Scoop: Funding cuts at UN children's agency fuel intense staff pushback

The United Nations Children’s Fund is facing intense pushback from staff over its plans to sharply shrink its ranks and dramatically scale back programs from Europe to Central Asia, saying the plans would ultimately harm the children it serves, according to internal complaints from UNICEF’s hard-hit regional offices. UNICEF staff representatives and regional heads have urged the agency’s leadership in a series of internal memos to halt its restructuring plan, dubbed the “Future Focus Initiative,” and conduct a thorough review of its assistance programs to consider what they claim are more efficient ways to achieve the inevitable financial cuts. It has urged the agency’s leadership to pursue other, less disruptive means to rein in costs. The effort comes just weeks after UNICEF’s leadership outlined its plans to impose at least 25% cuts in its core budget, and to fold programming in its seven regional offices into four so-called Centers of Excellence, based in Amman, Jordan; Bangkok, Thailand; Nairobi, Kenya; and Panama City, Panama. It coincides with a four-day meeting of UNICEF’s executive board, which begins on Tuesday at the United Nations headquarters in New York. The children’s agency would consolidate its East Asia and Pacific regional office and the South Asia regional office into a single office in Bangkok. The Europe and Central Asia office and Middle East and North Africa regional office would be folded into a single office in Amman, with plans to start operations by December 2026. UNICEF programming would be phased out in high-income countries in Europe. Offices in Sudan and Djibouti would be absorbed into the eastern and southern Africa regional office. “I know this is a difficult time for all staff,” UNICEF Executive Director Catherine Russell said in an internal May 22 memo to staff outlining the plan, which was seen by Devex. “The funding situation we are facing, as you all know, continues to be challenging.” Critics inside UNICEF contend that while cuts are necessary, they are being imposed too hastily, without conducting a fact-based review to determine how to align UNICEF’s cost-cutting with its broader mission to serve children. “We categorically reject the recent changes in the Future Focus Initiative (FFI) timeline and request an immediate halt to the current restructuring process, which has already demonstrated fundamental deficiencies in its conception and execution,” according to a May 31 memo by representatives of staff associations at the seven regional offices. UNICEF’s senior management has managed the reform with a “troubling absence of strategic coherence, transparency, and governance, alongside disparities in how offices are being treated,” the staff representatives added. “We are forced to admit that our Global Management chose a path that has inflicted unnecessary harm, stress and anxiety on staff. These choices have expanded uncertainty, eroded trust, undermined morale, and placed the organization at reputational and legal risk.” “We believe this constitutes more than poor judgment — it could border organizational negligence,” the memo added. The U.N. agency’s retrenchment reflects a financing retreat by traditional donors, particularly in Europe, where governments are redirecting foreign aid spending to fund domestic migration costs and ramping up their defense budgets. It has accelerated as the Trump administration has sought draconian reductions in its own foreign aid budget, projecting steep cuts across the U.N. system. UNICEF estimates it will face a 20% reduction in donor funding in 2026, compared with 2024 figures, according to a spokesperson. It has instructed managers in the headquarters and regional offices to reduce their core funding by 25%, while striving to stave off deep cuts in its country offices. “UNICEF is considering a range of options to design the most effective structures and configurations that will enable the organization to continue delivering on its core — and critical — mandate of protecting the rights of children and helping them to reach their potential everywhere,” the spokesperson told Devex by email. “As part of this, we are listening to a wide range of views coming from our staff, and our partners, and we’re taking these into account.” Staff critics said the cuts have had the least impact on senior management, even though an April report by the Evaluation Office of Internal Audit and Investigations, noted that staff increases at UNICEF’s New York City headquarters have increased by 53%, outpacing job growth in the agency’s regional offices and country offices — which are up by only 20% and 25%, respectively — “reflecting a centralization trend that may not reflect operational needs.” It proposed rebalancing “technical capacity toward regions” and “shifting selected functions and staffing to RO [Regional Offices] or subregional level, where operational proximity and contextual familiarity are greater.” UNICEF’s staff in European regional offices are likely to take the biggest hit, according to the May 22 memo from the executive director, which calls for “phasing out UNICEF programming in high income countries in Europe.” In a May 26 letter to UNICEF’s Russell, officials from the agency’s Europe and Central Asia office wrote that leadership should conduct a higher level of due diligence. “To maintain credibility and trust through the organization and with staff, we strongly recommend that any major organizational shifts be accompanied by transparent costing, efficiency analysis, and a clear articulation of how these changes (i.e. business case) will strengthen our ability to deliver for children,” they wrote. They also expressed concern that a decision to cut back in Europe — where many of the world’s wealthiest donors reside — could harm their fundraising. “Scaling down could be misinterpreted as disengagement,” the letter stated. “This will weaken our influence and partnerships just as key reforms are being negotiated. When sister UN agencies are intensifying their engagement with member states as donors and supporters, this will leave room for them to encroach on UNICEF’s normative and technical mandate and expertise.” The budget cuts have heightened tensions between leadership and rank-and-file workers across the U.N. system, feeding into suspicion that those at the top are wielding the budget ax to preserve their own survival. At UNICEF, it has also pitted the agency’s staff agencies in the field against the global staff union leadership in New York, which, according to one UNICEF official, declined a request from the regional unions to conduct an agency-wide survey to gauge staff views on the cuts. The justification, the official said, is that the decisions had already been made and there was no need to engage in a fruitless effort to relitigate the matter. Francoise Chandler, the chair of UNICEF’s Global Staff Association, declined to respond directly to the allegation. But she said: “Rest assured we continue to listen to staff concerns across countries, regions and are actively engaged in ongoing dialogue with the organization’s leadership to ensure that staff voices are heard and respected throughout this period of transition.” “While we strive to maintain constructive engagement with staff and management at all levels, our role requires careful consideration of timing, context, and internal processes,” she added. The executive committees of the local staff associations in Bulgaria, Croatia, Greece, and Romania, meanwhile, voiced “deep concern, dismay and strong disagreement” with the proposal to end support for programs in Europe. The decision, they contended, undermines the “ability to respond effectively in the event of an emergency onset, thereby undermining efforts to protect children's rights.” “UNICEF’s presence in EU member states carries strategic and reputational value, as many of our major donors are based in Europe, and our work within these countries contributes to advocacy, visibility, and fundraising, including for global initiatives.” Staff representatives have outlined a series of proposals for achieving savings, saying it is “strongly recommended that staffing reduction be considered as a last resort and in a phased approach.” They contended that ‘“savings from abolishment of staff for transactional efficiencies will not be a solution to the financial crisis the organization is facing.” An internal survey cited by UNICEF’s West and Central Africa offices found that 60% of staff favored the imposition of proportional salary cuts, including 15% pays cuts for senior professionals and department directors, and 5% for entry-level professionals and administrative workers. A majority, 81%, of international staff that responded to the survey said they would telework from their home countries to save money, 73% said they would accept a smaller rental subsidy, and 53% said they would take a reduction in their education subsidy. “It appears financial considerations are driving this measure,” according to staff representatives. “This decision risks distancing our actions from the organization’s mandate and our core mission to uphold children’s rights everywhere, without exception.” Update, June 11, 2025: This article has been updated to correct an error in the quote attributed to Francoise Chandler.