Derek Hemenway, December 1996
for Dr. George Papagiannis, EDF 5850
Florida State University
Introduction
The phenomenon of street children is rapidly becoming one of global epic proportions. Ten years ago, UNICEF estimated that over 30 million children worldwide (Agnelli, 1986, p. 33) work and/or live in the streets, for circumstances usually beyond their control, and often without family support. Current estimates of street children worldwide number in the hundreds of millions (Street Children, 1992; Easton et al, 1994; G. Papagiannis, personal communication, 1996). If war refugees are included, such as those from Bosnia, Rwanda, or Somalia, the figure may be even higher. Estimates in the early nineties for Latin America alone are 40 to 50 million, and in India 44 million (Street Children, 1992, p. 6). The levels of street children are expected to continue increasing with the rise in population, labor migration, and urbanization, and with continued decline in economic conditions and increases in poverty and deterioration in family relations (Blanc, 1994, p. 325).
Street children are not limited to the developing world. Perhaps every industrialized country has its runaways and orphans. In nineteenth century Europe street children were written about in the famous novels Oliver Twist and Les Miserables (Agnelli, 1986, p 45.). In the mid-1800’s articles appeared in newspapers and about “street Arabs” (Williams, 1993, p. 831). In Nobody’s Child, Christina Noble (1994) describes how her life as a street child in mid-twentieth century Ireland led to her work with street children in Vietnam. More recently, in the United States declining economic conditions in the 1980’s and subsequent homelessness increased the number of street children (Blanc, 1994, p. 341). In my own brief experience working with minority children and young adults at an inner-city recreation center in the Northeast United States, I found that many of the center’s clients were involved in street life to some degree (Hemenway, 1991). At least one young man lived on the streets. Finally, in parts of the former Soviet Union the increase in poverty from economic collapse has contributed to the conditions that give rise to the emergence of street children (PANGAEA, 1996).
Problems faced by street children are overwhelming. In addition to living and working in environments that are generally harmful to their well-being, street children face problems such as hunger, lack of adequate shelter, clothes, and other basic needs, as well as lack of (or limited) educational opportunities, health care, and other social services. Approximately 75 percent of all street children live at home, but the remaining 25 percent spend all or most of their time on the street (Street Children, 1992, p. 6). These latter children, in addition to suffering from the problems mentioned above, are also victims of drug addiction, general exploitation, criminal acts, sexual abuse, and sometimes frighteningly high levels of violence (Street Children, 1992; Oliveira et al, 1992).
Although traditional assistance programs and social services attempt to meet the needs of street children, many children still remain outside of the “institutional box” and “fall through the cracks” (Street Children, 1992, p. 1). In fact, as the widely publicized murders of street children in Brazil indicate, interventions concerning the street children problem are sometimes frighteningly dehumanizing. After exploring definitions of street children, their situations, their needs, and some interventions designed to help them, I discuss the position of education in relation to the needs of street children.
Definitions
Aptekar (1994), Lusk (1992), and Ortiz et al (1992) point out the lack of a standard definition of street children. Cosgrove (1990) in developing a “working definition”, points out the pressing need to define the situation in order place it on the agendas of policymakers. Relying on two factors, degree of family involvement and degree of deviant behavior, he proposes a definition that defines street children as “any individual under the age of majority whose behavior is predominantly at variance with community norms for behavior and whose primary support...is not a family or family substitute” (p. 192). As Aptekar (1994) notes, however, this definition assumes that degree of family involvement and deviant behavior are the same cross-culturally; yet in India, entire families (the “pavement dwellers”) live and work on the streets, and often life on the street may be better for a child than life in an abusive home. Also, the implication of “deviant behavior” is questionable for children who may be forced to commit petty crimes in order to obtain basic necessities. Unfortunately such attitudes have been the prevailing ones in public policy and general public perceptions of street children. Perhaps this definition is more fitting to the North American context for which Cosgrove may have intended it.
The Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) of the Philippine government uses a somewhat broader definition, stating that street children are those “who live or spend a significant amount of time in the streets of urban areas to fend for themselves and their families and are inadequately protected, supervised, and cared for by responsible adults.” (Balanon, 1989, p. 160). Perhaps the definition that best approaches a standard is the broad one given by the UN: “any girl or boy...for whom the street in the widest sense of the word (including unoccupied dwellings, wasteland, etc.) has become his or her habitual abode and/or source of livelihood, and who is inadequately protected, supervised, or directed by responsible adults” (Ortiz et al, 1992, p. 406).
Finally, as Easton et al (1994) point out, actual children “of the street” are only the “tip of the iceberg”, with larger amounts of exploited children and adolescents worldwide who work in situations harmful to their health and well-being. Voice of America’s Linda Cashdan notes that “more than 250-million children between the ages of five and 14 are working today, despite laws in most countries prohibiting child labor” (as cited in J. Walenci, personal communication, December 6, 1996).
Typologies
Due to the inadequacies in attempts at defining street children, and in order to more accurately design interventions, researchers have turned their attention to developing classifications and typologies of street children. UNICEF introduced the idea of a range between children ‘in’ or ‘on’ the streets -- those who live with or maintain contact with their families; and children ‘of’ the streets -- those for whom the street has become their home (Ortiz et al, 1992; Aptekar, 1994; Williams, 1993). Lusk (1992) in a discussion of street children in Rio de Janeiro uses four categories along this continuum. The first, family-based street workers describes those children least alienated from traditional social structures, who work in the street, but mainly to support their families, with whom they live. They may attend school and have a low level of criminal involvement and drug use. Independent street workers, by contrast, have lower levels of family contact and have begun to live on the streets occasionally. Children of the streets are those who have no family contacts (they often runaways, orphaned, or abandoned). They are alienated from social institutions, such as schools; and may make their living illegally, while also being victims of crimes and sexual abuse. Finally, children of street families are those whose families are in fact living and/or working in street situations. These are the “pavement dwellers” of India, and many of the “favela” slum residents in Brazil.
Blanc presents a “visible-invisible” model: “visible” refers to children who are easily seen engaged in street occupations in the informal economy, while “invisible” refers to children in more hidden yet exploitative circumstances, for example as domestic servants, factory workers, and other child laborers; or compelled into prostitution or other illegal trades. Although street children are primarily boys, it is in this second “invisible” category that many street girls are found.
Conditions and causes: poverty and exploitation
Street life is inevitably harsh, but for children it is devastating. Not only are they without basic necessities such as nutrition, shelter, health care, and education, they also face exploitation and possible victimization to crime, drug addiction (especially with glue and other inhalants). Here are some brief but descriptive accounts of the lives of street children: ·
Krishna is a 15 year old from India who left his home after being violently abused by his older brother. After repeated institutionalization, he now tries to earn a living with other juvenile shoeshiners and taxi cleaners in Bombay -- when the police don’t arrest them. (Agnelli, 1986, pp. 30-31). ·
A 12 year old girl in Bombay who has migrated from a rural village from her family is sent out to beg when they have nothing left. One night she returns wearing perfume and lipstick, with money in her hands for her parents. (Knutsson, 1986, p. xiii). ·
Christina Noble who works with the street children of Vietnam describes how two young bui doi girls (street children) eat ants to stave off hunger pains (Noble, 1994, p. 9). ·
In Senegal, young religious students who have migrated with their teachers from rural areas are forced to beg to support themselves and their schools (Diouf-Kamara, 1995). ·
Paula, a young lady originally from rural Mississippi, experienced sexual abuse from her stepfather (who was also the local minister) and church members, and was eventually abandoned by her family. Now she works as a prostitute in New York City (Lundy, 1995, p. 67).
Estimates describe the majority of street children as being “on the street” rather than “of the street”, i.e. working but living or maintaining contact with families (Street Children, 1992; Lusk 1992, Ortiz et al, 1992). Due to forces beyond their control, street children are placed in situations in which they must be responsible for their own survival and/or the survival of family members. Despite these conditions, street children are “suprisingly resilient” (Lusk, 1992, p. 297). Typical activities street children engage in to make a living range from begging, scavenging, selling merchandise, shoeshining, guarding cars, to more abusive or exploitative activities such as child labor, drug dealing, and prostitution.
