The worldwide phenomenon of street children: Conceptual analysis

Abstract

Today, both developed and developing countries are facing the problem posed by street children. The world often tries to forget or ignore them, and sometimes even denies they exist. As the big cities grow, so will the number of street children; so deprivation which begets frustration which begets violence will also grow; and so a worldwide socioeducational problem emerges. No country and virtually no city anywhere in the world can escape the presence of these so-called street children. In this article the phenomenon of street children as a rapidly growing socioeducational challenge is analysed.

Today, both developed and developing countries are facing the problem posed by street children. The world often tries to forget or ignore them, and sometimes even denies they exist. As the big cities grow, so will the number of street children; so deprivation which begets frustration which begets violence will also grow; and so a worldwide socioeducational problem emerges. No country and virtually no city anywhere in the world can escape the presence of these so-called street children. In this article the phenomenon of street children as a rapidly growing socioeducational challenge is analysed.

INTRODUCTION

The scene is common and painfully familiar; a busy street lined with shops displaying the latest in fashion and electronic equipment, welldressed people going in and out, the sound of vehicles whizzing by, expensive cars, the flash of neon lights. At night big cities come alive and urban life reaches its peak. But, in the background, children huddle in corners, or walk about aimlessly, dirty, dishevelled-a pitiful sight. Some are selling cigarettes, peddling lottery tickets or flowers; some are just loitering and others are asleep in city arcades. As night progresses, these children are seen gambling, smoking, sniffing solvents, taking up with locals or tourists for a night of "big money," taking on odd jobs to get some money to ease their grumbling stomachs or to take home to starving family members (Childhope, 1993).

Street children, the offspring of today's complex urban realities worldwide, represent one of our global family's most serious, urgent and rapidly growing socioeducational challenges. No country and virtually no city can escape the presence of these so-called street children. In some parts of the world, they have been a familiar phenomenon for many years. In the last decade this phenomenon has grown at an alarming rate throughout Asia and Africa.

Contrary to popular belief, street children do have a function in society (Baizerman, 1990): Their ongoing presence functions to reaffirm each person's pre-existing prejudices about families, substance abuse, street crime, and birth control. They reaffirm usually unstated notions about the incorrigibility of children or their inherent resilience. They contribute to the affirmation of theological notions of sin, corruption, and other evils. They define moral boundaries and in part, the unsympathetic nature of contemporary society. They are part of modern life as it is organized today: a street culture of petty crime, drug selling and prostitution. They are part of the job market as unskilled, energetic, available, low-cost and short-term employees. They are used as runners or "gofers" to deliver packages as well as perform other services. The street child phenomenon is therefore sustained by the functioning of modern society.

THE STREET CHILD PHENOMENON

The term street children was aptly coined sometime in the eighties to identify children who have chosen to spend most of their time on the streets in various "occupations." Ranging in age from 5 to 18 years, they ply the sidewalks in a desperate attempt to eke out whatever they can to bring home to their families for food, medicine, or whatever is needed. Most of them are the children of poor parents who migrated from the rural areas in hope of making a life in the city, but whose lack of education rendered them ill-equipped for survival in the urban jungle. Different countries describe street children in different ways. However, three categories have been identified in the Philippines (Childhope, 1993):

Children working on the street, with regular family contact. Comprising about 70% of street children in some countries, these children have family connections of a regular nature. Most of this group still attend school and return home at the end of each working day. They are referred to as children on the street.

Children living and working on the street. These children see the street as their home and from it they seek income, food, shelter, and a sense of family among companions. Family ties may exist but are viewed negatively, and their former home is infrequently visited. In some countries, about 20% of street children, and in others like Thailand, the majority are in this category; they are referred to as children of the street.

Completely abandoned and neglected children. Having severed all ties with a biological family, these children are entirely on their own, for material and psychological survival.

Several countries in the Asian region recognize the three categories, agreeing on a common denominator: the children, with or without family, are at high risk. Some countries' definition of street children reflects the priority they are willing or able to give to this group. According to Santaputrat, Wathanavongs, and Thaiarry (1990), street children in Thailand are those who have been abandoned and work and live on the streets: "have no permanent home, stray in public places, earn a living on the street, and tend to be victimized by criminals to commit crimes. These children do not include those who migrate with their family to work places."

In Myammar (the new name for Burma), street children include "those who are without family, or whose family ties are so weak that they are only infrequently to be found at home" (Yangon UNICEF, 1992).

In Malaysia, children found on the street are subsumed under the broad category of children who are "in need of care and protection" or simply "at risk" (Keen, 1992).

In Cambodia, children without family support and who frequent the streets either to beg or to earn a living or who belong to households headed by women and lack attention and care, would be classified as street children (Cruz, 1992).

