlighted: “In practice, the procedures for ‘release’ of children and adolescents to their relatives are more of a requirement to fulfill than a true interest in promoting the reunification of children with their families, much less a process of reintegration into the family.” Additionally, a non-government sector representative said: The best interest of the child is not considered. From experience we know that when a child comes and is delivered to the family, this is not done from a protection approach. It 112 is just like filling out a form to record that the child was delivered to the family. What interests the state is just the delivering of children and to have the signature from a relative to prove they received their child. It is not known if the child returns to a context of violence, if the child's right to health and education will be restored, if the child migrates again. This is not a process of family reintegration. When children arrive, parents are in a line outside the center, government officials ask parents to present the documents to prove they are the child’s family and then they give them the child. So I believe that there is a huge gap in what is family reintegration, it is not done properly and there aren’t public policies that encourage this. [Participant 6] In contrast to these arguments, a representative from the government sector indicates that separating the child from his/her family might negatively affect the minor. This representative indicated: …It may be that in the first instance we think that the most convenient thing for the returned child (because there is a situation of extreme violence where he is living) is to separate him from his family and take him to a childcare institution. Here we are trying to protect the right to life, which is the most important, but it may be that separating the child from his family causes him more harm… So, institutionalization is always a good example in the sense that, it can be designed to protect children and we can believe that through it we are applying the best interest, when what we are doing is causing more damage to the child. [Participant 3] The arguments from organizations’ representatives from different sectors reflect the lack of clarity in interpreting and implementing the best interest principle. This confusion is reflected in the statement of the same government representative who highlighted: This principle is the most important but is complex to implement because it is often confused. Sometimes it happens that based on the best interest we violate children’s rights. This happens when people working with children believe that the decision they are making is the most favorable for the child, but it turns out that it is not. [Participant 3] In addition, a representative from the non-state sector indicated: With the principle of best interest, everyone agrees, it is in the law, but how should it be applied? How is it interpreted? In everything organizations will quote Article Five of the Childhood and Family Adolescence Code. In all the processes where there is a contradiction between two procedures, this article will be cited which defines that the best interest of the child must be considered. However, if for example we go to a judge and we must show him/her that in a measure there is the best interest, how do I do it? How do I document it? Why was the measure taken? [Participant 14] 113 Moreover, the same representative highlighted that the state has relied too much on standard procedures to determine the best interest instead of assessing the individual situation of each child: I think there has been an overly procedural route that could be adapted to other situations, such as a camp in Uganda… Procedures that are step a, b, and c where the first step is to contact the child’s family and if there is none then send the minor to a childcare institution, but what if the child's relative is a gang member? What is done? ‘Oh no but we have to follow the steps a, b and c’. I think that now that the principles are there and are recognized, organizations must work hard on the procedures, on how they are applied. [Participant 14] 5.2.5 Principle of participation Promoting the principle of participation implies the recognition of a generational approach as this principle is oriented to recognize the needs of children according to their age and to avoid prioritizing an adult-centered approach. The principle of participation is important in the context studied here to inform migrant children about their right to international protection, their rights upon return to Honduras, and the reintegration services and organizations that can assist them in restoring their rights during reintegration. This principle also implies the creation of strategies to allow the opinion, experiences and wishes of children to be heard according to their age. This information should be considered to determine the best reintegration route. Evidence shows that returned Honduran children do not know their rights, nor the services available upon return. Furthermore, there is an adult-centered approach that hampers the creation of spaces to listen to child’s experiences, needs and opinions. These situations negatively affect the reintegration processes. Representatives of the non-government sector and local governments have a similar argument in that returned children do not know their rights and the services available at the local 114 level to reintegrate them. This misinformation is an obstacle for organizations to assist children. A government representative emphasized that some municipalities have projects to assist returned children in their community. However, these projects are rarely receiving children, as minors are not aware of their rights and the existence of these services. This is more common for the case of unaccompanied children [Participant 16]. Similarly, a representative from the nongovernment sector stated: Many children don’t know that they can have assistance if they are relocated within the country, or they don’t know that there are procedures for receiving assistance and that they can also apply for asylum. They don’t know that we may have other programs that can help them better meet their protection needs in the medium term. [Participant 14] A government organization representative emphasised that organizations in both sectors can overcome this challenge by promoting informative talks on the rights of migrant children, and more specifically on the reintegration stage. This representative suggested that that these talks can take place in schools and can be directed to students, teachers and parents [Participant 13]. Moreover, there is an adult-centered approach that, according to representatives from the non-state sector, is reflected at the community level because there are not spaces to promote children’s participation in decisions that affect them. In this regard, a representative highlighted: There are children who are not considered in decisions that affect their life at the community level. The right of participation implies that they can actively participate in the structures and organizations of their communities and in the decision-making of what is affecting them; but they are not subjects of participation at the local level due to an adult-centered culture. This limitation hampers child reintegration and worsens the problem that forces children to migrate….There is an adult-centered approach where children are ignored as subjects of attention and aren’t protagonists in terms of their participation, in being able to develop all their competencies, or in accessing the possibilities of being someone according to their dreams, aspirations and abilities. [Participant 19] 115 In contrast, a local government representative indicated that sometimes it is parents who determine children’s needs without the involvement of their children. This government representative highlighted that children need psychological attention and said: “There are spaces for providing psychological attention, but parents don’t bring children. There is resistance of parents and a culture of not attending to the psychologist. The cost of transportation also prevents parents from bringing children to the psychologist” [Participant 16]. This adult-centered approach ignores children’s voice and hampers the effective implementation of the principle of participation. It is important to highlight that more than half of the returned children are adolescents between the ages of 13 to 17 years. Given their age, these children may be more able to express their desires and needs. That is why it is important that organizations promote mechanisms to listen to these children. However, no organizational strategies were found to listen to the voice of these adolescents and identify their specific experiences and needs. 5.2.6 Principle of equality and non-discrimination From a human rights and diversity approach and in the Honduran migration context, the principle of equality and non-discrimination is important so that all returned children can be reintegrated, and their rights enhanced, regardless of any of their characteristics or the causes of migration. Representatives in the non-government sector are aware that returned child migrants are not treated equally because of stigmatization, and this constrains their reintegration efforts. Returned children are stigmatized by their return and some are rejected by their communities, schools and sometimes even in their own family. For instance, a representative of this sector stated: Returned children are seen as los mojados [the wetbacks] or 'the deportees' and from that it can be seen that there is already a stigmatization in the community. There is a social 116 mark that makes it more difficult for these children or families to be reintegrated and join the normal activity of the community. This stigmatization happens at the community level, schools and even the family where there is a condemnation towards the returned child. Some parents tell the child ‘We told you not to go,’ ‘you were well off here’…Therefore, returned children experience an additional burden to the frustration of having their dream truncated in that search for different opportunities. [Participant 19]20 The family can also discriminate against the child because they feel the minor failed in his/her attempt to seek better economic opportunities for the family. For example, another nongovernment sector representative expressed: The family questions or sees the child’s return with a degree of frustration… They tell the child 'you did not get through the North' or 'what are we going to do?'... I won’t say that this is usually the case, but there are cases that impact children due to this. We have had some cases where the family is resisting that reality and then they motivate the recidivism of migration. Also, when a family member is suddenly returned, there is a frustration and the feeling that poverty increases because families paid a smuggler with their savings and they feel that this money was badly invested. [Participant 6] Finally, in seeking employment, some returned children are discriminated against as employers perceive that they have learned untrustworthy attitudes through the migration process. For example, one participant indicated: If it’s hard having access to the education system, it is even more complicated finding a job. Many times, if employers know that the minor is a returned migrant, it is most likely that there will be stigma. Employers will say ‘who knows what bad habits he/she learned on the migratory route’… ' they learned to steal' …and there is some exclusion for children to insert themselves into an occupation or informal work and therefore, in the community. Stigma predominates in all the labor, social, community and family areas. [Participant 19] 5.2.7 Principle of confidentiality From a human rights approach, and as it is expressed in the CRC, every child has the right to privacy. Therefore, promoting the principle of confidentiality is very important. In the 20 Los mojados [the wetbacks] is an expression commonly used in Central America and Mexico to refer to people who migrate irregularly to the United States. This expression has a negative connotation. 117 present Honduran context, maintaining confidentiality about returned child migrants is key for promoting their safety, since many of them originally fled their communities to avoid the threats of organized crime and gangs seeking to recruit them. Representatives of the non-government sector appreciated the importance of maintaining confidentiality to protect returned children. However, they also indicated that the Honduran state, in its efforts to keep children’s identities confidential, does not provide organizations with information that they need to assist children with reintegration. In contrast, government representatives indicate that all the organizations’ part of reintegration processes have access to confidential information as long as that information is necessary to carry out their work. A representative of the non-government sector indicated: Confidentiality is also poorly managed because there is a lot of information about children that is not disclosed to other organizations and that is essential to give children the appropriate attention during reintegration. If this organization wants to have access to certain information at the level of public officials that information isn’t available… Access to information is limited which also limits the timely care of returned children. [Participant 19] From the same sector, another representative highlighted: Confidentiality policies can become an obstacle to develop projects like ours. It's okay to protect the information but you must know from whom. The institutions cannot be so closed to share the information… Information was difficult to access for us, even though we were such a recognized institution and we were obviously going to do a positive job for the population... it is okay to protect the child's identity, but without reaching the degree of becoming an obstacle in the development of programs and projects of other organizations. [Participant 2] In contrast with these arguments, a government representative indicated: “There is information that is confidential but there is an exception. If an organization is part of the process of attention to returnees, this organization has the right to access that information, if that information is necessary to carry out its work” [Participant 3]. This same representative added that not all people involved in the reintegration process should know all the information about 118 the returned children. For example, when a child has been sexually abused, this information should only be disclosed to relevant personnel of organizations, such as psychologists. To help overcome this challenge, a representative from a non-government sector organization suggested that organizations in both sectors with relevant reintegration projects might create confidentiality agreements. These agreements should be oriented to promote the efficient flow of relevant information between organizations, without violating the confidentiality principle. [Participant 14] 5.2.8 Conclusion, similarities, and differences between sectors In summary, this section demonstrates that organization representatives acknowledge several challenges that they experience in promoting the human principles during the reintegration process, which are all related with the human rights and some complementary approaches to promote the migrant child’s well-being. Here it is important to highlight some similarities and differences between the government and the non-government sector. As for the principle of the recognition of children as subject of rights, several representatives in the non-government sector agree that some government actions ignore the human rights of returned children because of a national focus on the security approach to migration and the lack of a contextual approach that addresses the root causes of migration. The analysis of documents in section 5.1 shows that the organizations in the government and non-government sectors have mechanisms to promote the non-refoulement principle. However, organizations in both sectors experience similar challenges to implement this principle. Representatives from both sectors similarly stated that that this principle is difficult to promote due to the difficulty in interpreting the non-refoulement concept in the context of Central American migration. In Honduras, many children are forcibly displaced due to gang 119 violence, and this kind of violence is difficult to interpret under the definition of non-refoulement of the Refugees Protocol. Due to the various interpretations of the principle of non-refoulement, many children are not considered by third countries as candidates for receiving international protection. Moreover, representatives of the non-government sector also refer to the passive role of Honduran consulates in the promotion of the non-refoulement principle, and this is a similar argument to that found in the literature. In relation to the principle of the right to life, survival and development, representatives of both sectors agree that the violence context in Honduras is a significant limitation for their reintegration work in communities. Similarly, representatives of both sectors recognize that the state needs to design mechanisms to better address the situation of returned children who migrated due to violence. For instance, there are no state mechanisms for internal resettlement or a national plan to address forced recruitment by gangs. There are also some differences in the challenges identified in relation to the principles of the best interest, participation, equality and non-discrimination and confidentiality. In the case of the best interest principle, although representatives of both sectors agree that this principle is difficult to interpret, according to evidence, there are some differences between the sectors in the interpretation given to this principle. These differences are clearly highlighted when it comes to the issue of family reintegration. The literature and several representatives of the nongovernment sector stress that sometimes the state reunites children with their families without taking the time to assess if this is in the children’s best interest. These representatives also added that the state relies heavily on standard procedures to determine the best interest rather than assessing the individual situation of each child. In contrast, some government representatives 120 state that separating the child from his/her family (even if there is a situation of extreme violence within the family) might negatively affect the child. As for the participation principle, representatives of the non-government sector indicate that there are no spaces for the participation of children in decisions that concern them at the local level. Differently, a local government representative suggests that it is the parents of returned children who are obstructing this principle, because they do not consider or prioritize the needs of returned minors. For instance, parents do not consider that it is important to take their children to the psychologist or they do not take them because they live in rural areas and the cost of transportation is high. As for the principle of equality and non-discrimination, only representatives from the non-government sector highlighted challenges to promote this principle. In this regard, these representatives highlighted that there is stigma and discrimination against returned children and that this stigma comes from the family, school, work and community in general. The representatives agree in that this situation hampers the reintegration of children upon return and sometimes it might encourage re-migration. Differently, government sector representatives did not identify any challenges regarding the implementation of this principle. Finally, the importance of the principle of confidentiality is recognized by all nongovernment sector representatives. However, these representatives highlight that the state, in its efforts to keep children’s identities confidential, does not provide organizations with information that they need to assist children with reintegration. In contrast, government representatives indicated that all the organizations part of reintegration processes have access to confidential information as long as that information is necessary to carry out their work. Government 121 representatives emphasized the importance of protecting some information and only disclosing it to the relevant staff in each step of the reintegration process. 