Child prostitution is a particularly prevalent and devastating worldwide phenomenon, affecting primarily girls. According to Gabriele Stoikov of the International Labor Organization, one million children in Asia alone are victims of the sex trade and child prostitution is increasing in Africa and in Latin America: "These girls are extremely difficult to rehabilitate. The damage done to them goes beyond what we can imagine. When a little girl of six, seven, eight, has started prostituting herself, by the age of 10 she may have died from AIDS, because usually they are not protected like the adults” (as cited in J. Walenci, personal communication, December 6, 1996).
Causal factors contributing to the emergence of street children are as varied and as interdependent as definitions and classifications. A large body of research, however, suggests a root cause of poverty and unequal distribution of wealth. For example, Espinola et al in their study of street children in Asuncion (as cited in Ortiz et al, 1992) found that 62 percent of families did not have regular or guaranteed income. Lusk (1992) points out that in Brazil the top 10 percent income bracket earns over half of all income, while the lowest 20 percent of workers earn only two percent (p. 295). Thus, as Lusk argues, street children “are on the streets to work and earn money because there is not enough at home or because they have no other alternative” (p. 296).
Many other factors stem from (and are often consequences of) poverty, such as rural-to-urban labor migration, family crises and breakdown, and abuse. The pressure families must feel in trying to make ends meet leads to situations like this one: While trying to persuade a man to lessen the beatings on his children, Paulo Freire was told: “There are nine of us...when I get home from work, all of them are crying, from hunger, or cold, or sickness...I have to get up...at four o’clock...I simply must get some sleep...there’s no other way...” (Agnelli, 1986, p. 48).
Although often only symptoms of larger causes in developing countries, abuse and family breakdown seem to be major causes of street and runaway children in industrial countries like the US and Ireland (Lundy, 1994; Noble, 1994). Aptekar (1994) reports that “nearly 80% of American runaways have been physically or sexually abused” (p. 206). By contrast, only 20% of all Latin American street children are on the streets because of physical or sexual abuse. Aptekar discusses a related causal factor, the psychological status of street children, in contributing to their assuming street roles, through an attraction to the “street culture”. This hypothesis would seem to be more applicable to the developed world context. Lastly, Aptekar postulates the causal role of culture, as some cultures “make it quite easy for children to become street children; others make it impossible.” (1994, p. 209).
Natural disasters, famine, and wars also contribute to the displacement of children and families, driving children to urban areas to seek sustenance. In war torn Rwanda, children whose entire families have been decimated congregate in the capital city Kigali to develop survival strategies (Spry-Leverton, 1995). Finally, it should be noted that these causal factors are often combined and intertwined, as the brief stories above indicate.
Intervention approaches
Ortiz et al (1992), although referring specifically to Latin America, describe the situation of much of the intervention literature. They cite the “...lack of a clear definition of the problem, its complex causes, the lack of ‘a solution’ and the uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of different and sometimes contradictory interventions...” (p. 405). However, they present Lusk’s (1989) four categories of interventions based on different levels of street use mentioned above: correctional (containment, institutionalization), rehabilitative (cure), outreach (street education), and prevention. Correctional measures refer to those which see street children as the problem and remove them from the streets to ‘correct’ them, usually in institutional settings. Rehabilitative approaches see street children as needy and attempt to support them by providing basic services and perhaps counseling. Outreach programs, such as street education, find social structures at fault and try, by meeting street children on their home ground, to educate and empower them to find collective solutions to problems. Finally, preventative approaches, like outreach programs, view social structures and forces as being the main causes of street children and attempt to directly influence social change. Public stereotypes and violence Interventions, however, have been highly criticized. For example, as Ortiz et al conclude, rehabilitative services, while of high short-term value, only serve in the long run to maintain the child’s situation, rather than to create better opportunities or to prevent street children in the first place. Gigengack (1994) is less kind in his criticism, where he questions the real rational behind such policies, grouping the first three approaches as “doctrines” resulting from a “hegemonic discourse” of street children, in which views that do not conform to the an image of street children’s “wildness” are