In China, street children are mostly truants and stow-away children who leave school before completing nine years of compulsory education (Xiang, 1990).

In Vietnam, the thousands of adolescents who live on the streets are called "children of the dust"-bui doi. Three categories have been defined: abandoned and homeless children; children who go home to their families; and children of street families (Childhope Asia, 1992).

Jakarta's street children, A nak Jalanan, are of two categories: children working on the street and children living on the street. In the

Senen area of Central Jakarta, the majority dwell in the squatter areas of Bungur and Gaplok, staying with their families or renting their own dwelling units; they are categorized as children working on the street. Spending most of their time on the street in order to earn a living, they use their income to support their families. This group is only slightly involved with crime and drug abuse.

Children living on the street, the second category of street children in Jakarta, spend most of their time on the street or in public places but not in a productive way. Some are homeless and have minimal contact with their families. Gembel (shabby/wild/brutal) children are influenced by adults or older street children to commit crimes and engage in substance abuse (CCIPS/ICWF-Childhope, 1992).

In South Asia, an unpublished UNICEF paper: "Exploitation of Working and Street Children" (1986) bases the identification of street children on the availability of shelter for them and their level of contact with their families. The three categories are: Children who have continuous family contact but who stay with their parents on the public pavements in urban areas; working children who spend all their days and some of their nights on the streets and in public places, but who have occasional family contact; children on the street; children such as orphans, runaways, refugees, and displaced persons who do not have any contact with their families; children of the street, they are the most crucial group as they do not have any protection from the vagaries of nature and society.

Thus, in order to present a meaningful definition of the concept "street children," one must, clearly distinguish between various categories. Complementing the above categorizations, Adams, Gullotta, and Clancy (1985) have distinguished three groups: children who flee the home because of family conflict, bad social relationships, and alienation; children who are rejected by their parents, or forced to leave home; and children who are the products of rejection by society.

One can also add the South African politically grounded and politically motivated category. The Group Areas Act, in which a black child was not allowed to live with his parents who were employed and resided in white areas, was in place until 1990. The outcome was that the child was placed in the care of someone else (either family or friends) in the so-called black township. Loss of parental control often predisposed the child to a street lifestyle (Peacock, 1989).

The following are definitions or descriptions of street children, predominantly from South African investigators:

Street children; homeless youngsters who roam the streets by day and sleep in culverts, empty buildings and vacant lots at night (Drake, 1989).

Street children comprise a group of poorly socialized children, failing to develop commitments and attachments within society (Cemane, 1990).

In the widest sense a street child is one who has made the street his real home . . . those who have abandoned (or have been abandoned by) their families, schools and immediate communities before they are sixteen years of age and have drifted into a nomadic street life (Gebers, 1990).

A street child. . . is any girl or boy who has not reached adulthood for whom the street (in the widest sense of the word, including unoccupied dwellings, wasteland, etc.) has become her or his habitual abode and or source of livelihood and who is inadequately protected, supervised or directed by responsible adults (Swart, 1988).

The term "street child" refers more specifically to children of the streets. These children come from homes where there is violence, overcrowding, drug and alcohol abuse or from communities divided by political forces into war zones. Many have been abused and hope to find a better life in the city (Bernstein & Gray, 1991).

. . . throwaways and runaways, children whom families and communities have failed (Richter, 1988).

. . . a byproduct of a community that has been exposed to industrialization and urbanization without the support of a firm social service infra-structure (Loening, 1988 in Bernstein & Gray, 1991).

"Strollers" is the name used by street children to describe themselves in Cape Town (South Africa). They are mainly "colored" or of mixed racial descent. "Malundi" and "omalalapayipi" are Zulu words meaning "those of the street" or "those who sleep in the (stormwater) pipes." These terms are used by Johannesburg (South Africa) street children (mainly of African racial descent) to describe themselves (Richter, 1989).

We say we are the Malundi, the ones that sleep by the street. But it's better not to sleep by the streets, because when it's cold the people throw cold water on you and you don't have other clothes to put on. Sometimes we say we are the malapipe, because we sleep in the big pipes where they make the buildings. Pines' (1986) definition refers to the self-description of a child in South Africa.

"A stroller is someone who don't sleep by his house-he sleeps in the street. He don't eat by his house-he eats by the bins. A stroller is someone who thinks he is free, to do what his mind says. It's a nice name for us," according to a street child in Cape Town, South Africa (Swart, 1988).