5.3 Practical challenges The purpose of this section is to identify and analyze the practical challenges that hinder organizations from promoting effective reintegration through the promotion (or restoration) of the rights of returned children. Although these challenges are categorized herein at a practical level, they also imply the non-recognition of the human rights and complementary approaches and interfere with the fulfillment of the human rights principles to protect migrant children’s rights. Based on information analyzed here, it can be inferred that organizations experience some practical challenges related with the lack of inter-institutional coordination and support, the lack of financial and human resources, the lack of training and sensitization to address child migration from a human rights approach, the lack of accurate and complete information about returned children, and the lack of monitoring mechanisms. The information analyzed here is mainly based on the development of the interviews and is also complemented with information from selected public institutional documents, and literature. 5.3.1 Lack of inter-institutional coordination and support The lack of inter-institutional coordination and support among organizations and between sectors is a practical challenge constraining the effectiveness of reintegration programs. Not only are there deficiencies in coordination between the government and non-government sector but the government is limited in its ability to lead the reintegration processes. There is also a lack of support and coordination between the central government and local-municipal governments and 122 between the central government and other actors at the local level, such as church and communities of returned migrants. The lack of coordination between the government and non-government sector arises, in part, because the government restricts some organizations from outside the state sector from accessing the reception center Belén and participating in the child reception process. In this regard, a representative from the non-state sector indicated: “Right now the government has placed many restrictions on us. Therefore, our attention to migrant children has diminished. Restrictions are placed so that the institution cannot provide care and enter the reception center Belén where all migrant children arrive” [Participant 7]. Along the same lines, another representative from this sector mentioned: “I think one of the difficulties we had lately is that civil society is no longer accompanying public institutions in the reception processes” [Participant 6]. This is also consistent with a statement from another representative who declared: One of the big limitations is that the government excluded civil society from the reception center Belén. In June 2017 they took out all the organizations, and it was those organizations that were in charge of following up and knowing if returned children were reintegrated to the educational system; if children returned to the migration route; or if returned children got a job… It was a functional job since they identified a child who had a need and knew how to send that child to an organization that could respond to that need. So, this is a limitation, not having direct attention for children. [Participant 17] Interviewees who referred to this issue do not understand why organizations in the nonsector have been excluded from the reception center Belén. However, there is some evidence that suggests that the government’s decision may arise from an interest in controlling data related to forced displacement. This point was expressed by one representative: There has been a distancing from government to civil society. I generally believe that it is to keep all the information that goes abroad controlled. I think the government tries to control statistics. It was not convenient for them that we continue identifying victims of forced displacement due to violence… because we were adding these statistics to the 123 monthly report of the Observatory of Violence. Since then there were many frictions. [Participant 20] This position is complemented with a statement of another representative from this sector who highlighted: “We still don't have logical explanations for this…Actually, we know it's retaliation. So, a state that instead of understanding our work and seeing us as a support, sees our work as a retaliation, is a state that has lost its way… we need other organizations to stop their fears and start working and saying things as they are” [Participant 1]. There is also a lack of support between the central government and local-municipal governments. A municipal government representative emphasized the need for support from institutions at the central level responsible for the protection of children and migrants. This participant also stressed that the lack of coordination and support was an obstacle for municipalities needing to track returned families and children once they arrive to their communities [Participant 16]. Similarly, a representative from the non-government sector highlighted: Our dream is that there are local reintegration mechanisms articulated with a national reintegration mechanism. One of the challenges that I had in this project was that migrants in reception centers were offered reintegration services, but these services were not available in the municipalities...So that is what I mean when I say that mechanisms of articulation between the national and the local must be established, if not it is almost impossible to promote reintegration… The state has governing bodies, but they do not fulfill the role of advising and reaching the municipality…Mechanisms should be established to somehow inform, train, and strengthen capacities at the local level, but yes, that issue is still very weak. [Participant 2] In the course of undertaking the interviews, it was found that the UMARs in some municipalities with the highest rates of child migration have weak mechanisms for informing returned children about the services available, assisting them in their family, school and community reintegration and following up after organizations reintegrate them into the family, school and community. 124 On the contrary, central government representatives highlighted a different kind of challenge regarding coordination with local-municipal actors. A representative of the central government stressed that local actors, such as churches and communities of returnees, are not well-connected with the central government. This participant highlighted that local actors work in isolation and do not have effective communication with the central government [Participant 13]. Another challenge is related to the weak leadership of the government in guiding reintegration processes and promoting children’s rights. This lack of leadership occurs at the central and local levels, and in fact could be the cause of the weak coordination between actors of different levels. Representatives of the non-government sector declare that their work addressing returned migration is important, but it is not enough. In this regard, one representative indicated: “There is a job carried out from civil society, but we are just touching the tip of the iceberg. We are not assisting, I would dare to say, even 24 percent of all people who need protection… and I am referring not only to this organization but to all civil society that works on the subject” [Participant 20].21 This is consistent with statements of another representative of the non-government sector who expressed: “There are things that don’t depend solely on Non-Government Organizations. There are things that depend directly on the state; these things have to be the responsibility of the state” [Participant 9]. Another representative from the same sector emphasized the government’s lack of initiative and incapacity to lead the school reintegration process: On the issue of education, we coordinate with the Secretary of Education, but the secretary has no knowledge. They follow us where we are going, we lead the process. So, one must be leading them when these are processes that they must lead… There is no 21 This interviewee did not give an explanation as to why 24 percent (which is a fairly accurate number). However, this number gives an idea of the population of children served by these organizations. 125 technical knowledge, there is no political will, so you must drag them in some way. [Participant 10] Moreover, evidence reflects the lack of coordination between government sector institutions. This would be an important challenge for the government to take the lead and guide reintegration processes at the local level. According to Rivera et al. (2015, 101), the Migrant Children Task Force had a presence at the beginning of the migrant crisis in 2014; but later, the attention to returned children became solely the responsibility of the DINAF.22 A government representative expressed that the corresponding public institutions must assume their responsibility to support the reintegration process. This participant indicates: “no one had an eye on the reintegration of migrants. It is required that the institutions responsible for social inclusion also assume their part with the issue of employment, education and health” [Participant 3]. Furthermore, a representative from the non-government sector suggested: “The state is a human rights provider and has a responsibility with their respective entities, whether ministries of health, education, and municipal governments; but even among these institutions there is no articulation” [Participant 19]. 5.3.2 Lack of financial and human resources Organizations in both sectors report that the lack of financial and human resources constrains their efforts to promote child reintegration at the local level. In terms of financial resources, there is low public investment in the protection of the rights of children, including returned migrant children. In this regard, a government representative stated that is impossible that the state budget can fully support the process of reintegration. This representative suggested that reintegration is expensive because organizations need more logistical support and resources 22 The Migrant Children Task Force is an interagency team integrated by 13 organizations, mostly from the government, and created in response to the crisis of child migration in 2014 (CENISS 2019). 126 to reach many neighbourhoods in many communities [Participant 3]. Another government representative indicated: “The government works under difficult situations and this particular institution works with a low budget” [Participant 5]. This is also consistent with a statement of a local government representative who expressed: “We have many budget and logistical constraints” [Participant 16]. Furthermore, Rivera et al. (2015, 119) highlight that the state does not allocate the funding required for organizations to undertake the procedures and guidelines for assisting returned children. Therefore, organizations perceive these documents as theoretical tools impossible to implement. This literature also suggests that the decision to keep children at the reception centers for a short time may be due to limited human, financial and administrative resources. To overcome this challenge, a representative of a non-government organization suggested that all relevant government organizations allocate a budget to contribute to the process of improved child reintegration. This would include includes not only institutions responsible for the protection of children and migrants, but also organizations involved in the promotion of specific aspects of reintegration, and which are already present at the local level, for instance, the Secretary of Education and the Secretary of Health [Participant 2]. Limited financial resources are also challenging for some organizations in the nongovernment sector. For instance, one representative indicated: “Although a civil society organization has coverage throughout the country, it will not serve one hundred percent of the returned children population. Why? Because there is not enough money to assist them” [Participant 20]. Furthermore, another representative from the same sector highlighted: “Donors are decreasing financial aid in these countries. They are leaving for Syria or other countries with 127 bigger conflicts… For example, the European Union has been reducing funds for our projects in Latin America, especially in the Northern Triangle” [Participant 10]. It may be the case that the decline in international funds arises from the complexity of interpreting the principle of nonrefoulment. The lack of human resources also limits organizations’ ability to promote reintegration at the local level. The main limitation is the lack of psychologists in the municipal clinics who would work with returned minors to help improve their mental and physical health. For instance, a representative of the non-government sector highlighted: “Mental health isn’t institutionalized in the country. We had to hire psychologists because there aren’t psychologists in the health centers and public facilities of the state in the communities. Maybe there are psychologists in regional hospitals, but not at a local-municipal level. This issue obviously has a lot of relevance” [Participant 2]. Along the same lines, another representative of this sector indicated: There are children who need psychosocial support and attention to reduce the traumas and effects of the migration route. However, the community doesn’t have a response to that situation. Health centers and clinics in communities don’t have psychologists, so communities have to refer children to a central hospital for special care. [Participant 19] According to another representative of this sector, this is one of the important limitations for organizations because most children return with trauma. Therefore, mental health is one of the greatest needs of returned children; and one of the most important aspects for successful child reintegration into the family, school, and community [Participant 2]. 5.3.3 Lack of training and sensitization Representatives from both sectors highlighted the lack of training and sensitization to understand and address child migration from a human rights perspective. Furthermore, local government representatives lack general knowledge regarding Honduran child migration, child protection, the human rights approach to migration, and the implications of child reintegration. 128 One representative from the non-government sector stated: “The issue of sensitization is very important. I think there is still a lot of work that has to be done around raising awareness and knowledge of people who work with people in relation to human rights” [Participant 9]. Some evidence reflects that training people is an ongoing challenge for the government due to the high staff turnover in public institutions. As described by a representative of the government sector: “The strengthening of institutional capacities is a challenge because there are always changes of staff in government institutions… It is important that already strengthened capacities not be wasted because experience is important” [Participant 5]. This is consistent with the poor information obtained from some government interviewees who expressed their inability to respond to several questions because they were new in their positions. During the interviews it was found that most local government representatives did not have knowledge about the project in which they were working, the issue of Honduran child migration, child protection, migration addressed from a human rights approach and the implications of the reintegration process. The need for training and sensitization to address returned child migration issues from a human rights perspective is particularly highlighted in the case of Honduran consulates, psychologists and members of society in general. In terms of Honduran consulates, a representative from the non-government sector indicated: “Consulates had a first training, but this is something that has to be continuous is not something that is done once. This must be retaken by organizations” [Participant 14]. This is coherent with the literature highlighted in section 5.2 that refers to the passive role of Honduran consulates, which focus on the repatriation of Honduran children without considering potential needs of international protection (Rivera et al. 2015, 136-143). Therefore, it can be inferred that the lack of training and sensitization is a practical matter which can directly affect the promotion of the principle of non-refoulement. 129 In the case of psychologists, training and sensitization to the importance and processes for promoting the protection of the life and integrity of returned children is needed. For instance, one participant expressed: “Something that needs to be strengthened is the training of psychologists so that they can ensure protection guidelines and that the best interest is applied to all cases that require protection” [Participant 14]. Finally, some evidence suggests that Honduran society must recognize and understand returned child migration from a human rights perspective. For instance, a representative of the non-state sector stressed that Honduran society is insensitive to the social problems of migration. In order to change and promote new norms and policies to address migration, there must be collective awareness and society must be involved in a dialogue with the state. It is then society that must demand new responses from the state, and for that, a sensible society is needed [Participant 8]. 5.3.4 Lack of information In summary, representatives of both sectors agree that there is a lack of reliable data about returned children. Also, the review of secondary sources indicates that government data are inconsistent and incomplete and differ from UNHCR reports with regard to the main causes of child migration. On the other hand, some organizations in the non-government sector that have relevant child reintegration projects in the country do not provide enough publicly available documents regarding these projects. Furthermore, it was also found that some of these organizations declined to participate in the interview process, specifically UN agencies. Interviewees highlighted that there is a difficulty in obtaining reliable information on returned children including their identity, place of origin and residence and migration cause. As indicated by a government representative: “One of the difficulties we had was really identifying 130 the children in the communities. Although children were registered in reception centers, sometimes the information wasn’t completely accurate. Therefore, when it came to tracking children in their community, we didn’t have the right address or child’s name” [Participant 5]. Also, another government representative added: “When returned children arrive, they say nothing until they are approached by the psychologist, and then they might mention the cause of the migration. There are some who definitely don’t say it” [Participant 3]. According to the same government representative, this is most common when children migrated due to violence, and this hampers the addressing of protection needs [Participant 3]. Some returned children and families do not want to give their correct information due to security issues or distrust in the government. For instance, a government representative emphasized that migrants do not give data or provide false information because of fears of persecution by criminal groups who forced them to leave [Participant 5]. Furthermore, a representative of the non-government sector indicated: “Because of fear, migrants don’t say where they are from or where they are going; or because they don’t consider government policies important, they don’t consider it important to share their situation with the government. This makes it difficult to create suitable reintegration mechanisms” [Participant 2]. Moreover, through the revision of secondary information related to returned Honduran children, it was found that Honduran government statistical information is inconsistent and incomplete. The annual reports from the National Information Center of the Social Sector (CENISS) have information on the returned children, but this information is incomplete and is not presented in a standard way throughout the annual reports. In addition, these reports were discontinued as of 2017. This lack of information is a challenge for organizations to assess the situation of each child and create suitable reintegration routes. 