excluded (p. 384). He sees a “child care industry” represented in the form of correctional and rehabilitative institutions created by the state and the elite once the effects of poverty begin to affect them through the emergence of street children (p. 383). Rather than “correcting” or “rehabilitating” children, these institutions serve to produce social hate and “collective oblivion” (p. 389). Interventions often even serve dehumanizing and repressive functions. For example, all too often “correctional” means imprisonment. It is interesting to note that 85% of Sao Paulo’s prison population are former street children (Street Children, 1992, p. 62). Brazilian “FEBEMs”, governmental institutions for young people in “irregular circumstances” characterized by institutional violence and poor living conditions (Dewees and Klees, 1995), were no doubt partly responsible for this type of “correction” and “rehabilitation.” Such measures illustrate the public image of street children. Often names for street children display the contempt in which they are often held by the public. In Vietnam, street children are known as bui doi, “the dust of life” (Noble, 1994, p. 7). In Rwanda, they are saligoman, “nasty/dirty kid” (Agnelli, 1986, p. 33). Interventions have been characterized by this attitude of street children as a “public nuisance”. In the U.S. between 1853 and 1890, a policy of removal was used as 90,000 street children were shipped by train from the Northeast to the Midwest and placed in foster homes as farm hands (Agnelli, 1986, p. 46). Perhaps the worst “intervention” in the street children problem is elimination. Although not categorized in the literature (perhaps since it has not yet been proven to be formally sanctioned by the state), its widespread appearance nevertheless frighteningly reveals an almost official policy. Not content with killing them, the level of violence some street children are subjected to by organized eliminators is appalling. Marilyn Rocky of Childhope USA (as cited in Street Children, 1992, p. 6) testified before the U.S. Congress that Guatemala’s street children were being actively pursued by death squads, tortured, killed, and mutilated. Some incidents in Guatemala and Brazil describe the situation all to well: On July 25, 1993 in Rio de Janeiro, approximately 50 street children were sleeping next to a downtown church when they were shot by a group of gunmen. Four boys died, a fifth was killed as he ran away, and two more were shot nearby. Members of the military police were arrested for the crime. Supposedly, some children had earlier thrown stones at military police when they detained a child for glue sniffing. (Dewees and Klees, 1995, p. 91).
On September 22, 1994, in Guatemala City, Guatemala, a 12 year old child was begging for chicken in front of Pollo Campero, Zone 15. He was given a bag by two unidentified men, which contained a bomb. It blew him to pieces. (Streetkid-L).
These episodes illustrate briefly the practice of systematic elimination of street children, and reflect deep public views of contempt. In an environment such as this it is no wonder that many so-called “interventions” are failures and in fact may worsen the problem and alienate the victims. Different viewpoints In their study of Brazilian street children and their “service providers”, Oliveira et al (1992) present an interesting contrast between the children’s views of themselves and service providers views of them. The majority of the children expressed positive attitudes: they thought of themselves as “good persons” (65%), more than half wanted to leave the streets and assume normal lives with families, jobs, etc., and almost all (78%) felt they would “make it” (pp. 167-168). The majority (65%) of service providers, however, felt that street children have a negative view of themselves. In their comments, service providers revealed common stereotypes of street children: they lack perspective and aspirations; they revolt against society; they are immediatist, living day-to-day; they devalue honest social achievement; and they lack willpower and discipline. The authors attempt to uncover the real meanings behind these responses. First, children may tell the service providers what they think they want to hear. Secondly, street children revolt because educational and job opportunities are not there for them. Thirdly, street children are immediatist not because of personality disorders but rather because of needing basic necessities in desperate circumstances. Fourth, although children may learn to be dishonest from institutionalization and street life, dishonesty is often found in at all levels of Brazilian life, so street children should not be treated as an aberration. Finally, street children lack willpower and discipline precisely because of the disorderly and dysfunctional environment in which they find themselves. Overall, the service providers responses reflect the prevailing social habit of “blaming the victims for their condition”(pp. 170-171). Public stereotypes, created by politicians, media, police, and the public at large have the effect of justifying inappropriate, detrimental, or even violent interventions described above. This response in turn exacerbates the problem by creating further distances between society and the culture of street children. Street children and education
