Microfinance and street children: is microfinance an appropriate tool to address the street children issue ?

CHAPTER 1: The Street Children Issue
What do we know about street children?

Key points: defining street children is a difficult task; the «ON/OFF» terminology of UNICEF, based on the relationship the child has with his/her family, is a useful one but some grey areas exist. About their characteristics, the majority of them are boys, still have their families, and work on the informal part of the economy. They are vulnerable, but their capacities in terms of adaptability, peer support and moral principles are high.

The causes of the street children issue are multiple, and we need to analyze it by using a multifactoral model which takes into account all the parameters. Finally, intervening in the street children life needs a subject oriented approach, which takes into account its capacities and which perceive them as capable human beings who know what they want and what they need.

«The task of identifying, with any real precision, all the

factors which define who is and who is not a street child is difficult, given the relative lack of systematic study of the phenomenon. If the complexities of the cultural variations are considered, the task is probably beyond the limits of current technology as well. What is possible is to select key indicators for each of the dimensions» (Cosgrove, 1990, quoted in UNCHS, 2000: 73)

1. DEFINING STREET CHILDREN

Street Children are a diverse and heterogeneous population, because of the diversity of their backgrounds and personal history, leading therefore to diverse definitions, and to a plethora of debates.

The term "street children" was first used by Henry Mayhew in 1851 when writing London Labour and the London Poor^4(*), although it came into general use only after the United Nations year of the child in 1979 (Scanlon and al, 1998). In 1983, the Inter-NGO Programme for Street Children and Street Youth was defining street children as^5(*):

«Any girl or boy who has not reached adulthood, for whom the street (in the broadest sense of the word, including unoccupied dwellings, wasteland, etc) has become her or his habitual abode or source of livelihood, and who is inadequately protected, supervised or directed by responsible adults» (Hatloy and Huser, 2005; Ennew, 2000).

In the late 80's, witnessing the diversity characterizing street children, other definitions began to emerge, mainly in Latin America, where street children made a huge apparition on the public area. The most common definition which gained credibility among practitioners and academics is the «ON/OF terminology» of UNICEF (1986).^6(*)

The terminology suggests dividing street children into two main categories: «children of the streets» and «children on the streets, the distinction being mainly based on the degree of «disconnection» to their family.

«Children of the streets» are children (i.e. persons under 18 years old) who work and live on the streets without family support, the street being therefore a place for living 24/7 (24 hours a day, 7 days a week);

«Children on the streets» work on the streets and spend most of the time there, but return back to their families/relatives at night, the street being therefore their major point of reference

These two definitions are useful as long as their limitations are taken into account (O'Connor, 2003). Indeed, the complexity of the phenomenon means that overlaps and grey areas exist (Hatloy and Huser, 2005).

Those «grey areas» are present in both categories. For example, some «children of the streets» may have cut all contacts with their family, and others may still visit their family once in a while before returning to the street.

On the other hand, some «children on the streets» may alternate between street and home, sometime sleeping at home, sometime in the streets, and some may stay with distant relatives (and not their parents).

Finally, one particular category, found for example in Bangladesh and India, is the children living in the pavement with their families, the street being their «home» and their family being present, creating therefore categorizing problems. So, both categories do contain diversity and «grey areas» exist, leading therefore local organisations to adapt the definition to their local context (see Box 1.1) and some experts to define «new categories», some speaking for example of `children for the street', who comprise `candidates for the street who live in the slums and suffer from family break-up, abuse, and who do not go to school' (Dunford, 1996).^7(*)

Box 1.1. : Some operational definitions

In Mongolia...

In 1994, the National Children's Committee in Mongolia organized a national conference on street children, involving representatives from Parliament, the Ministry of Science and Education, Juvenile Police Department, Juvenile Prison, the Aimag Centers for Children, as well as the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) and Save the Children, United Kingdom (UK). The conference adopted three categories of street children:

1. Children who work on the streets during the day, but who maintain links with the family and who usually return to their homes in the evening;

2. Children who have some contact with their families, but who spend most of their time on the streets, especially during warm seasons; and

1. Children who have lost contact with their families and live permanently on the street.

In Vietnam...

The work of Tim Bond, in the early 90's influences a tripartite categorization of street children.

1. Category A: children who have left home and family, or have no home or family, and who sleep on the street;

2. Category B: children who sleep on the street with their family or guardian; and

3. Category C: children who have a family or guardian

From West (2003)

However, as pointed by Volpi (2002), «many agencies argue that these definitions may be inappropriate because it does not reflect the interconnected dimensions of child vulnerability». Indeed, a «street child» may be part of many «categories» of children-at-risk, having therefore a set of diverse characteristics depending on the category with which the street child is connected: working child, school dropout, or a homeless boy or girl. So, «street children» is a convenient umbrella description, but has the danger of hiding the high diversity that it contains.

Moreover, UNICEF (2006) warns about another danger and points out how this label may be stigmatizing. Sarah Thomas de Benitez^8(*) claims for example that «the label `street children' is demeaning in itself as it depersonalizes each child, making him/her a `problem to be solved», and nothing else. The greatest problems such children face is therefore their demonization by mainstream society as a threat and a source of criminal behaviour (UNICEF, 2006).

For example, in Bangladesh, street children are either called Tokai (child ragpickers), even if they are street vendors, or either Kangali (see Box 1.2.)

Box.1.2.: Being stigmatized...

`They [mainstream society] call us kangali and they say to us: `What are you doing on the street? Go back home, find yourself a good job, don't dishonour your family' .... But we are not kangali, ... we are working for living and we also do many other good things'.

Arif - 15 years old boy

From Conticini (2004)

Considering all these elements, we can point out that a «typical» street child is difficult to define; however, all the previous definitions do indicate that a street child has «a special relationship to the street, among other domains of their lives» (Glauser, 1990; Lucchini, 1996; Connolly and Ennew, 1996). However, Lucchini (1997) and Ennew (2003) warn to be cautious on the way «street» is defined and indicate that it is only one domain among others (such as family homes, schools, welfare programmes, etc) and has a variety of meanings and connotations in different contexts. Indeed, street children's world cannot be distinguished between «home» and «street», and it is necessary to unpack the hidden assumptions in the way we use the words «child», «family», «home» and «street» (Ennew, 2000).

Finally, one consequence of the difficulty in the definition of the term is the inability of governments and aid agencies to quantify their exact numbers. UNICEF (2006: 40) estimates them at tens of millions worldwide and indicates that their number may be growing as the global population, the urbanization and the poverty grow. However, Ennew (2000:37) points out that the few estimates coming here and there in some reports «have no validity or basis in fact» (Ennew, 2000: 37).

* ⁴ « In the 1840's he observed, documented and described the state of working people in London for a series of articles in a newspaper, the Morning Chronicle. The articles go into deep, almost pedantic detail concerning the trades, habits, religion and domestic arrangements of the thousands of people working the streets of the city» (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Labour_and_the_London_Poor)

* ⁵ Inter-NGO Program on Street Children and Street Use (1983), «Document 83/23-SC/35., International Catholic Child Bureau. Geneva», reference quoted in Blackman (2001)

* ⁶ UNICEF (1986), «Children in especially difficult circumstances: Exploitation of working and street children» in New York: United Nations Children Fund, quoted in LeRoux and Smith. (1998)

* ⁷ Quoted in Baker R.P. (1999)

* ⁸ Quoted in Kobayashi (2004)