131 Also, as mentioned in chapter 3, some differences were found between the information from the government and some reports from UN agencies, especially regarding the causes of migration. While the government reports that violence is not a significant cause of migration, UNHCR reports indicate that this is one of the main causes of child displacement in Honduras, especially of unaccompanied migrant children (UNHCR n.d.; Camargo 2014). International reports indicate that the asylum applications of Honduran children in Mexico and the United States have increased substantially in the last decade (UNHCR n.d.). In contrast, government reports do not refer to violence in a detailed way. One possible reason for these differences is the country in which the children were interviewed. While international organizations conducted interviews in transit and destination countries, the government data come from interviews with children on their return. From this difference, it can be inferred that upon arrival in Honduras, children may be more afraid to mention violence as the cause of migration for fear of being revictimized by criminal groups that forced them to leave. Another possible cause of this difference is that the government reports include accompanied and unaccompanied children while the UNHCR reports only include unaccompanied minors. Finally, the fieldwork reflected the lack of publicly available documents and the unwillingness to participate in the interview process on the part of some UN agencies which implement relevant projects in Honduras directly related to child reintegration. The reason that some UN agencies gave for not participating in the study was that their headquarters are in the United States and that they are not authorized to provide this type of information. Other organizations did not provide a response as to why they decided not to participate in the study, despite being contacted on more than two occasions. This is a challenge because it prevents other organizations and other stakeholders from having the complete picture of the work being done in 132 Honduras on the issue of child reintegration. This information is very much needed so that organizations work in an integrated and more efficient way. In this context, a representative of the non-government sector stated: We realized that there is a project that has the same donor, the same objectives as our project and that we did not know each other ... and that situation repeats itself many times and the thing is that we do not work together, we do not know what other organizations are doing, we do not know the methodology and scope of 'that other organization.' [Participant 17] 5.3.5 Lack of monitoring mechanisms Related to the lack of information about the identity of returned child migrants, there is little monitoring and evaluation of the effectiveness of reintegration processes once children are returned to their community, or when children are transferred to a childcare institution. Similarly, representatives from both sectors emphasized this situation as an obstacle to promote reintegration processes. As expressed by a representative from the non-government sector, there is not institutional capacity to implement monitoring mechanisms strong enough to promote the reintegration of minors and their families in their communities. The main body responsible for the creation of these mechanisms is the government [Participant 8]. Another representative of the same sector indicated: The big gap is the monitoring at the community level; it is day four, five, and six onwards… there is a need for an organization that is following all these cases at the community level… There is little capacity in terms of human resources to monitor and follow up children; and there are few organizations that work on this monitoring at the community level. Due to the great number of people who were displaced and deported, it is very difficult to have a clear and effective monitoring and follow-up system. [Participant 14] 133 Furthermore, a government representative highlighted: “There is a lack of monitoring mechanisms, evaluation and follow-up to be able to know how efficient the processes of reintegration are” [Participant 3]. In particular, there is a lack of mechanism to monitor children’s cases that have been transferred to other institutions. This was highlighted by a government representative who stated: “Once we give the cases to other institutions, I don't know what happens. So far we don’t have follow-up processes” [Participant 11]. This is consistent with another government representative who indicated: “The institution has failed in strengthening mechanism to monitor children when they are sent to other institutions. There is no unit in charge of conducting these verifications in the field” [Participant 3]. The following sub-section highlights some differences or similarities among sectors regarding these practical challenges. 5.3.6 Conclusions, similarities, and differences between sectors It is also important to note some differences and similarities between the two sectors in relation to the practical challenges to promote child reintegration in Honduras. In relation to the lack of inter-institutional coordination and support, representatives from the non-government sector suggest that there is weak coordination between government and non-government sectors, and particularly between government and organizations from civil society. Representatives from several organizations within the non-state sector agree that excluding civil society from the reception center Belén has hindered the reintegration processes, since civil society is a fundamental support to follow up on reintegration once children go to their communities. In the interview process, it could be observed that government and some organizations outside of government are unable to work in a harmonious and consensual manner. Information from the 134 interviews indicate that there is a lack of communication between organizations in the two sectors and reluctance to share information. On the other hand, local governments and non-state representatives emphasized the weak support that the central government provides to municipal governments to carry out reintegration processes. On the contrary, representatives of the central government emphasized that local actors (such as church and communities of returnees) work in isolation and have no communication with the central government. In terms of budget, representatives of both sectors refer to the low organizational budget as a concrete obstacle to strengthening reintegration processes and reaching more communities. In terms of human resources, representatives outside of government highlight that the lack of psychologists at the local-municipal level hinders the psychological recovery of returned children. They emphasize that mental health should be part of the structure of public health institutions, not only at the central level (in large hospitals), but also at the local level. Another practical challenge is the lack of training and sensitization to address child migration from a human rights approach. Representatives of both sectors recognize this as a challenge to promote sustainable child reintegration. Government organizations highlighted that the high staff turnover makes it difficult to take advantage of skills and knowledge of employees in key positions. Moreover, representatives outside of government emphasize that psychologists, Honduran consulates, and society in general should be trained and sensitized regarding the issue of child migration from a human rights perspective. As for the matter of information, there is lack of reliable, consistent and complete information about returned children. Representatives of both the government and nongovernment sectors refer to this as a challenge to effective and sustainable reintegration 135 processes. Government representatives indicate that children do not give reliable information for fear of being victims of criminal actors who made them migrate in the first place. On the other hand, representatives from the non-government sector add that another reason for returnees not to give information is the lack of credibility in government policies. Furthermore, government statistical reports are incomplete and have been discontinued since 2017. In the case of the nongovernment sector the fieldwork reflected limited public information on relevant reintegration projects executed by key organizations and the reluctance of these organizations to participate in the interview process. This is considered a challenge because it does not allow organizations in both sectors and other stakeholders to have the whole picture of the work being done on the child reintegration issue. Moreover, representatives across the sectors agree that a weakness of the reintegration process is the lack of monitoring mechanisms. Representatives from the non-government sector indicate that this is a direct responsibility of the government. Similarly, the government sector recognizes that its institutions have failed to strengthen monitoring mechanisms, especially in the cases of children referred to NGOs. To conclude, the conceptual and practical challenges analyzed in this chapter are all aspects that hinder the sustainable reintegration of returned Honduran children. In the case of the conceptual challenges, these represent obstacles to implement and promote human rights principles which directly affect the child reintegration process. In the case of the practical challenges, these might affect the implementation of the human principles examined at the conceptual level while they also affect the overall reintegration process. 136 Chapter 6. Conclusions 6.1 Introduction The number of children returned to Honduras after irregular migration to Mexico and the United States increased substantially over the last decade, reaching more than 20,000 children in 2019. Recognizing the increased irregular migration and the rise in migrants being returned by the northern countries to Honduras, the Honduran government declared a Humanitarian Emergency in 2014. Honduran children migrate irregularly accompanied by their families or alone due to violence by family members and gangs, to seek education or employment opportunities and/or to reunite with their families in the north. Meanwhile, Mexico and the United States focus on the immediate detention and return of these children. Due to the dangers these children experience throughout the migration process, they are a very vulnerable population upon their return to Honduras. Furthermore, the conditions that forced children to migrate from Honduras still prevail on their return. Efforts by the government and non-government sector organizations in Honduras remain insufficient to restore the human rights of returned Honduran children during their reintegration. This thesis focusses on understanding the challenges organizations experience in reintegrating returning minors from a human rights perspective. The analysis is based upon information from the literature, organizations’ documents, and interviews with representatives of organizations directly or indirectly assisting returned Honduran children. The findings are intended to be useful to organizations seeking to promote more effective reintegration processes, by improving and creating policies and practices to assist returned Honduran minors. Effective reintegration processes carried out from a human rights perspective will enhance the well-being and 137 development of returned minors. This thesis also seeks to contribute to the limited literature about returned child migration in the reintegration stage, specifically in the Central American migration context. This chapter summarizes the main findings of this thesis and specifically, the challenges experienced by organizations in Honduras to promote returned child reintegration from a human rights perspective. Drawing on these findings, the chapter then identifies several policy implications to address these challenges. Finally, the chapter ends by highlighting several areas for future research. 6.2 Main Findings The human rights approach to migration is used as the main analytical framework for examining the experiences of child migrants returned to Honduras and analyzing the challenges of organizations in addressing child migrants’ needs on return. The human rights approach to child international migration implies recognizing that migrant children have the same human rights as any other child and children have the right to migrate. From this approach, states and organizations are responsible for protecting the rights of children throughout the migration stages. In order to do this, some human rights principles are used to guide the design and implementation of policies and programs to protect migrant children. These principles are derived from international and regional law instruments, such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). The human rights principles analyzed here are: the recognition of children as rights holders; non-refoulement; the right to life, survival and development; the best interest of the child; family unification; participation; equality and non-discrimination; confidentiality; and non-revictimization. The human rights approach and principles guide the analysis in chapter 3 on the types of human rights violations endured by Honduran children throughout migration and on returned 138 children characteristics. Evidence is presented that human rights violations are related to violence at home or by gangs; lack of access to education and adequate employment; family separation; trafficking; sexual abuse; labour exploitation; detention and long times in detention centers; and return without considering potential needs of international protection. Because of these scenarios, returned Honduran children are vulnerable individuals, and this is particularly the case for unaccompanied children, girls who were victims of sexual abuse, adolescent males recruited by gangs, victims of trafficking or child labour, and physically disabled minors. Moreover, the data reflect high rates of second- and third-time migration which indicates that children’s needs and human rights are not being fulfilled on their return. Also, in the group of returned child migrants, certain characteristics stand out. Recent data indicate that of the group of returned child migrants: 65 percent are boys; 63 percent return with their families; and 57 percent are between the ages of 13 to 17 years. Among children aged 13 to 17 years, 66 percent are unaccompanied migrants (compared to 37 percent among the group of all children); and 72 percent are boys. Also, it is found that most returned children come from the municipalities of Distrito Central, San Pedro Sula, Choloma, Villanueva, El Progreso, La Ceiba, Tocoa, Yoro and Puerto Cortés. The analysis of the human rights violations, along with the documentation of the characteristics of the returned child migrants, set the scene for the analysis of the main research question related to organizations’ challenges to promote returned children’s human rights during their reintegration. Based upon a review of documents and websites, it is clear that a variety of government and non-government sector organizations in Honduras are involved in assisting returned child migrants and that these organizations consider a human rights approach to inform strategies to 139 assist returned child migrants. In the case of the government, several national instruments are particularly relevant to understanding the government’s approach to child migration. These include the Law for the Protection of Honduran Migrants and their Families (hereinafter referred to as the Migrant Protection Law), the Declaration of Migrant Children as a Humanitarian Emergency, and the Protocol for Immediate Protection, Repatriation, Reception and Monitoring of Migrant Girls and Boys (hereinafter referred to as the DINAF Protocol). The design of these instruments is informed by international law instruments focused on promoting human rights, such as the CRC and the Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. The government also recognizes regional instruments such as the Regional Guidelines for the Comprehensive Protection of Boys, Girls, and Adolescents in the Context of Migration, established at the Regional Conference on Migration (RCM) and approved in Honduras in 2016. At the local level, the government has created the Municipal Units for Attention to Returned Persons (UMARs) whose mandates are to promote returned children’s rights to education, social reintegration, mental and physical health, legal support, family reunification, and food. For organizations in the non-government sector, a review of publicly available documents suggests that organizations do incorporate the human rights approach for assisting returned Honduran children. From a review of mandates and projects objectives it is found that several organizations and projects in this sector have strategies to promote the rights to physical and mental health, participation, education, life and a safe environment, international protection, and family care or other protection alternatives when the family cannot take care of the child. Additionally, to various degrees, organizations in both sectors design strategies to promote human rights principles, although it is evident from their objectives that not every program reflects all principles. 140 Finally, from the document review some differences are identified between the two sectors regarding the nature of laws, policies and programs/projects related with child reintegration. The first difference is related to the stage of return on which organizations focus. In the case of the government sector, relevant national laws and policies are very general in the stage of reintegration with a focus on childhood. For instance, the Migrant Protection Law has a segment referring to the reintegration of returned migrants, but this is not narrowed to reintegration of children. Moreover, the Declaration of Migrant Children as a Humanitarian Emergency is also very general in terms of reintegration. Finally, the DINAF Protocol is more focused on the stages of child repatriation and reception than on child reintegration. In terms of projects, the only government project found that is oriented to promoting child reintegration locally is provided through the UMARs. However, these government units operating at the local level lack concrete mechanisms to promote the protection of returned children’s safety, more particularly the protection of minors displaced by violence. On the other hand, organizations outside of the government sector were found to have projects focused on the reintegration stage. This is reflected in the organizations’ mandates and project objectives described in organizations’ documents and websites. The second difference found from the document review is in the population on which the laws, policies and projects focus. In the government sector, laws, policies, and projects have components focused on returned migrant children. Conversely, most programs/projects/interventions implemented by non-government sector organizations focus on a broader population (which includes returned migrant children) such as returned migrants, displaced people, street children and out-of-school children. 141 The evidence from documents and websites clearly shows that both sectors recognize the human rights approach and principles. Nonetheless, the migration of children who have been returned continues and more children continue to migrate for the first time. This raises the question of the challenges experienced by organizations in effectively materializing the human rights approach to achieve the sustainable reintegration of returned children. In the interviews with representatives from a sample of organizations involved in assisting returned Honduran children, the participants identified several challenges they experience in assisting children. These challenges are categorized at a conceptual and practical level, and there are some differences in the challenges experienced by organizations in both sectors. Findings from the interviews on organizations’ challenges are complemented with findings in the literature and organizations’ documents and websites. This section summarizes the most pressing challenges experienced by organizations. Conceptual challenges are those which somehow obstruct the effective implementation of the human rights approach and principles during child reintegration. Among the main conceptual challenges there are those hindering the implementation of the principle of the right to life, survival and development. One of the main challenges to the implementation of this principle is the context of direct violence which threatens the lives of children returning to communities with high levels of violence and those controlled by gangs. This context also limits organizations’ ability to access and work at the community level. Additionally, there is a lack of state mechanisms to address the context of violence during child reintegration. Evidence from documents and interviews shows that government protection is provided to children until only the reception stage. For instance, the UMARs do not have mechanisms to promote children’s protection once children reach the municipalities. Moreover, the strategies promoted by the Inter- 142 Institutional Commission for the Protection of Persons Displaced by Violence (CIPPDV) do not focus on the protection of returned international migrants (including children) with protection needs. 