Although there are a variety of definitions or descriptions of the street child phenomenon, they have the following in common: These children are trying to escape an anti-child culture or have fled unbearable circumstances at home or in their immediate environment. They feel they can no longer trust themselves to be in the hands of society. For this reason, they have undertaken to manage their lives and futures on their own and retain total control of their lives. They are vulnerable to exploitation. Most of them have left chaotic family environments that involved violence, abuse, alcoholism, and alienation.

A description of street children would not be complete without distinguishing between "runaways" and "throwaways." Runaways are described as children who voluntarily leave home without parental permission. Throwaways are those who leave home because their parents have actually encouraged them to leave, have abandoned them, or have subjected them to intolerable levels of abuse and neglect (Nye & Edelbrock, 1980; Richter, 1989).

Finally, in defining the phenomenon, it must be emphasized that there are differences between street children in developed and those in developing countries (Forrest, Tyler, Tyler, & Echeverry, 1986): In contrast to developed countries, there is no counterculture attraction to the streets in the Third World. Children there know that life on the streets is neither romantic, nor a vehicle of social protest. The majority of street children in developing or Third World countries are boys who have fled their homes permanently. In developed countries, the typical street child is a white female, or youths from middle or higher income homes who have left home temporarily. These children have not broken any laws, but are unable to cope with interpersonal or other family problems.

CONCLUSION

Today, both developed and developing countries are facing the broad spectrum of problems posed by street children. There appears to be little acknowledgment or grasp of the problem, let alone steps taken to address or prevent it effectively.

The street has become the common heritage of millions of children, even before they are tainted by drugs, prostitution, abuse, crime, and many other socioeducational problems. Much can and has to be done to protect the child's right to a dignified life.

References

REFERENCES

References

Adams, G. R., Gullotta, T., & Clancy, M. A. (1985). Homeless adolescents: A descriptive study of similarities and differences between runaways and throwaways. Adolescence, 20(79), 715-723.

Baizerman, M. (1990). If "out of sight, out of mind," then "in sight and in mind?" The Child Care Worker, 8, 4-5.

Bernstein, A., & Gray, M. (1991). Khaya lethu: An arbortive attempt at dealing

with street children. Social Work, 27(1), 5058. CCIPS/ICWF-Childhope. (1992). Children on Jakarta's streets. Study report on street children in Senen Area, Central Jakarta. Cemane, K B. (1990). The street child phenomenon. Social Work Practice, 90(1), 2-5.

Childhope. (1993). The street children of Asia. A publication made possible by a grant of UNICEF East Asia and Pacific Regional Office. Childhope, ASIA. (1992). Street children. Childhope Asia, May-June 1992. Cruz, V. P. (1992). Field visit to Cambodia June 7-13, 1992. Unpublished

report.

Drake, E. (1989). Street children in other countries. The Child Care Worker, 7(7), 14-15

References

Forrest, B., Tyler, S. L., Tyler, J. J., & Echeverry, M. C. Z. (1986). A preventative psychosocial approach for working with street children. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, August 22-26,1986. Washington, DC.

Gebers, P. E. (1990). Health of street children in Cape Town. The Child Care

Worker, 8(9), 11-14.

Keen, C. P. (1992). Street girls-A Malaysian perspective. Proceedings of Regional Workshop on Intervention Programs for Street Girls, including characteristics of Sexual Exploitation. Manila: Childhope. Nye, I., & Edelbrock, C. (1980). Introduction: Some social characteristics of runaways. Journal of Family Introduction: 1, 147-150 Peacock, R. (1989). Die manlike swart straatkind:Nverkennende psigokriminol*uerke ondersoek. Ongepubliseerde M. A.-verhandeling. Pretoria: Universiteit van Pretoria.

Pines, N. J. (1986). Street children-Four perspectives. Institute for the Study of Man in Africa, 40, 1.

References

Richter, L. M. (1988). Street children: The nature and scope of the problem in Southern Africa. The Child Care Worker, 6(7), 11-14. Richter, L. M. (1989). Descriptions of self, family and society given by street children in Johannesburg. Paper presented at the 7th National Congress of the South African Association for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines March 29-31, 1989. Cape Town. Santaputra, S., Wathanavongs, A., & Thaiarry, S. (1990). Street children in Thailand. Unpublished research report. Thailand: Bangkok. Swart, J. M. (1988). An anthropological study of street children in Hillbrow, Johannesburg, with special reference to their moral values. Unpublished M. A. dissertation. Pretoria: University of South Africa. UNICEF. (1986). Exploitation of working and street children. Unpublished paper (E/ICEF/1986).

Xiang, G. (1990). Strategies for helping Chinese truant children. Proceedings

of Regional Workshop. Manila: Childhope.

YANGON UNICEF. (1992). Myanmar children in exceptionally difficult circumstances. Unpublished manuscript.