UNICEF Budget Cuts and JPOs - the Real Experience of a Real Person - an interview with a JPO by Rob Carr
(NOTE: This is an interview with a JPO who was working with UNICEF up until end 2025. During the course of the staff discussion on budget cuts I got to know this person via the town hall meetings on the budget cuts in which JPOs were very frustrated. We agreed to keep it anonymous. UNICEF cut 3900 posts as part of this exercise - 20% were internationals, 13 % GS and 8 % nationals. 1621 new posts were created - it was not automatic that people dismissed were moved direct to these - as new posts are not equal to the proportion cut of each category. Here's the story of how a JPO with a bright career and young family was affected)
ANSWER: I wanted to stay in UNICEF, and I had started applying for different posts but when the FFI (Future Focus Initiative) started in early 2025, all the positions were frozen and I did not have any place to apply.
Q2. How did you—and other JPOs you know—try to find a way forward when so many jobs were being cut or frozen?
ANSWER: I soon noticed that all the guidance provided on the FFI did not have any notice or any guidance for Junior Professional Officers (JPOs). JPOs are professionals funded by the government for the first one to three years and some are fully funded by UNICEF after three years and have a Fixed Term (FT) status. The government funds JPOs in the expectation that the UN agencies will support the career development and transition of the young professionals within those years. But it was clear that a lot of staff, including HR did not know about this fact including the FT status of JPOs and the accountability that UNICEF faces to the donor/government on supporting the JPOs’ career development.
During mid-2025, I still did not notice the seriousness of the situation for JPOs until there was a virtual “consultation” meeting held with the UNICEF HQ/HR with the JPOs. It seems some JPOs worked faster and they had engaged with the JPO unit and even their own government for JPOs to be considered in the FFI properly. But to our disappointment, any questions that we raised was only responded to as a very generic response. For example, some asked what are the support given to JPOs during this FFI and the response we received was that there is career coaching and mentoring opportunities as well as stretch opportunities for JPOs. We wanted more clear guidance on how JPOs can be retained in the system, especially for those whose contracts are ending in 2025 or early 2026 and have nowhere to apply.
More shocking was the general attitude that we felt during this consultation from HR, saying that since UNICEF is lacking funding, JPOs can fill the gap – which is only a voice sent from the organization-side but not for us JPOs who need more long-term career development guidance beyond being a JPO. We also felt that some of the comments showed that the organization considers us as “cheap and free labour” not considering our motivation nor the accountability to the donor whose expectation is for long-term career development beyond being a JPO in UNICEF.
Q3. What did UNICEF tell you officially about your future? Did you feel the organization stood by its commitment to young professionals during the crisis?
ANSWER:I was jolted by how the consultation with HR and JPOs went and I started to be involved with the other JPOs in writing a letter to the Executive Director (ED), explaining the past contributions made by JPOs, current situation faced by JPOs and what concrete guidance can be put in the FFIs specifically for JPOs. We finally received a response after several months but we again faced disappointment. All the suggestions that we raised were rejected, except for one of establishing a JPO talent pool but even that was nothing definite.
I connected with other JPOs and some really had lost hope. I heard from one that the office actually made a post for him but that was snatched away through the ringfencing so he may be jobless in just few months and lost all hope and motivation to stay in UNICEF. Even though I tried raising the fact about JPOs during Townhalls, it was always the case that there was no response, or that the organization was too full of dealing with other staff whose post was abolished. For JPOs, even though we are FT status and some fully funded by the organisation, we have a contract duration so if that duration is over and we do not have anywhere to apply, we are in the same situation as the staff whose post was abolished - but we do not receive any benefits or even consideration of the process that we go through. I am sure many of us, including myself felt that we are just “disposable” to the organization.
Q4. Looking back, what do you wish leadership had done differently to protect the "new generation" of staff they had recruited?
ANSWER: I know UNICEF has many programmes targeting youth and their career/skills development so I hope in future, there will be the same value placed for supporting youth within the organization. We need a leader that can advocate for the youth and their career development within the organization and that will make UNICEF more relevant, dynamic and close to the work we do for the children and youth in our programmes as well. Also to acknowledge that JPOs, UNVs, interns also bring in a wealth of new and diverse knowledge and experience and we should not just look at them as “young” but as equal partners and professionals in the workplace.
Q5. Do you think donor countries will keep funding JPO positions if they see that these young talents aren't being kept on after their initial contracts?
ANSWER: Given the current climate, donors will reduce the number of JPOs to support UNICEF but that will depend on the support systems and communications from UNICEF in the future.
ANSWER: I wanted to stay in UNICEF, and I had started applying for different posts but when the FFI (Future Focus Initiative) started in early 2025, all the positions were frozen and I did not have any place to apply.
Q2. How did you—and other JPOs you know—try to find a way forward when so many jobs were being cut or frozen?
ANSWER: I soon noticed that all the guidance provided on the FFI did not have any notice or any guidance for Junior Professional Officers (JPOs). JPOs are professionals funded by the government for the first one to three years and some are fully funded by UNICEF after three years and have a Fixed Term (FT) status. The government funds JPOs in the expectation that the UN agencies will support the career development and transition of the young professionals within those years. But it was clear that a lot of staff, including HR did not know about this fact including the FT status of JPOs and the accountability that UNICEF faces to the donor/government on supporting the JPOs’ career development.