23 For instance, documents indicate that the CIPPDV promotes the resettlement of internally displaced people, but these mechanisms do not include returned international migrants. Also, organizational representatives highlight that the government does not have a plan for the prevention of forced recruitment of children into gangs. Other conceptual challenges relate to the difficulty of interpreting some human rights principles in the Honduran child migration context. For instance, the non-refoulement principle is difficult to interpret in the case of children displaced by gang violence. This difficulty occurs because it is complex to determine whether children who were victims of gangs or who are former gang members are considered members of a “social group” under the definition of the Protocol and Convention to the Status of Refugees. Another challenge is the correct interpretation of the best interest principle, more specifically when this is related to the family reintegration process. When migrant children arrive in Honduras, the government does not invest enough time and resources to determine if family reintegration is aligned with the best interests of the minors. On the contrary, the procedures related to family reintegration are standard and are not based on the individual situation of each child. Organization representatives indicate that the best interest principle is recognized in national laws, but in general, organizations lack the understanding and resources to determine this principle and implement it in practice. Another challenge is related to the implementation of the participation principle and involves the presence of an adult-centered approach which ignores children’s needs and 23 This commission is made up of 10 government institutions and five civil society institutions (CIPPDV 2017). 143 opinions, does not inform children about their rights before return and during reintegration and does not inform children about reintegration services available upon return. Moreover, returned children are often stigmatized and rejected by their families, school, employers and the community in general. This is a challenge that hinders the promotion of the principle of equality and non-revictimization. Finally, under the principle of confidentiality, some organizations do not allow the adequate flow of information between organizations and this can hinder the implementation of child reintegration projects. There are some differences in the conceptual challenges that organizations in each sector experience. As for the best interest principle, representatives of the non-government sector indicate that the Honduran government emphasizes reintegrating children with their families without determining that this is in their best interest. Differently, government representatives indicate that separating children from their family (even if there is a situation of violence within the family) can negatively affect children. As for the participation principle, non-government sector representatives indicate that this principle is difficult to promote due to the lack of spaces to listen to the children’s opinions locally. Differently, government sector representatives indicate that the challenge lies in that returned children’s parents are the ones who decide for the children. In the case of the confidentiality principle, non-government sector representatives indicate that, based on this principle, the government does not provide them with the information necessary to execute reintegration processes. Conversely, government staff indicates that confidential information is shared with relevant organizations if the information is necessary to carry their work. 144 At the practical level, an important challenge is the lack of inter-institutional coordination and support between government sector organizations. This is mostly reflected in the fact that the central government does not support local governments and UMARs in terms of information, training and knowledge to create strategic and budget plans to promote reintegration processes in municipalities. As expressed by a non-government organization representative, “The state has governing bodies, but they do not fulfill the role of advising and reaching the municipality” [Participant 2]. The lack of financial resources is another practical challenge constraining effective child reintegration in Honduras. The budget of government institutions responsible for child and migrant protection is low. The lack of funds prevents government organizations to reach the local level to promote reintegration in the municipalities. The limited budget may also be a reason to keep children for a short time in the reception center, which in turns hampers the correct determination of the best interest principle. Similar to the lack of budget, local governments lack human resources to promote reintegration processes. This is mainly reflected in the lack of psychologists who may support the mental health of returned children in their communities. Public municipal clinics and public regional hospitals do not have psychologists within their structure. Organizations’ representatives highlight that having well-trained psychologists that serve returned migrant children is one of the most important ways to promote reintegration as most migrant children return with trauma. Another practical challenge is the lack of accurate data about the personal information of returned children and the causes of their migration. This is mostly the case for children who were forcibly displaced. In many cases, these children do not provide accurate information because 145 they might be afraid of being revictimized by criminal groups or by abusive families; or simply because they do not trust government authorities. Also, government annual reports with information about returned children are incomplete and were discontinued since 2017. Additionally, in the non-government sector, there is limited information on some United Nations (UN) agencies’ projects; and during the fieldwork some UN agencies (with relevant reintegration projects) declined to participate in the interview process. This is a challenge because it prevents researchers and other stakeholders from knowing “the whole picture” about organizations’ work on the child migration subject. Furthermore, there is little training and sensitization on the human rights approach to returned child migration. Evidence shows that the actors that need to receive training and sensitization are the staff in Honduran consulates, psychologists, local government representatives and society in general. In the case of local government representatives, it was found that most representatives did not have comprehensive knowledge about the project in which they were working, the issue of Honduran child migration, child protection, migration addressed from a human rights approach and the implications of the reintegration process. Finally, representatives of both sectors agree that the lack of monitoring mechanisms is a practical challenge that hinders effective reintegration. Monitoring mechanisms are lacking once children return to their communities and when minors are transferred by the government to NonGovernment Organizations (NGOs) responsible for the care of children. Without monitoring mechanisms, organizations do not know what happens to children after they are reintegrated into the school, community, family and NGOs responsible for the care of the child. There are also some differences in terms of practical challenges by sector. One of these differences is related with the lack of training and sensitization from a human rights approach. In 146 this case, government representatives highlight that the high staff turnover impedes taking advantage of the skills and knowledge of staff in key positions. Meanwhile, representatives outside the government sector emphasize that psychologists, Honduran consulates, and the society should be more knowledgeable on the child migration issue from a human rights perspective. 6.3 Policy implications This section highlights some implications of the preceding analysis of the conceptual and practical challenges for government and non-government sector organizations seeking to reintegrate returned Honduran children using a human rights approach. While the human rights approach and principles already inform national laws, policies, organizations’ mandates and project objectives related to migrant child reintegration in Honduras, organizations in both the government and non-government sectors could consider incorporating changes discussed below to more effectively materialize the human rights of returned migrant children. Drawing upon the evidence presented in chapter 5, organizations’ efforts should focus on: 1) the design of national laws and policies to protect returned migrant children in the reintegration stage; 2) overcoming conceptual challenges to better promote the human rights approach and principles to address returned child migration; and 3) overcoming practical challenges to enhance effective reintegration processes. The policy implications and strategies described here draw upon the analysis of organizations’ challenges (described in chapter 5 and the previous section in this chapter) and some recommendations from organization representatives (also highlighted in chapter 5). These policy implications and strategies are not exhaustive and do not address every challenge 147 identified in this thesis. However, potential strategies intended to address the most pressing challenges are offered. First, strategies or implications are described concerning government sector organizations, then the section underlines some strategies or implications concerning organizations outside the government sector, and finally, some strategies or implications are mentioned that may be relevant to both sectors. 6.3.1 Potential government sector contributions Even though both sectors should make efforts to overcome existing challenges to better materialize the human rights approach during child reintegration, the main responsibility lies with the government sector. The Honduran government, by law, is the main guarantor of the human rights of Honduran children, specifically those in vulnerable situations, including migrant children. However, there are still several obstacles that prevent the government from accomplishing this task in an optimal way. The first challenge that concerns the government is the lack of national laws and policies oriented to assist Honduran migrant children in the stage of reintegration. In Honduras, the few laws and policies referring to the reintegration stage and at the same time focusing on children, are general. This implies that the Honduran government should revise existing laws or create new laws and policies that provide more specific guidelines for government organizations to promote the child reintegration process. In the context of returned Honduran children, national instruments (laws and policies) should guide organizations to promote family reintegration, school reintegration, the restoration of returned children’s mental and physical health, and the protection to the life and integrity of children during reintegration (specifically those children who migrated due to violence and those whose family cannot take care of them). National 148 instruments should indicate which government organizations are responsible for promoting all these processes needed during child reintegration and can also provide guidelines on how to implement relevant human rights principles in each one of these processes. A legal framework and policies more specific to the stage of reintegration and focused on children can be the starting point for the creation of more effective child reintegration programs/projects/interventions. Some relevant organizations for supporting the development of this framework are the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation (SRECI) and the Directorate for Children, Youth, and Family (DINAF). At the conceptual level, some challenges hinder the implementation of the principle of the right to life, survival and development. These challenges are related to the context of direct violence threatening the life of children returning to communities controlled by gangs and limiting organizations’ access and work within these communities; and with the lack of state mechanisms and strategies to address the context of violence and promote children’s protection during reintegration. These challenges imply that the Honduran government should place greater effort on addressing the root causes of child migration. In this regard, organization representatives indicate the importance of creating a national plan for the prevention of forced recruitment by gangs. The government should also create a plan to protect returned international migrants (including children) with protection needs. This plan should include options for the internal resettlement and/or resettlement in a third country for those children and their families who cannot return to their communities of origin because of violence. The government already has institutions that can contribute to the development and implementation of these strategies since their mandates involve the protection of migrant children and displaced populations. Some of these institutions 149 are the SRECI, DINAF and the CIPPDV. At the local level, an important government actor is the UMARs. There are a total of 15 UMARs in Honduras (CENISS 2020), and these units should implement more concrete mechanisms to promote reintegration locally. For instance, the government should consider the UMARs as key local actors to support the internal resettlement of children from other communities. Other local actors who can contribute to this task are the city halls in each municipality. Another conceptual challenge that concerns the Honduran government is the difficulty in interpreting the best interest of the child principle, especially in relation to the family reintegration process. This implies that government organizations must make a diagnosis to evaluate the situation of the child in the family that he/she abandoned and other protection alternatives in case the family is not the right environment for the child. This should also involve evaluating the option of integrating the child with members of his/her extended family and ultimately, the institutionalization of the minor. These two options should only be considered after it is determined that the reintegration with the immediate family is not safe and after determining that alternative options available are aligned with the best interest. In this case, it is important that the government, through specialized staff, establish evaluations of the NGOs that are responsible for the care of children in Honduras. These evaluations must be done prior to initiating the child reintegration process. At the local level, UMARs may contribute by collecting information relevant to make the diagnosis of the child’s situation in the family, school and community. Other actors that may be important at the local level are teachers. Teachers are the only representative of the state who are already present in all the municipalities of the country and who also have direct contact with children and their families. Of course, teachers play the most important role in promoting school 150 reintegration, but they could also become key agents for the collection of information needed to determine the best interests of the child. There are also some challenges to the promotion of the principle of participation arising from the presence of an adult-centered approach which ignores children’s voices in the family and the community and which is not focused on informing children about their rights and reintegration services available upon their return. These challenges have some implications for Honduran consulates which are the first government units that have contact with Honduran migrant children in the return stage. Consulate staff should strengthen mechanisms to listen and understand the experiences, opinions and feelings of migrant children to determine if the minors have potential needs of international protection or any other special needs. Also, consulates should inform children about their rights, especially their right to request asylum. Upon arriving in Honduras, the reception centers should inform children about all their rights during reintegration, including the right to be heard and to express their feelings. Reception centers should also inform children about reintegration services available in their communities and can also connect children with government staff that can assist them at the local level, for instance, staff from the UMARs and/or city halls. Information on the services available in the municipality can be conveyed through the distribution of pamphlets. At the local level, the UMARs and teachers can play an important role in listening to and informing children before and during their reintegration in the family, school and community. The government sector is also key in overcoming some practical challenges. For instance, there is a lack of support from the central government to local government actors such as city halls and UMARs in terms of information and training to create reintegration plans and planning their budgets. At the central level, the SRECI, DINAF, the Secretary of Finance (SEFIN), 151 Secretary of Development and Social Inclusion (SEDIS), the Secretary of Education and the Secretary of Heath are key organizations that can provide information, advise and train local actors to build local reintegration plans and to plan their budgets. The support from these organizations is also important to overcome the practical challenge related with the lack of training and sensitization at the local level. Moreover, the lack of financial resources is a significant challenge for the government, especially for institutions in charge of child protection. Some organizations’ representatives indicated that all relevant government organizations must allocate a budget to contribute to the process of improved child reintegration. This includes not only institutions responsible for the protection of children and migrants, but also organizations involved in the promotion of specific aspects of reintegration, and which are already present at the local level, for instance, the Secretary of Education and the Secretary of Health. The lack of human resources, and more particularly the lack of psychologists at the local level, is another practical challenge to promote reintegration at the local level. The central government through the Secretary of Health must assign qualified human resources in the communities to support the recovery of returned children’s mental health. These staff members may be assigned in the communities permanently or may visit the communities periodically to provide attention for the children and their families. It is also important that psychological recovery involves children’s families if they are involved in children’s lives. As per the lack of information, this challenge is related to the lack of accurate and complete information about returned children, especially children who were displaced by violence who usually are afraid to provide their personal information. Honduran consulates and reception centers must implement more exhaustive protocols to identify violence as the cause of 152 migration. This is related with another practical challenge, the lack of training and sensitization for some government staff. In this sense, psychologists should also be prepared to follow specific protocols for the for the identification of displaced children. Official data generated by the government are also limited and incomplete. The National Information Center of the Social Sector (CENISS) can improve the quality and consistency of data on returned children. Continuing the CENISS reports on the returned population, which have been discontinued since 2017, should be considered along with making them available to other relevant organizations and decision makers. CENISS should also coordinate and lead the integration between a national information system (with data collected in consulates and reception centers) and a local information system (with information collected from the UMARs, city halls, schools, parents and/or other local actors). Finally, it is difficult to take advantage of the training, skills and knowledge of staff in key government positions due to the high staff turnover in this sector. Thus, it is important that the government promote longer duration of employment for staff in positions that require specialized knowledge, such as psychologists, and child protection, migration and human rights specialists. This can be achieved through the creation of permanent work positions instead of temporary work contracts.24 6.3.2 Potential contributions from the non-government sector Apart from the government's efforts to promote child reintegration (specifically materialized through the UMARs), some organizations in the non-government sector implement projects/programs/interventions to assist, directly or indirectly, returned migrant children in Honduras. Therefore, organizations in this sector are also important and can contribute to 24 In Honduras, most positions in the government sector are under “temporary contracts” that to a large extent are subject to political decisions of the party that is governing. 