Managing unauthorised returns: A challenge for Safe Centres and recovery systems

\By Michelle Therese Alles

In displacement settings, residents returning to their homes before official clearance continues to present a recurring challenge for recovery systems.

Commonly referred to as ‘unauthorised returns’, these movements present challenges for safe centre management, humanitarian coordination, and recovery planning, especially in determining the extent and nature of continued support once residents leave.

The issue is not isolated. Across recovery phases, individuals and families often return home ahead of formal assessments due to economic pressure, disrupted livelihoods, family obligations, or prolonged uncertainty within the displacement settings. While administrative frameworks prioritise safety and sequencing, the realities people face often guide decisions on the ground. 

Drivers of early return

Unauthorised returns rarely occur without cause. Extended stays in safe centres can strain household incomes, disrupt education, and limit access to livelihoods. Without clear timelines for return, many families face heightened uncertainty and make decisions based on immediate necessity rather than official approval.

These movements are often informal and unmonitored, which makes it difficult for authorities and humanitarian actors to assess risks, offer guidance, or respond if conditions worsen.

Implications for support systems

A common response to unauthorised returns is the withdrawal of assistance, based on the assumption that continued support may legitimise unsafe movement. However, experience from recovery settings shows that complete disengagement can increase vulnerability of the returning residents. 

When support systems disengage, they may lack access to safety information, health services, food assistance, or referral networks. This can expose households to secondary risks, such as structural hazards, food insecurity, and repeated displacement.

Maintaining conditional engagement

Some recovery organisations have adopted approaches that separate endorsement and engagement. Under these models, support is adjusted rather than withdrawn, allowing systems to maintain contact with returnees while clearly communicating risks and limitations.

This includes providing safety information, facilitating access to health and nutrition services, keeping referral networks open, and ensuring that individuals can access support again if their return proves unsafe. These approaches aim to reduce harm while maintaining accountability within recovery systems.

Institutional considerations

Managing unauthorised returns also highlights the tension between policy and practice in recovery settings. While coordination and standards remain essential, rigid frameworks that do not account for population movement risk losing relevance on the ground.

Experience shows that recovery systems function more effectively when they anticipate movement rather than react to it, integrating flexibility, communication, and monitoring into centre management and transition planning.

A recovery challenge, not an exception

Unauthorised returns should not be seen solely as non-compliance, but as an indicator of gaps in recovery planning, communication, or support systems. Addressing them requires cross-sector coordination, clear messaging to affected populations, and mechanisms that prioritise safety without disengagement.

As recovery progresses, the ability of systems to respond to movement, rather than attempt to prevent it entirely, will remain central to reducing risk and supporting sustainable resettlement.