During mid-2025, I still did not notice the seriousness of the situation for JPOs until there was a virtual “consultation” meeting held with the UNICEF HQ/HR with the JPOs. It seems some JPOs worked faster and they had engaged with the JPO unit and even their own government for JPOs to be considered in the FFI properly. But to our disappointment, any questions that we raised was only responded to as a very generic response. For example, some asked what are the support given to JPOs during this FFI and the response we received was that there is career coaching and mentoring opportunities as well as stretch opportunities for JPOs. We wanted more clear guidance on how JPOs can be retained in the system, especially for those whose contracts are ending in 2025 or early 2026 and have nowhere to apply.
More shocking was the general attitude that we felt during this consultation from HR, saying that since UNICEF is lacking funding, JPOs can fill the gap – which is only a voice sent from the organization-side but not for us JPOs who need more long-term career development guidance beyond being a JPO. We also felt that some of the comments showed that the organization considers us as “cheap and free labour” not considering our motivation nor the accountability to the donor whose expectation is for long-term career development beyond being a JPO in UNICEF.
Q3. What did UNICEF tell you officially about your future? Did you feel the organization stood by its commitment to young professionals during the crisis?
ANSWER:I was jolted by how the consultation with HR and JPOs went and I started to be involved with the other JPOs in writing a letter to the Executive Director (ED), explaining the past contributions made by JPOs, current situation faced by JPOs and what concrete guidance can be put in the FFIs specifically for JPOs. We finally received a response after several months but we again faced disappointment. All the suggestions that we raised were rejected, except for one of establishing a JPO talent pool but even that was nothing definite.
I connected with other JPOs and some really had lost hope. I heard from one that the office actually made a post for him but that was snatched away through the ringfencing so he may be jobless in just few months and lost all hope and motivation to stay in UNICEF. Even though I tried raising the fact about JPOs during Townhalls, it was always the case that there was no response, or that the organization was too full of dealing with other staff whose post was abolished. For JPOs, even though we are FT status and some fully funded by the organisation, we have a contract duration so if that duration is over and we do not have anywhere to apply, we are in the same situation as the staff whose post was abolished - but we do not receive any benefits or even consideration of the process that we go through. I am sure many of us, including myself felt that we are just “disposable” to the organization.
Q4. Looking back, what do you wish leadership had done differently to protect the "new generation" of staff they had recruited?
ANSWER: I know UNICEF has many programmes targeting youth and their career/skills development so I hope in future, there will be the same value placed for supporting youth within the organization. We need a leader that can advocate for the youth and their career development within the organization and that will make UNICEF more relevant, dynamic and close to the work we do for the children and youth in our programmes as well. Also to acknowledge that JPOs, UNVs, interns also bring in a wealth of new and diverse knowledge and experience and we should not just look at them as “young” but as equal partners and professionals in the workplace.
Q5. Do you think donor countries will keep funding JPO positions if they see that these young talents aren't being kept on after their initial contracts?
ANSWER: Given the current climate, donors will reduce the number of JPOs to support UNICEF but that will depend on the support systems and communications from UNICEF in the future.
---
END of interview.....
What do you think of this? Were you aware of how young people were treated? Me personally, I was staff still during these cuts. I was very lucky to be close to retirement and was offered a volunary separation package that worked well for me. Thousands of others were at mid career or like this person - very early on and looked forward to a career in UNICEF as they believe in UNICEF and were hardworking and committed.
There is some thinking from some sides that JPOs are a way of donors trying to impose themselves on UNICEF and that JPOs jump the queue. Personally, I never experienced that - they are fully paid staff. They did not take any UNICEF posts. They are well vetted (much better than UNICEF vetting) and are extremely hardworking. I have seen JPOs go on to do great things in UNICEF and UN - some are Reps and even higher than that. Maybe I am biased. If anything, I was jealous of them, as my government did not sponsor JPOs for UNICEF. I had to scratch and claw to get in and still not sure how I did it - and none of the JPOs I worked with were given jobs - they competed vigorously against the best of the best . UNICEF recruitment could learn from that abit. Also JPOs are not always from the donor country - I have seen in my last years a trend whereby JPOs were sponsored by a donor but they are from programme countries - and that is a good trend by some open minded donors.
But how I saw them treated - the extremely unprofessional and uncaring communication with them - was disheartening. It was not a proud moment. I do think there could be further donor fallout from this and other aspects of UNICEF handling during these cuts. Other UN agencies took even bigger cuts. In some cases they allowed JPOs to apply and not freeze them out. Maybe that was a better path. Hindset is always 20/20?
Thoughts??
I have always been under the impression that JPOs are mostly expected to return to work for “their” governments and those who wish to continue at the UN/UNICEF do so without any preferential treatment? Having said that, young talent is definitely most precious and needs practical steps to retain, whether it’s a JPO or not.
ReplyDeleteApologies for the anonymity, which was by mistake. Sikander Khan
DeleteThanks Sikander - I have as many they continued on with UNICEF as well as many who left. Ones who left - often left disgruntled - having been grossly under utilized and challenged by our lack of being a truly learning organization that has set career paths don't rely on the old buddy system. It is not easy to navigate. But as fixed term posts funded by donors - of highly motivated staff - it was truly shameful how they were treated. Who got preferential treatment were staff in very high positions during these last cuts - and who go screwed were mostly young people. As a result - UNICEF is now an older organization than ever - I imagine our size is now thin at entry level and fat at the top. Not a recipe for innovation. I hope top be proved wrong. But how do we squeeze new ideas out of the same turnips that turned us into a top heavy, multi layered and process heavy organization?
Delete