153 overcoming the challenges to reintegrate returned Honduran children using a human rights approach. From the review of documents, it was identified that organizations outside the government sector have projects designed to assist a broad population including children in general (such as street children and migrant children, among others) and returned migrants in general. Although organizations with these types of projects should not ignore other vulnerable children and migrants in general, they might consider that returned migrant children have specific needs and, in some cases, they might need more specialized assistance. To overcome conceptual challenges, organizations in this sector can make valuable contributions. As per the violence context as a challenge to implement the principle of the right to life, survival and development, some UN agencies and global NGOs may be able to provide guidance on how to protect displaced children based on their expertise in the subject, their experience in other countries and their experience in Honduras. For instance, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC) have experience in this issue and can guide other organizations to implement strategies to protect the life of displaced children upon their return. These strategies include internal resettlement or resettlement in a third country, the Refugee Status Determination (RSD) and the reconsideration of cases (in a third country) of displaced persons with protection needs. This guidance can be provided to all organizations in both sectors whose objectives are related to the protection of the right to life and integrity of returned children, for instance, the institutions constituting the CIPPDV. Some UN agencies can also contribute to overcome the challenge of how to interpret the best interest and the non-refoulement principles. In the case of the non-refoulement principle, the 154 UNHCR Guidelines for International Protection (2009) and the UNHCR Guidance Note on Refugee Claims relating to Victims of Organized Gangs (2010) are key instruments created by the UNHCR; the clarification of concepts contained in these documents can be used to guide other organizations in interpreting and implementing the non-refoulement principle. In the case of the best interest principle there are some instruments derived from UN agencies, such as the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child General Comment No. 14 (2013) on the right of the child to have his or her best interest taken as a primary consideration. This instrument highlights the aspects that should be considered in assessing and determining the best interest of the child. The support of UN agencies to the Honduran government and domestic NGOs may also contribute to overcoming the practical challenge of the lack of training and sensitization on child migration and reintegration from a human rights approach. This training can be disseminated in consulates, reception centers, DINAF, SRECI and local actors that are key institutions to promote the non-refoulement and the best interest principle. There are also good practices implemented by UN agencies, international NGOs and national NGOs that organizations in the government and non-government sectors could take as examples of strategies to promote the participation principle. Examples of these practices are the Return to Joy methodology implemented by the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF) to promote the psychosocial recovery of returned children through their active participation in recreational activities and other activities that encourage children to express their feelings and opinions. Also, Covenant House Honduras (CAH) implements a “Life Plan”, which entails the creation of an individual plan that considers the specific needs and expectations of each child in their reintegration process. Moreover, the Association of Municipalities of Honduras (AMHON) is a national NGO which uses strategies to obtain 155 returned children’s opinions regarding the services they received through reintegration projects at the local level. Organization in the non-government sector can also contribute to overcoming practical challenges in reintegrating children from a rights-based approach. In regard to the challenge of lack of information, UN agencies with projects relevant to children's reintegration could provide more public documentation describing their projects. This information is necessary so that other organizations in both sectors, researchers and other stakeholders know the “whole” picture of the child reintegration work carried out in the country; this may also help other organizations effectively incorporate human rights principles in their programs. As per the challenge of the lack of training and sensitization, UN agencies and global NGOs can help train government and national NGOs not only to promote the principles of nonrefoulement and the best interest of the child, but to promote other human rights principles and the human rights approach during reintegration. International organizations such as the International Organization for Migration (IOM), UNICEF, UNHCR, CAH and NRC have expertise in the protection of children, including vulnerable children such as migrant and forcibly displaced children. In addition to the actors mentioned above in this sub-section, this training can be disseminated among psychologists to guide them in the implementation of mechanisms to identify vulnerable populations; to teachers to help them address the needs of children with poor school performance or other migration-related problems that affect their school performance; and to parents and society in general to help reduce the discrimination against returned migrant children and to promote a generational approach where the needs of children (and not adults) are listened to and considered. 156 6.3.3 Potential contributions from both sectors A challenge that could be addressed by both sectors is the adequate implementation of the confidentiality principle. As described in chapter 5, organization representatives suggest that one strategy is the creation of confidentiality agreements between the government and organizations outside this sector to promote the efficient flow of relevant information between organizations, without violating the confidentiality principle. In relation to the lack of channels to inform children about their rights, a government sector representative suggested that both sectors can promote the diffusion of informative talks on the rights of migrant children. This representative suggested that these talks can take place in schools and can be directed to students, teachers and parents. This may contribute to overcome the challenges of promoting the participation principle and may also help to sensitize society and reduce the discrimination against returned children and therefore promote the equality and nondiscrimination principle. Both sectors can also implement some strategies to overcome some practical challenges. As per the lack of information, both sectors can work together to identify all projects that (directly or indirectly) assist returned children reintegration in Honduras. This information may be useful for organizations to establish common objectives and work in a more integrated way, use resources more efficiently, and avoid duplication of functions. Additionally, both sectors can make important contributions to overcome the challenge of the lack of mechanisms to monitor the reintegration of children. Government organizations, UN agencies, global NGOs and national NGOs working at the local level might consider working collaboratively to create an effective system to monitor children’s reintegration in the family, school and the community. 157 These recommendations offer an insight or guideline into possible strategies that organizations might consider promoting child reintegration processes from a human rights perspective. Although by law, the Honduran government must assume its role of leading the processes of child reintegration, non-government sector organizations are important contributors to these processes. Organizations outside of the government sector have considerable experience promoting reintegration at the local level (as is the case of AMHON) and have experience working with migrants and displaced populations in other countries (such as UN agencies and some international NGOs) and these experiences and best practices could be shared. Drawing upon these insights, policy recommendations in this section are intended to assist organizations and researchers and ultimately migrant children. 6.4 Potential areas for further research This section identifies potential areas for further research related to the challenges experienced by organizations attempting to improve the human rights of returned migrant children during reintegration in Honduras. Future research is needed on: the effectiveness of programs and satisfaction of children with the programs; information on violence as a cause of Honduran child migration; and information on some characteristics of returned children considering a human rights, diversity, gender and generational approach. These areas may be relevant for researchers seeking to expand the literature on the subject of child reintegration and for policymakers and organizations involved in reintegrating returned Honduran children, to improve policies and practices aimed at reintegrating returnee minors. First, further research is needed to identify returned children at the local level and understand from children’s perspective whether the reintegration programs are meeting their needs from a human rights approach. This kind of research might provide further information on 158 challenges and possible solutions to better implementation of the human rights principles examined in this thesis, during the reintegration stage. While evaluation of the effectiveness of programs at the local level in promoting human rights of returned migrant children is beyond the scope of this thesis, the thesis findings do indicate the limited information on programs and projects to better promote children’s rights beyond the stages of repatriation and reception. The evaluation of programs at the local level (considering the perspective of returned children) could include government sector units such as UMARs and city halls, as well as organizations in the non-government sector. This information is important because it might contribute to the creation and revision of national laws and policies focused on the reintegration stage and with an emphasis on children. Also, like this thesis, the generation of this information might contribute to improve existing services to better promote children’s rights and thus achieve a more sustainable reintegration. This type of research is also important because there is literature and international organizations’ reports reflecting the voice of migrant children in the stages of transit and destination, but there is limited literature and reports reflecting the voice of migrant children in relation to the reintegration stage. The results of such research may also contribute to more effective integration of the participation human rights principle in program design and implementation, and the results might be relevant for developing materials for training and sensitization. Second, further research is needed regarding violence as a cause of child migration in Honduras. As discussed in this thesis, the number of children reporting violence as the main cause of migration is greater in the UNHCR reports compared to the official government reports. The Honduran government reports that most children migrate for economic reasons and family reunification, and few children migrate due to violence. Conversely, UNHCR reports emphasize 159 that violence is perhaps the main cause of child migration in Honduras. A high percentage of the children included in UNHCR reports mention having been victims of some type of violence in their country of origin. In this thesis, possible reasons underlying the differences between the government and UNHCR reports are identified in chapters 3 and 5. These reasons help understand the differences in the two reports, but further research is required on this matter. During the interviews, some non-government sector representatives indicated that the Honduran government may have an interest in controlling figures related to forced displacement. Although they do not give a reason for this, one possibility is the pressure exerted by transit and destination countries on the Honduran government to stop irregular migration. These countries focus on deterring migration from Central America and categorize most migrants (including children) as economic migrants and not as forcibly displaced people. Furthermore, more studies are needed to understand the association of Honduran migrant children with gangs given reports that children migrate specifically to avoid gang-related violence. This requires examining whether displaced children (and their families) were threatened by gangs, whether children were members of the gang (either voluntarily or forced) and whether they deserted the gang. These aspects are important in determining whether returned Honduran children are considered as active members of gangs or as victims of these criminal groups. Further research on violence as a cause of child migration is important to guide the interpretation of the non-refoulement principle and the implementation of the principle of the right to life, survival and development. This information might guide the decision-making 160 processes, help to understanding the needs of migrant children upon return, contribute to creating adequate protection mechanisms and help preventing the recidivism of child migration. Third, further research is required on the causes of migration, experiences and needs of returned children with certain characteristics including unaccompanied children, adolescents (between the ages 13-17 years), girls, boys, children who were victims of trafficking, sexual abuse and/or labor exploitation and children with physical disabilities or health problems. For example, further research is needed to identify if Honduran migrant girls and boys have different experiences during migration and different needs upon return that are related to their gender. Furthermore, the limited information on some of these groups of children (unaccompanied children, girls, boys, adolescents) suggests the presence of violence in the experiences of these children. For example, UNHCR studies allow us to infer that, in the case of unaccompanied migrant children, violence may be the main cause of Honduran child migration. These studies also indicate that girls are more vulnerable to being victims of sexual violence and that boys are more vulnerable to being recruited by gangs. In the case of children between the ages of 13 to 17 years, although statistics indicate that the majority of returned minors are in this age group, there is little or no information on the needs of these children, the causes of their migration, situation of accompaniment, their experiences and their needs in the stages of migration, specifically upon return. Likewise, returned children who were victims of some type of abuse during migration and/or have physical disabilities or health problems may have specific needs (from a human rights perspective) that have not been identified. This kind of information can be important to promote the human rights, generational, diversity and gender approaches and the principles of the right to life, survival and development 161 and the best interest of the child. At the same time, this information may be relevant for policy makers and organizations to promote the creation and implementation of more effective reintegration mechanisms for these groups of returned children. With the ongoing migration and humanitarian crisis in Honduras, it is imperative to address the conceptual and practical challenges experienced by organizations in both the government and non-government sectors that aim to promote the human rights of Honduran returned migrant children during reintegration. Representatives of organizations participating in this research recognized the needs of children, identified some of the challenges in promoting these needs and in some cases highlighted strategies to overcome these challenges. This thesis offers several suggestions for strengthening laws, policies and programs related to child migration from a human rights approach. I hope these findings and policy suggestions will contribute to an improvement in the lives of Honduran migrant children. 162 Bibliography AMHON (Asociación de Municipios de Honduras). 2015. Asociación de Municipios de Honduras. Accessed April 1, 2019. https://www.amhon.org/inicio/index.php/component/k2/item/437-pnud-y-amhon-danseguimiento-a-programa-del-nino-retornado. —. 2016. Informe Técnico Proyecto "Asistencia para la Reintegración Comunitaria de Niños, Niñas y Adolescentes Migrantes Retornados". AMHON and UNDP. Beaverstock, Jonathan V. 2002. "Transnational Elites in Global Cities: British Expatriates in Singapore's Financial District." Geoforum 33(4): 525-538. Berg, Bruce L. 2009. Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc. Bhabha, Jacqueline. 2014. Child Migration and Human Rights in a Global Age. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Bloch, Alice, and Liza Schuster. 2006. "At the extremes of exclusion: deportation, detention and dispersal." Ethnic and Racial Studies 28(3): 491-512. Caballeros, Álvaro. 2011. "Migración con rostro de niños, niñas y adolescentes." Latin American Journals Online: Encuentro No. 90, 84-93. Accessed March 20, 2017. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.5377/encuentro.v44i90.601. CAH (Covenant House Honduras), Pastoral de Movilidad Humana, and CRF (Catholic Relief Services). 2016. Niñas y niños migrantes: factores de expulsión y desafíos para su reinserción. Tegucigalpa M.D.C.: Editorial Guaymuras. Calidionio Alcalde. 2014. Calidonio Alcalde. October 23. Accesed July 17, 2019.calidonioalcalde.com/?p=3043. Camargo, Abbdel M. 2014. Arrancados de raíz: Causas que originan el desplazamiento transfronterizo de niños, niñas y adolescentes no acompañados y/o separados de Centroamérica y su necesidad de protección internacional. Mexico: United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Cannell, Charles F., and Robert L. Kahn. 1968. "Interviewing." In The handbook of social psychology, edited by Lindzey Gardner and Aronson Elliot , 526-595. Reading, Mass., Addison-Wesley Pub. Co. CELAM (Consejo Episcopal Latinoamericano) . 2019. Honduras: World Vision con el apoyo de Caritas lanza campaña en contra del trabajo infantil, “Tutelando a los menores se cambia el futuro". August 21. Accessed February 26, 2020. https://www.celam.org/observatoriosociopastoral/detalle_noticias.php?id=Mjg0. Celesia, Alberto, Alejandro Morlachetti, and Matilde Luna. 2014. Manual sobre Estándares Internacionales de Derechos Humanos Aplicables a los Niños, Niñas y Adolescentes 163 Migrantes. Buenos Aires: Red Latinoamericana de Acogimiento Familiar (RELAF), Save the Children and United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF). CENISS (Centro Nacional de Información del Sector Social). 2014. Informe estadístico de las personas repatriadas/retornadas a Honduras periodo enero a septiembre -2014. Informe Anual, Tegucigalpa M.D.C.: CENISS y Secretaría de Estrategia y Comunicaciones . —. 2015. Informe estadístico de las personas repatriadas/retornadas a Honduras año 2015 . Informe Anual, Tegucigalpa M.D.C.: CENISS. —. 2016. Informe estadístico de las personas repatriadas/ retornadas a Honduras 31 julio 2016. Tegucigalpa M.D.C.: CENISS. —. 2019. Sistema Integral de Atención al Migrante Retornado (SIAMIR). Accessed January 10, 2020. https://www.ceniss.gob.hn/migrantes/. —. 2020. Sistema Integral de Atención al Migrante Retornado (SIAMIR). Accessed January 15, 2020. http://ceniss.gob.hn/migrantes/MigrantesEstadisticas.aspx. —. 2020. Sistema Integral de Atención al Migrante Retornado (SIAMIR). Accessed April 30, 2020. http://ceniss.gob.hn/migrantes/. Ceriani Cernadas, Pablo. 2015. "Introduction." In Childhood and Migration in Central and North America: Causes, Policies, Practices and Challenges,edited and coordinated by Karen Musalo, Lisa Frydman and Pablo Ceriani Cernadas, 3-38. San Francisco: Center for Gender & Refugee Studies (CGRS) at the University of California Hastings College of the Law and the Migration and Asylum Program, Center for Justice and Human Rights at the National University of Lanus Argentina (CDHUNLa). CIPPDV (Comisión Interinstitucional para la Protección de las Personas Desplazadas por Violencia).n.d. Comisión Interinstitucional para la Protección de las Personas Desplazadas por Violencia. Accesed December 5, 20019.http://www.cippd.gob.hn/portfolio/decretopcm0532013/. —. 2017. Comisión Interinstitucional para la Protección de las Personas Desplazadas por Violencia. Accessed April 30, 2020. http://www.cippd.gob.hn/. CONADEH (Comisionado Nacional de los Derechos Humanos). 2015. Informe anual 2015, Al Honorable Congreso Nacional de la República. Tegucigalpa, M.D.C.: CONADEH. Congreso Nacional de Honduras. 2014. "Decreto No. 106-2013." Ley de protección de los hondureños migrantes y sus familiares. Tegucigalpa M.D.C.: La Gaceta -Diario Oficial de la República de Honduras , February 15, 2014. CONMIGHO (Observatorio Consular y Migratorio de Honduras) . 2017. Previniendo la migración . Accessed January 18, 2020. https://www.conmigho.hn/campanas/prevencion/. 164 Consejo Ciudadano para la Seguridad Pública y Justicia Penal A.C. 2014. Sala de Prensa- Por tercer año consecutivo, San Pedro Sula es la ciudad más violenta del mundo. January 15. Accessed June 10, 2017. http://www.seguridadjusticiaypaz.org.mx/sala-de-prensa/941por-tercer-ano-consecutivo-san-pedro-sulaes-la-ciudad-mas-violenta-del-mundo. Covenant House. 2018. How we operate. Accessed April 11, 2019. https://www.covenanthouse.org/homeless-charity/accountability#. Creswell, John. 2009. Research Design: Qualitative Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approahes. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, Inc. De la Peña-Padilla, Sofía. 2014. "Nuevos contextos y dinámicas migratorias en la región Centroamérica–Norteamérica." Instituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Occidente Repositorio Institucional ITESO 171-184. Accessed January 20, 2017. doi:http://hdl.handle.net/11117/1557. Delgado Wise, Raúl , and Humberto Márquez Covarrubias. 2008. "The Mexico-United States Migratory System: Dilemas of Regional Integration,Development, and Emigration." In Migration and Development: Perspectives from the South, by Stephen Castles and Raúl Delgado Wise, 113-41. Geneva: International Organization for Migration (IOM). DGPHM (Dirección General de Protección al Hondureño Migrante). 2017. Dirección General de Protección al Hondureño Migrante. Accesed March 22, 2019. https://www.conmigho.hn/direccion-general-de-proteccion-al-hondureno-migrante/. DINAF (Dirección de Niñez Adolescencia y Familia). n.d. Misión y visión . Accessed August 15, 2017. http://dinaf.gob.hn/?page_id=2734. —. 2019. Migracion y restitucion internacional de NNA. Accesed November 26, 2019. https://dinaf.gob.hn/migracion-y-restitucion-internacional-de-nna/. DINAF and Gobierno de la República de Honduras. 2016. "Protocolo de protección inmediata, repatriación, recepción y seguimiento de niñas y niños Migrantes." Tegucigalpa M.D.C.: Editorial Guaymuras, April. Dobson, Madeleine E. 2009. "Unpacking children in migration research." Children's Geographies 7(3): 255-360. Edwards, Michael. 1996. "New approaches to children and development and overview." Journal of International Development 8( 6): 813-827. El Diario . 2018. eldiario.hn. May 29. Accessed July 17, 2019. http://www.eldiario.hn/defensoria-municipal-de-la-ninez-brinda-asesoria-legal-gratuitaen-san-pedro-sula/. Embajada de Ecuador en Canadá . 2017. Información Consular . August 11. Accessed August 11, 2017. http://www.embassyecuador.ca/index.php?id=consular&nro=29. 165 Ensor, Marisa O., and Elzbieta M. Godziak. 2010. Children and migration at the crossroads of resiliency and vulnerability. England: Palgrave Macmillan. Fonseca, Ana, Laurence Hart, y Susanne Klink. 2015. Reintegration: Effective approaches. Geneva: International Organization for Migration (IOM). Graviano, Nicola, Andrea Götzelman, Nazanine Nozarian, and Anita Jawadurovna Wadud. 2017. Towards an integrated approach to reintegration in the context of return. Geneva: International Organization for Migration (IOM). Gobierno de la República de Honduras. n.d. "Unidad Municipal de Atención al Retornado (UMAR). Unidad Municipal de Atención al Retornado. Gobierno de la República de Honduras. Gobierno de Mexico. 2019. Boletines Estadísticos. Accessed January17, 2020. http://portales.segob.gob.mx/es/PoliticaMigratoria/CuadrosBOLETIN?Anual=2019&Sec c=3. Hatfield, Madeleine E. 2010. "Children moving "home"? Everyday experiences of return migration in highly skilled households." Childhood 17(2): 243-57. Huijsmans, Roy. 2006. "Children, childhood and migration." Working Paper Series No. 427, The Hague: Institute of Social Studies. IACHR (Inter-American Commission on Human Rights). 2014. "Advisory Opinion OC-21/14 ." Rights and guarantee of children in the context of migration and/or in need of international protection. IACHR, August 19. ICRC. 2014. The Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their additional Protocols. January 1. Accessed July 7, 2020. https://www.icrc.org/en/document/geneva-conventions-1949additional-protocols. IDEH-PUCP (Instituto de Democracia y Derechos Humanos de la Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú) . 2012. Amicus Curiae sobre la solicitud de Opinión Consultiva Nº 21: Derechos de los/as niños/as migrantes. Posición en torno a la Opinión Consultiva No. 21 OC-21/14, Lima: IDEH-PUCP ILO (International Labour Organization). 2009. Training manual to fight trafficking in children for labour, sexual and other forms of exploitation: Understanding child trafficking. Geneva: ILO. —. n.d. Accessed May 25, 2017. http://www.ilo.org/ipec/facts/lang--en/index.htm. InSight Crime. 2015. Maras y Pandillas en Honduras. Tegucigalpa: InSight Crime y Asociación para una Sociedad más Justa. IOM (International Organization for Migration). n.d. "Retorno y reintegración en el Triángulo Norte de Centroamérica." Resumen del proyecto: El Salvador, Guatemala y Honduras . OIM and USAID. 166 —. 2006. Glosario sobre migración. Derecho Internacional sobre Migración No.7, Geneva: IOM. —. 2010. International dialogue on migration. Geneva: International Organization for Migration. —. 2016. "Curso especializado sobre niñez migrante, con énfasis en niñez migrante no acompañada o separada en el Triángulo Norte y México." San José: IOM and Department of State United States of America. KIND and Human Rights Center Fray Matías de Córdova. 2017. Childhood cut short: Sexual and Gender-based Violence against Central American migrant and refugee children. Kids in Need of Defense and Center Fray Matías de Córdova. King, Rusell. 2000. "Generalizations from the History of Return Migration." In Return migration : journey of hope or despair?, by Bimal Ghosh, 7-55. Geneva: International Organization for Migration (IOM). Kofman, Eleonore, Annie Phizaclea, Parvati Raghuram, and Rosemary Sales. 2000. Gender and international migration in Europe: Employment, welfare, and politics. London: Routledge. Mehrotra, Santosh , Jan Vandemoortele, and Enrique Delamonica. 2000. Basic Services for All? Siena: UNICEF. Miles, Mathew B, Michael A Huberman, and Johnny Saldaña. 2014. Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications Inc. Musalo, Karen, Lisa Frydman, and Pablo Ceriani Cernadas., ed. 2015. Childhood and migration in Central and North America: Causes, policies, practices and challenges. San Francisco : Center for Gender & Refugee Studies (CGRS) at the University of California Hastings College of the Law and the Migration and Asylum Program, Center for Justice and Human Rights at the National University of Lanus Argentina (CDHUNLa) NRC (Norwegian Refugee Council). n.d. Norwegian Refugee Council. Accessed April 11, 2019. https://www.nrc.no/who-we-are/our-impact/. O' Connell Davidson, Julia. 2011. "Moving Children? Child Trafficking, child migration, and child rights." Critical Social Policy 31(3): 454-477. Orellana, Marjorie Faulstich. 2001. "The work kids do: Mexican and Central American immigrant children's contributions to households." Harvard Educational Review 71(3): 366-390. Philo, Chris. 2000. "The Corner-stones of my world: Editorial introduction to special issue on spaces of childhood." Childhood 7(3): 243-256. 167 Poder Ejecutivo. 2014. "Decreto Ejecutivo PCM 33-2014." El Presidente de la República en Consejo de Ministros. Tegucigalpa M.D.C.: La Gaceta -Diario Oficial de la República de Honduras, July 11, 2014. —. 2013. "Decreto Ejecutivo PCM 053-2013." El Presidente de la República en Consejo de Ministros. Tegucigalpa M.D.C. : La Gaceta -Diario Oficial de la República de Honduras, November 26, 2013. Presidencia de la República . 2018. Logros y estadísticas. February 13. Accessed December 12, 2019. https://www.presidencia.gob.hn/index.php/2018-01-08-22-44-37/183-masseguridad/3690-logros-y-estadisticas. Punch, Samantha. 2007. "Negotiating migrant identities: Young people in Bolivia and Argentina." Children's Geographies 5(1-2): 95 –112. Ratha, Dilip, Supriyo De, Ervin Dervisevic, Sonia Plaza, Kirsten Schuettler, William Shaw, Hanspeter Wyss , Soonhwa Yi, y Seyed Reza Yousefi. 2015. Migration and development brief. The World Bank. RCM (Regional Conference on Migration). 2016. Regional guidelines for the comprehensive protection of boys, girls and adolescents in the context of migration.Approbed in San Pedro Sula, Honduras, during the the XXI Vice-Ministerial Meeting of the RCM in November, 2016.San Pedro Sula: RCM. Rivera, Luis Gerardo, José Guadalupe Ruelas, Ubaldo Herrera Coello, Jaime Flores, and Carlos Flores Pinto. 2015. "Honduras." In Childhood and migration in Central and North America: Causes, policies, practices and challenges, edited and coordinated by Karen Musalo, Lisa Frydman and Pablo Ceriani Cernadas, 75-120. San Francisco: Center for Gender & Refugee Studies (CGRS) at the University of California Hastings College of the Law and the Migration and Asylum Program, Center for Justice and Human Rights at the National University of Lanus Argentina (CDHUNLa). Rosenblum, Marc R., and Isabel Ball. 2016. Trends in unaccompanied child and family migration from Central America. Migration Policy Institute. SIELHO (Sistema de Información Electrónico de Honduras). n.d. Sistema de Información Electrónico de Honduras (SIELHO). Accessed March 20, 2018. https://sielho.iaip.gob.hn/inicio/. Skjott , Linneberg, and Steffen Korsgaard. 2019. "Coding qualitative data: A synthesis guiding the novice." Qualitative Research Journal 19(3): 259-270. Taylor, Steven J., and Robert Bogdan. 1998. Introduction to qualitative research methods. New York: John Wiley and Sons. U.S. CBP (U.S. Control and Border Protection). 2016. Department of Homeland Security . Accessed November 28, 2016. https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/southwest-borderunaccompanied-children/fy-2016. 168 —. 2020. Department of Homeland Security . February 20. Accesed February 20, 2020. https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration/usbp-sw-borderapprehensions. UNAH (Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Honduras). 2017. "Boletines nacionales." Instituto Universitario en Democracia, Paz y Seguridad (IUDPAS). Accessed August 10, 2017. https://iudpas.unah.edu.hn/observatorio-de-la-violencia/boletines-del-observatorio2/boletines-nacionales/. UN (United Nations). Convention on the Rights of the Child, G.A. Res. 44/25, U.N. Doc. A/RES/ 44/25 (Nov. 20,1989) http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CRC.aspx —. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. Res. 217 A, U.N. Doc. A/RES/ 217 A (Dec.10,1948) —.2013. "General comment No. 14 (2013) on the right of the child to have his or her best interests taken as a primary consideration." Convention on the Rights of the Child. Commitee on the Rights of the Children, May 29, 2013. UNDP (United Nations Development Program). 2018. Índices e indicadores de desarrollo humano: actualizacion estadística 2018. New York: United Nations Development Program. UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees), ILO (International Labour Organization), IOM (International Organization for Migration), and UNICEF (United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund). 2013. Niños, niñas y adolescentes migrantes: América Central y México. San José: IOM. UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees), Asociación de Hermanas Scalabrinianas, Pastoral de Movilidad Humana. n.d. Diagnóstico: Caracterización de la población hondureña retornada con necesidades de protección -Magnitud, tendencias, causas perfiles y necesidades de protección. Tegucigalpa M.D.C.: UNHCR. UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees). n.d. "Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees." Text of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees , text of the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees and Resolution 2198 (XXI) adopted by the UN General Assembly. UNHCR. —. n.d. Children on the Run: Unaccompanied children leaving Central America and Mexico and the need for international protection. Washington, D.C.: UNHCR Regional Office for the United States and the Caribbean. —. n.d. Crisis in Central America. Accesd April 12, 2019. https://www.unhcr.ca/where-we-work/central-america/. —. n.d. CRRF Global digital portal. Accesed April 13, 2019. http://www.globalcrrf.org/crrf_country/aaa/. 169 —. n.d. UNHCR Help. Accessed December 10, 2019. https://help.unhcr.org/mexico/confia-en-el-jaguar/. —. 2008. UNHCR Guidelines on determining the best interest of the child. Geneva: United Nations High Commissioner for Refugges . —. 2017. "Marco Integral Regional para la Protección y Soluciones. " UNHCR. October. Accesed July 29, 2019. https://www.mirps-hn.org/. —. 2018. UNHCR Comité Español. May. Accessed July 7, 2020. https://eacnur.org/blog/que-esun-conflicto-armado-segun-el-derecho-internacional-humanitariotc_alt45664n_o_pstn_o_pst/. —. 2019. UNHCR The UN Refugee Agency. Accessed April 12, 2019. https://www.unhcr.org/returnees.html. —. 2020. Refugee Status Determination. Accessed December 10, 2019. https://www.unhcr.org/refugee-status-determination.html. UNICEF (United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund). 2011. La Travesía: Migración e infancia. Mexico: UNICEF Mexico. Accessed: June 4, 2017. https://www.unicef.org/mexico/spanish/publicacionesderechosninos_27944.html. —. 2014. Estrategia de comunicación niñez migrante Honduras. Tegucigalpa: UNICEF. —. 2016. Broken dreams: Central American children's dangerous journey to the United States. UNICEF. —.2018. Child migration. December. Accessed February 17, 2020. https://data.unicef.org/topic/child-migration-and-displacement/migration/. White, Ben. 2003. A world fit for children? Children and youth in development studies and policy. Dies Natalis Address delivered on 9 October 2003 on the occasion of the 51st Anniversary of the Institute of Social Studies, The Hague, The Netherlands, The Hague: Institute of Social Studies (ISS). World Bank. 2011. Crimen y violencia en Centroamérica. Un desafío para el desarrollo. World Bank- Sustainable Development Department and Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Unit - Latin America and the Caribbean Region. 170 Appendix A. Research protocols approved by the UNBC research ethics board (REB) [English version. The version in Spanish will be provided to potential participants of this study, since this is their native language.] Information Letter / Consent Form for Executive Directors or Heads of the Organization Reintegration of returned Honduran child migrants: challenges experienced by government, international and civil society organizations Date: XXXXXX I. Study team Principal Investigator: Diana Carolina Reyes Perdomo MA International Studies Department of Global and International Studies University of Northern British Columbia (UNBC) Honduran number: (504) 9904 2160 Canadian number: 00 1 (250) 961-3359 reyes@unbc.ca Supervisor’s Name: Dr. Fiona MacPhail Professor and Chair Department of Economics University of Northern British Columbia (UNBC) 00 1 (250) 960 6660 fiona.macphail@unbc.ca This research is part of a thesis that is developed as a requirement to obtain a Master of Arts degree in International Studies, awarded by the University of Northern British Columbia (UNBC). II. Study Purpose and Invitation to participate in the study The main purpose of this research is to generate relevant information that contributes to the improvement of current policies and institutional practices implemented in Honduras for the reintegration of Honduran children who are returned from Mexico and the United States, since 2014. This information will be of primary relevance to policymakers and organizational representatives working directly and indirectly toward the reintegration of migrant children returned to Honduras. These actors can use this information to create and implement reintegration practices to promote the satisfaction of needs and the human rights of returned children. 171 This organization is invited to participate in this study since its work includes the implementation of programs or projects aimed at reintegrating returned Honduran migrant children. The knowledge and analysis of these programs/projects will contribute to: identifying the challenges organizations experience in satisfying the needs and promoting the human rights of returned Honduran children; and finding possible solutions to overcome existing challenges and achieve long term reintegration. The information in this letter will allow you to pose any questions you have regarding the study and thus make an informed decision about the participation of this organization in the present research. III. Study procedures Information will be collected through institutional documents and interviews with representatives of organizations. Relevant institutional documents may include the project description, objectives, strategic actions, geographic scope, target population group, and execution period, among others. The documents can be expressed in the form of strategic plans, project proposals, information sheets, or other documents that describe the aforementioned elements. I request that these documents are delivered by means of an email or a memo that specifies all documentation provided. You can express your consent for the organization to provide access to documents in the consent form attached at the end of this letter. Interviews will be conducted with representatives of the organization involved in the implementation of the child reintegration projects/programs that this organization implements. I am requesting that you authorize the participation of 2 to 3 organizational representatives in a process of qualitative interviews. Interview questions focus on understanding the main needs of returned Honduran children and the specific child reintegration projects or programs promoted by your organization. If you agree that some members of this organization may participate in this research project, the potential interview participants will be provided with an information letter similar to this one and their participation is voluntary. If potential participants grant permission, interviews will be audio recorded. In case a participant is not able to meet in person with the principal investigator, she will request to conduct the interview by Skype. In this case, consent from interview participants will be also needed to audio and video record the interview. Interviews conducted by Skype will be recorded with the program active presenter. Furthermore, a transcriber will be in charge of the transcription of the interviews. Participation of the organization in this study is completely voluntary. You can grant consent for this organization to participate in this study (through access to institutional documents and participation in the interview process) by signing the consent form attached at the end of this letter. The potential interviewees are free to not answer any question that makes them feel uncomfortable during the interview. In the same way, the organization and interview participants have the right to withdraw from the study at any time. 172 If you do not wish that this organization collaborates in this study, please let the principal investigator know using her email address on this form. IV. Risks and benefits to participating in the project Potential risks of the study: a) Risks related to the Honduran context As you know from living in Tegucigalpa or San Pedro Sula, there are potential physical and emotional risks associated with possible violence on the streets. Participants might be exposed to these risks during their mobility around these two cities. Another factor that could affects participant’s safety and hampers their mobility around the cities might the taking of public spaces by different sector of society. To reduce these risks, interviews will preferably be conducted in the participant’s own organization. Only if the organization is in an unsafe area, the principal investigator will suggest that the interview be conducted in an alternative location that is accessible and promotes the safety for the participant and the principal investigator. In this regard, the principal investigator has at her disposal two offices that are in a safe and accessible area of Tegucigalpa and San Pedro Sula. If participants do not have a private vehicle to get to these offices, the cost of transportation will be reimbursed, so that they can take a radio taxi and get to the place of the meeting quickly and safe. In addition, interviews will only be conducted during regular business hours and will be rescheduled or conducted by Skype if the media reports that protests are planned on a day when an interview was scheduled. b) Risks related to participation in the study A potential social risk for the organization could possibly be that a participant may note a possible weakness in the practices of the organization and this may cause discomfort to other organizational representatives, or potentially weaken relations with government bodies or other agencies with which this organization collaborate. The occurrence of this social risk could be related to the size of the sample of this research. Given that there is a small number of organizations implementing child reintegration programs in Honduras, the size of the sample will be small. Therefore, organizations and individuals participating in the study could possibly be identifiable. However, the analysis of this study will not focus on or highlight specific organizations but will focus on general challenges and opportunities to improve the reintegration process. Therefore, the social risk described here is considered unlikely to affect participating organizations and individuals. In addition, the likelihood of this social risk occurring is reduced because the subject of this research is of high social interest due to the growth of child migration in Honduras in recent years, and due to the impact of this phenomenon on the lives of Honduran children. In this sense, interinstitutional coordination may be of particular interest to current and future staff of government and non-government organizations providing migrant reintegration services. 173 Despite the above mentioned, I will use a predetermined coding in case the organization and interview participants require that their identity remain anonymous. In these cases, the identity of the participating organizations and interviewees will not be disclosed to transcribers and neither will be disclosed in the study results. This will minimize further the occurrence of social risk described above. Here is important to mention that maintaining the anonymity of participants inside organizations could be more difficult, because internally, it is easier to identify those people working in the projects that the organization implements. However, this will not represent a problem if the heads of the organization are aware and have approved that some organizational representatives participate in the study. Therefore, no interview will be conducted without the approval of the heads of the organization. c) Disclosure of the name of the organization and the participants Disclosure of the identity of the organization and the interviewees could increase the possibility that the social risk described above occur. If the organization and interviewees decide not to keep their identity anonymous, the principal investigator will take some measures to minimize the possibility that this social risk affects the organization and/or interviewees. These measures are related to the analysis of the data and its distribution, which will emphasize the main findings and not the organizations or individuals where these findings come from. If you have any other concerns about the participation of the organization in this study, please let the principal investigator know. The objective of this letter is informing you about the study procedures and understanding any concerns that you might have. This way you can make an informed decision about the participation of the organization in the study. Potential benefits of the study: This organization will potentially benefit from this study because the information generated may add to the knowledge about challenges and opportunities to promoting the human rights and needs of returned Honduran children. These solutions will help to promote sustainable reintegration and to hopefully, reduce the re-migration of returned Honduran children. Furthermore, study results will also be disclosed to other government and non-government organizations involved in the protection of Honduran children and migrants. These organizations could have a positive influence on the creation and implementation of more effective policies, and practices for the reintegration of returned Honduran children. Presenting the results to these organizations would contribute to promote awareness and could encourage organizations to contribute in technical and financial aspects with the institutions that implement projects to promote child reintegration in Honduras. Direct beneficiaries of the community will be returned children whose rights and needs will be promoted through better processes of reintegration. This will influence positively the human development and quality of life of returned children. As a result, reintegration will become more sustainable and children will become productive people who contribute to the well-being of their communities and their country. 174 Finally, the scholarly community will also benefit from this research, because the information generated in the study will contribute to and expand the limited academic literature regarding returned child migration, especially in the reintegration process. V. Confidentiality, Anonymity and Data Management With permission of the interview participants, interviews will be audio recorded with a cellphone device which will be password protected. In case of any technical problems, recordings will be done through a tape recorder. Notes will also be taken by the principal investigator. The principal investigator, the thesis supervisor and a transcriber will be the only people who will have access to the raw data obtained from interviews and institutional documents. The identity of organizations and participants will not be disclosed to the transcriber. Additionally, the transcriber will be obliged to sign a confidentiality agreement in which he/she will commit to maintain the confidentiality of the data and to dispose of the information safely after the transcriptions have been received by the principal investigator. Any interview conducted by Skype will be transcribed by the principal investigator and not by the transcriber. All Skype-to-Skype communication is encrypted (Microsoft 2018). Although communication could be observed by the Skype network, as long as Skype users do not share illegal content, they should not have any problems (Lo Iacono, Symonds and Brown 2016). Additionally, participants will be encouraged to create an account used only for their participation in the present study. This account should be eliminated once the study has finished and its results are disclosed to participants. Interview participants are also advised to select an environment that allows privacy for the development of an interview through Skype. In terms of storage, all copies of electronic documents will be stored in the personal computer of the principal investigator, and two back-up copies will be stored in external hard drives. All storage devices will be password protected and all information stored in them will be encrypted and will not be stored in a cloud. Physical copies of information will be stored in a safe place only known by the principal investigator. In terms of the use of information, it is important to highlight that no information about individual migrant children will be discussed in the study. In case organizational representatives withdraw from the study at any point, it should be indicated if the information that has already been provided (through institutional documents and interviews), it should be removed from the study or with your permission, can be retained and analyzed for the study. Moreover, you will be asked if you have understood the purpose of the study. In terms of data disposition, the principal investigator and the academic supervisor will destroy electronic and hard copies of all the information collected, after the study has been submitted and approved by UNBC. It is estimated that the project will finalize by July 2019. Moreover, the transcriber will erase all the information disclosed to him/her, after the transcriptions have been received by the principal investigator. These instructions will be indicated in the confidentiality and non-disclosure agreement signed by the transcriber. 175 VI. Study Results Study results will be disseminated through an executive summary that will include a brief overview of the study methodology, the key findings, and the implications for organizations. This executive summary will be based on the thesis document which will be a public document available at the UNBC website. This summary will be emailed to individuals in four groups of actors who may positively influence the creation and implementation of policies and institutional practices to promote child reintegration in Honduras. These actors are: 1) organizations participating in the study, which are implementing or have implemented child reintegration projects; 2) Government entities responsible for assisting returned migrant children as part of their mandate; 3) Embassies of the U.S. and Canada in Honduras, since they have directly or indirectly cooperated to address the issue of migration and child protection in Honduras; and 4) the Observatory of International Migration in Honduras (OMIH) in coordination with the National Autonomous University of Honduras (UNAH). The principal investigator will follow up with recipients of the executive summary in case they have any questions about the information they have received. Follow-up meetings will be done by Skype and will not be recorded. Additionally, participant organizations of this study and the other key actors mentioned above, will be emailed a digital copy of the thesis, once this is completed, if it is requested. Finally, the principal investigator will explore the possibility of presenting a research seminar at the OMIH-UNAH. This seminar will be based on the main findings of the research, as presented in the executive summary and the thesis. VII. Questions or Concerns about the project If you have any questions related to this study and its procedures please contact the principal investigator, whose contact information is in the first page of this form. Also, if you have any concerns or complaints about the research, the rights of interview participants, or about the experience of the organization while participating in the study, please contact the UNBC Office of Research at 001 (250) 960 6735 or by e-mail at reb@unbc.ca. VIII. Organization’s consent and withdrawal Taking part in this study is entirely up to the organization and interview participants. You have the right to refuse the participation of the organization in this investigation. Similarly, the organization (including interview participants) have the right to withdraw from the study at any time without giving a reason and without any negative impacts. If you do not want that this organization to participate in the study, please let the principal investigator know by using the email indicated in the first Section of this from. Your signature below will indicate that you consent to the participation of the organization in the present study. IX. References Lo Iacono, Valeria, Paul Symonds, and David H.K. Brown. 2016. "Skype as a Tool for Qualitative Research Interviews." Sociological Research Online 12. 176 Microsoft. 2018. Search Skype support. Accessed March 10, 2018. https://support.skype.com/en/faq/FA31/does-skype-use-encryption. CONSENT (Please circle your response) I understand that the purpose of this study is to generate information that can be used to improve policies and practices for the reintegration of migrant children returned to Honduras through the promotion of their rights and the satisfaction of their needs. YES NO I have read the information presented in the information letter about the project, or the information about the project has been summarized verbally for me. YES NO I have had the opportunity to ask questions about the involvement of the organization in this project and to receive additional details I requested. YES NO I grant the authorization for this organization to collaborate in this study through the access to institutional documents (hard copies or in electronic format) related to the child reintegration projects/programs implemented by the organization. YES NO I grant authorization for key representatives of this organization to participate in the process of interview described in this form. YES NO I understand that interview participants will be provided with an information letter and consent form similar to this one, so they can make an informed decision regarding their voluntary participation in the interview process. YES NO I understand that this organization (including interview participants) may withdraw from the project at any time up until the report completion, with no consequences of any kind. YES NO In the event of withdrawal, I authorize that the information provided by this organization through institutional documents and interviews may be retained and analyzed for the study. YES NO I want the name of this organization and the name of the project to remain confidential and any remarks to be anonymous. YES NO 177 I would like a copy of the executive summary when the research is completed. YES NO I would like an electronic copy of the thesis when the research is completed. YES NO I understand that the executive summary and the thesis document will be distributed to other participants of the study and key actors from government and non-government organizations, mentioned in Section VI of this document. I understand that the executive summary will be based on the thesis document which will be a public document available at the UNBC website. YES NO I have been given a copy of this Information Letter/Consent Form. YES NO Signature: Name (Printed): Organization: Job/position title: Date: 178 This form will be translated into Spanish. The version in Spanish will be provided to potential participants of this study, since this is their native language. Information Letter / Consent Form for interview participants Reintegration of returned Honduran child migrants: challenges experienced by government, international and civil society organizations Date: XXXXXX I. Study team Principal Investigator: Diana Carolina Reyes Perdomo MA International Studies Department of Global and International Studies University of Northern British Columbia (UNBC) Honduran number: (504) 9904 2160 Canadian number: 00 1 (250) 961-3359 reyes@unbc.ca Supervisor’s Name: Dr. Fiona MacPhail Professor and Chair Department of Economics 001 (250) 960 6660 fiona.macphail@unbc.ca This research is part of a thesis that is developed as a requirement to obtain a Master of Arts degree in International Studies, awarded by UNBC. II. Invitation to participate in the study and Study Purpose The main purpose of this research is to generate relevant information that contributes to the improvement of current policies and institutional practices implemented in Honduras for the reintegration of Honduran children who are returned from Mexico and the United States, since 2014. This information will be of primary relevance to policymakers and organizational representatives working directly and indirectly toward the reintegration of migrant children returned to Honduras. These actors can use this information to create and implement reintegration practices to promote the satisfaction of human rights and needs of returned children. You are being invited to participate in this study because your work involves institutional practices implemented through projects or programs oriented toward reintegration of migrant children returned to Honduras. Your experience and knowledge will contribute to: 1) the 179 identification of the challenges organizations experience in satisfying the needs and promoting the human rights of returned Honduran children; and 2) finding possible solutions to overcome existing challenges and achieve long term reintegration. III. Study procedures Your participation in this study is totally voluntary. You are free to not answer any question that makes you feel uncomfortable. In the same way, you have the right to withdraw from the study at any time. In the event of withdrawal, any information you have previously provided during the interview will be removed and safely destroyed, unless you explicitly consent to that information being retained and analyzed. I am requesting that you acknowledge your voluntary participation in the study by signing the consent form attached at the end of this letter. If you do not wish to participate, please let the principal investigator know using her email address on this form. If you agree to participate in this study, you will be asked a series of open questions regarding the practices that your organization implements to reintegrate returned Honduran children. The questions are oriented to understanding the main needs of returned Honduran children and to examining the specific child reintegration projects or programs promoted by your organization. The duration of the interview will be approximately one hour and, if you grant permission, they will be audio recorded. Also, written notes will be taken by the principal investigator In case you are not able to meet in person with the principal investigator, she will request to conduct the interview by Skype. If you grant permission, the Skype interview will be audio and video recorded. Interviews conducted by Skype will be recorded with the program Active Presenter. Furthermore, a transcriber will be in charge of the transcription of the interviews. IV. Risks and/or benefits to participating in the project Potential risks of the study: There is a potential physical and emotional risk related to the context of violence and common crime prevailing in Tegucigalpa and San Pedro Sula. Another factor that could affect the physical security of participants are protests in public spaces. Interview participants could be exposed to these risks during the time they physically move to the place where the interview will be conducted. To minimize these risks interviews will preferably be conducted in the participant’s own organization. Only if an organization is located in an unsafe area, the principal investigator will propose an alternate location for the meeting. In this regard, the principal investigator has at her disposal one office in Tegucigalpa and in San Pedro Sula that are located in safe and accessible areas of the cities and promote the safety of participants. If participants do not have a private vehicle to get to these offices, the cost of transportation will be reimbursed, so that they can take a radio taxi and get to the place of the meeting quickly and safe. In addition, interviews will only 180 be conducted during regular business hours and will be rescheduled or conducted by Skype if the media reports that protests are planned on a day when an interview was scheduled. Furthermore, a potential social risk related to your participation in this study is that any perceived weaknesses in the practices of your organization may cause discomfort to you or other representatives of your organization; or may potentially weaken relations with other government bodies or other agencies with which you and your organization collaborate. The occurrence of this social risk could be related to the size of the sample of this research. Given that there is a small number of organizations implementing child reintegration programs in Honduras, the size of the sample in this study will be small. Therefore, organizations and individuals participating in the study could be identified, even if names of organizations or projects are not used. That is why some measures will be taken to minimize the occurrence of this risk. First, it is important to note that the proposed research will focus on challenges and opportunities generally rather than those at the organization level. Furthermore, is important to let you know that the purpose of the research is not to highlight the negative aspects of the processes but to propose strategies that can promote better results of the interventions that, as a whole, are developed in the country from different perspectives to improve the reintegration and wellbeing of returned children. In this context, interview questions will be asked, and the information will be examined, to gain relevant information that could benefit your organization to overcome existing challenges and achieve a successful reintegration process. Additionally, is important to inform you that a predetermined coding will be used in case the organization and the interview participants require that their identity remain anonymous. In these cases, the identity of the participating organizations and interviewees will not be disclosed to transcribers and neither will be disclosed in the results of the study. The use of a number code rather than the name of the organization or your name, will minimize further the perceived social risk described above. Here is important to mention that maintaining the anonymity at the internal level of the organization could be more difficult, because internally, it is much easier to identify those people who work in the projects that the organization implements. However, this will not represent a problem if the heads of the organization are aware and have approved that some organizational representatives participate in the interview process. Therefore, no interview will be conducted without the approval of the heads of the organization. On the other hand, it is important to highlight that disclosure of the identity of the organization and the interviewees could increase the possibility that the social risk described above occur. Therefore, in case the organization and interviewees decide not to keep their identity anonymous, the principal investigator will strive to minimize the possibility that the social risk described above affects the organization and/or interviewees. These measures are related to the analysis of the data and its distribution, which will emphasize the main findings not the organizations or individuals where these findings come from. If you have any other concerns about your participation in this study, please let the principal investigator know. The objective of this letter is to understand any concerns that you might have as a potential participant as well as to inform you about the interview process, so you can make 181 an informed decision about your participation in the study. Furthermore, if at any point in the study you feel uncomfortable and wish to end your participation in the study, your wishes will be respected. Potential benefits of the study: Your organization will potentially benefit from this study because the information generated may help to find and implement solutions to the obstacles organizations face in promoting the human rights and needs of returning Honduran children. These solutions will help to promote sustainable reintegration and to reduce the re-migration of returned Honduran children. Furthermore, study results will also be disclosed to other government and non-government organizations involved in the protection of Honduran children and migrants. Presenting the study results to these organizations would contribute to promoting awareness and could encourage them to contribute in technical and financial aspects with the institutions that implement projects to promote child reintegration in Honduras. Direct beneficiaries of the community will be returned children, whose rights and needs will be promoted through better processes of reintegration. This will influence positively the human development and quality of life of returned children. As a result, reintegration will become more sustainable and children will become more productive people who contribute to the well-being of their communities and their country. Finally, the scholarly community will also benefit from this research. Particularly, the information generated from the interviews will contribute to and expand the limited academic literature regarding returned child migration, especially in the reintegration process. V. Confidentiality, Anonymity and Data Management With your permission, interviews will be recorded with a cellphone device which will be password protected. In case of any technical problems, recordings will be done through a tape recorder. The principal investigator, the thesis supervisor and a transcriber will be the only people who will have access to the raw data obtained from interviews. If you wish your identity to remain anonymous, the information you provide will be analyzed and presented in the thesis at a general level without naming you. Regardless of this, the identity of the organization and interviewees will not be disclosed to the transcriber. Additionally, the transcriber will be obliged to sign a confidentiality and non-disclosure agreement in which he/she will commit to maintain the confidentiality of the data and to dispose of the information after the transcriptions have been received by the principal investigator. In order to protect confidentiality of information, any interview conducted by Skype will be transcribed by the principal investigator and not by the transcriber. All Skype-to-Skype communication is encrypted (Microsoft 2018). Although communication could be observed by the Skype network, as long as Skype users do not share illegal content, they should not have any problems (Lo Iacono, Symonds and Brown 2016). To increase security of communication by Skype, interviewees are advised to create an account exclusive for their 182 participation in this study, and to erase the account once the study has finalized and results have been disclosed to them. Interviewees are also advised to choose an environment that allows privacy for the development of interviews conducted by Skype. In terms of storage, all copies of electronic documents will be stored in the personal computer of the principal investigator, and two back-up copies will be stored in external hard drives. All storage devices will be password protected and all information stored in them will be encrypted. No information will be stored in a cloud. Physical copies of information will be stored in a safe place only known by the principal investigator. In term of the use of information, it is important to highlight that no information about individual migrant children will be discussed in the study. In case you withdraw from the study, you and the executive director of the organization should indicate if the information that has already been provided in the interview can be retained and analyzed. Moreover, you will be asked if you have understood the purpose of the study. In terms of data disposition, the principal investigator and the academic supervisor will eliminate all electronic and hard copies of the information collected, after the study has been submitted and approved by UNBC. It is estimated that the project will finalize by July 2019. Moreover, the transcriber will erase the information disclosed to him/her (recordings and transcripts of interviews), after the transcriptions have been received by the principal investigator. VI. Study Results Study results will be disseminated through an executive summary which will be disseminated to the organizations participating in this study which are implementing or have implemented child reintegration projects; government agencies responsible for assisting returned migrant children as part of their mandate; embassies of the U.S. and Canada, who have directly or indirectly cooperated to address the issue of child migration in Honduras; and the Observatory of International Migrations in Honduras (OMIH) in coordination with the National Autonomous University of Honduras (UNAH). The executive summary will be emailed; and the principal investigator will be available to follow up with recipients of information in case they have any questions. Follow-up meetings will be done through Skype and they will not be recorded. Additionally, participant organizations of this study and the other key actors mentioned above, can have a digital copy of my thesis, once this is completed. The thesis will be emailed to them upon request. Finally, the principal investigator will explore the possibility presenting a research seminar at the OMIH-UNAH. This seminar will be based on the main findings of the research, as presented in the executive summary and the thesis. VII. Questions or Concerns about the project If you have any questions related to this study and its procedures please contact the principal investigator, whose name and contact information are listed at the top of the first page of this form. Also, if you have any concerns or complaints about your rights as a research participant 183 and/or about your experiences while participating in this study, please contact the UNBC Office of Research at 001 (250) 960 6735 or by e-mail at reb@unbc.ca. VIII. Participant Consent and Withdrawal In order to conduct the interviews, it is necessary to obtain the consent of the Head or the organization and afterwards, obtain the consent of interview participants. After the approval of the head of the organization, taking part in this study is entirely up to you. You have the right to refuse to participate in this investigation. If you decide to take part, you may choose to withdraw from the study at any time without giving a reason and without any negative impacts. If you do not wish to participate, please let the principal investigator know by using the email indicated in the first Section of this from. Your signature below will indicate that you consent to participate in this study. IX. References Lo Iacono, Valeria, Paul Symonds, and David H.K. Brown. 2016. "Skype as a Tool for Qualitative Research Interviews." Sociological Research Online 12. Microsoft. 2018. Search Skype support. Accessed March 10, 2018. https://support.skype.com/en/faq/FA31/does-skype-use-encryption. CONSENT (Please circle your response) I have understood the purpose of this study which is to generate information that can be used to improve policies and practices for the reintegration of migrant children returned to Honduras through the promotion of their rights and the satisfaction of their needs. YES NO I have read the information presented in the information letter about the project, or the information about the project has been summarized verbally for me. YES NO I have had the opportunity to ask questions about my involvement in this project and to receive additional details I requested. YES NO I understand that if I agree to participate in this project, I may withdraw from the project at any time up until the report completion, with no consequences of any kind. YES NO In the event of withdrawal, I authorized that the information that has already been provided during the interview be retain and analyzed for the study. 184 YES NO I want my name and position inside the organization to remain confidential and any remarks to be anonymous. YES NO I agree to be audio-recorded. YES NO In case I am not able to meet in person with the principal investigator, I authorize the interviews to be carried out by Skype and to be recorded in audio and video. YES NO Follow-up information (e.g. transcription) can be sent to me at the following e-mail or mailing address (if applicable): YES NO Email: _________________________________________________________________________ Mailing address: ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ __________________ I would like a copy of the executive summary when the research is completed. YES NO I would like an electronic copy of the thesis when the research is completed. YES NO I understand that the executive summary and the thesis document will be distributed to other participants of the study and key actors from government and non-government organizations, mentioned in Section VI of this document. I understand that the executive summary will be based on the thesis document which will be a public document available at the UNBC website. YES NO 185 I have been given a copy of this Information Letter/Consent Form. YES NO Signature: Name of interview participant (Printed): Organization: Job/position title: Date: 186 Reintegration of returned Honduran child migrants: challenges experienced by government, international and civil society organizations Interview protocol General information Participant code: Organization: Project: Date and time of the interview: Introduction This questionnaire covers three main aspects: 1) identification of institutional practices oriented to promoting the satisfaction of the main needs of returned Honduran children; 2) the identification of institutional approaches and human rights principles, applied to assist returned Honduran children; and 3) identification of practical strategies to promote a successful and sustainable reintegration. To cover these aspects, you will be asked to answer a series of open-ended questions that will focus on understanding the main needs of returned Honduran children and the main practices implemented by your organization to assist returned children. To understand institutional practices, questions will focus on the objectives, strategies, approaches, achievements and constraints of the child reintegration programs/projects implemented by your organization. With your permission, the interview will be audio recorded, and video recorded in case the interview has to be conducted through Skype. If there is any question you do not want to answer, you are free to do so. Similarly, if at any point in the interview you wish to withdraw from the investigation, you can let me know and your wishes will be respected. In advance I want to thank you for your participation in this study, which is very valuable for the development of this research and which seeks to generate information for the improvement in the process of reintegration of returned Honduran children. Questions: 1. Based on your experience with the assistance to returned Honduran children, what are the main needs of these children? (or what are the main problems experienced by returned children?) Probes: 1) school reintegration; 2) protection of the right to life and protection 187 from being hurt in body or mind; 3) reintegration to work; 4) restoration of physical and mental health; and 5) family reintegration. 2. What are the main objectives of this project? (I will request any project documents) 3. How does this project [name the project here] aim to address the main needs/problems of returned Honduran children? Probe on the components, strategies, lines of action of the project, etc. 4. What key principles and approaches are used by this project and organization to address the needs of returned children? Probe questions on the human rights, generational, participation approach, among others; and on the human rights principles applicable in the context of child migration, such as, the best interest of the child, equality and non- discrimination, non-revictimization, etc. 5. What are the main successes or achievements of this project? 6. At the conceptual level, considering the human rights approach and principles to protect migrant children, what are the main constraints and challenges that this organization/project experience in trying to fully satisfy the human rights needs of returned children during reintegration? Probe questions on problems in policies and the implementation of human rights approaches and principles. 7. How might these constraints and challenges be overcome? 8. What are the practical constraints and challenges experienced by this project in meeting its objectives? Probe on challenges such as funding, lack of information, network or others. 9. How might these constraints and challenges be overcome? 10. Which of the following practical strategies does this project lack and why? Probe on points related to: • previous diagnosis of child’s situation to establish a route/plan of reintegration • collection and integration of information. • articulation of inter-institutional efforts at the national level and with institutions of other countries in the region. • sensitize and train organizations in terms of the right-based approach and guiding principles applicable for the protection of migrant children’s rights. • implementation of monitoring and follow-up mechanisms that periodically assess the situation of returned children. 188 Appendix B. UNBC REB approval letters RESEARCH ETHICS BOARD MEMORANDUM To: CC: Diana Carolina Reyes Perdomo Fiona MacPhail From: Henry Harder, Chair Research Ethics Board Date: June 14, 2018 Re: E2018.0119.007.00 Reintegration of returned Honduran child migrants: challenges experienced by government, international and civil society organizations Thank you for submitting revisions to the Research Ethics Board (REB) regarding the above-noted proposal. Your revisions have been approved. We are pleased to issue approval for the above named study for a period of 12 months from the date of this letter. Continuation beyond that date will require further review and renewal of REB approval. Any changes or amendments to the protocol or consent form must be approved by the REB. Good luck with your research. Sincerely, Dr. Henry Harder Chair, Research Ethics Board 3333 University Way, Prince George, BC, V2N 4Z9, Telephone (250) 960-6735 189 RESEARCH ETHICS BOARD MEMORANDUM To: CC: Diana Carolina Reyes Perdomo Fiona MacPhail From: Henry Harder, Chair Research Ethics Board Date: June 14, 2019 Re: E2018.0119.007.01 Reintegration of returned Honduran child migrants: challenges experienced by government, international and civil society organizations Thank you for submitting a request for renewal to the Research Ethics Board (REB) regarding the abovenoted proposal. Your request has been approved. We are pleased to issue renewal approval for the above named study for a period of 12 months from the date of this letter. Continuation beyond that date will require further review and renewal of REB approval. Please note that protocols can only be renewed three times, after which a New Application will need to be submitted. Also, any changes or amendments to the protocol or consent form must be approved by the REB. Good luck with continuation of your research. Sincerely, Dr. Henry Harder Chair, Research Ethics Board 3333 University Way, Prince George, BC, V2N 4Z9, Telephone (250) 960-6735 190