How does education fit into the picture? Formal schooling can often alienate the very youth whom it is serving. As one street youth in New York City puts it, “...what happens is that we were never reached. I was never reached...somehow, somebody didn’t get to me...the school was a world I didn’t relate to.” (Foley 1983, p. 14). Thus, context-specific strategies for street children should be developed. Chris Williams (1993) developed a “hierarchy of street use” to illustrate different educational and general welfare interventions at different levels. He proposes four categories: beneficial street use when street use is not necessarily harmful, in such cases as temporary runaways, children in families of the street; assumed adulthood status when street children are forced prematurely into adult roles and responsibilities; school exclusion those students who are interested in learning but alienated from or “pushed out” of schools, and degenerative estrangement those individuals who have become alienated or marginalized from society and have assumed complete street roles. William’s sees three goals for education and welfare in relation to this hierarchy: 1) To change the condition of those in degenerative estrangement, with the aim of changing attitudes about drug use, unnecessary crime, and continued street life, possibly through street educators.
2) To change the capabilities of those in school exclusion and assumed adulthood status, with the aim of improving working skills.
3) To change the awareness of those in beneficial street use with the aim of encouraging preventing further street use.
Welfare measures such as correction and rehabilitation may be used as last resorts at the lower end of the hierarchy, while educational programs, although employed at all levels, tend to have a preventative function at the higher end. Alternative programs Alternative educational programs begin at the outreach intervention level. They may be non-traditional and supportive: adapting to different needs (work, family, gender), perhaps beginning in the children’s environment (“street educators”), aiming at economic self-sufficiency and including vocational components while simultaneously offering preparation for moving into (or returning to) the formal educational system. Here are a few brief descriptions of some alternative programs aimed at street children: One innovative program for street children in South Africa is Street-Wise, which combines general welfare and accommodation, education, and job training to help street children gain in. Street-Wise attempts to meet this goal through providing: outreach and welfare programs, accommodation, uniting of children with families or foster homes, relevant schooling (remedial, life skills, and preparation for formal education), job training, and post graduate assistance (Le Roux, 1994). The Street School for Street Children project in the Philippines attempts to “take children out of the streets and into the street schools” (Balanon, 1989, p. 162). Its general goals are to provide: protection of exploited children, prevention of street relapse, social, physical, spiritual, and economical development of children, preparation for formal schooling, and assistance in job hunting. Its main method is street education (through mobile units). One interesting thing to note about this program is the high level of state involvement. It was initiated at the national level by the Department of Social Welfare and Development, and teachers and teaching materials are supplied by the Department of Education (p. 163). A well known program is the Undugu Society of Kenya, formed in response to the situation of Nairobi’s “parking boys”. Originally designed as a “school for life” offering literacy, vocational training, and recreational activities, then as a system providing employment creation and community development, the Undugu Society has evolved into a large and complex organization attempting to ameliorate the root problem of poverty through empowerment and social transformation (Mutuku and Mutiso, 1994, p. 247; Easton et al, 1994, 33-45). A recent program (1992) targeted at street girls provides temporary accommodation, school scholarships, and counseling, as well as non-formal activities such as camping and mountain climbing designed to build character and self-worth (Mutuku and Mutiso, 1994, p. 254). Finally, at the Epiphany Center for street children in Brooklyn, personality development is stressed. The center uses a policy of self-referral and stresses self-control, respect for materials, encouraging creativity, and the development of positive images of adults. An underlying guideline is that “the program has to fit the child, not the child the program...” (Foley, 1983, p. 5). The policy level: challenging stereotypes A common theme of these examples is that they are all designed with the children in mind. In fact, street children are often involved in the development of such programs. Also, due to circumstances in which street children live and work, educational efforts are integrated or coordinated with other programs such as social services, community development, and income-generating activities. The increased effectiveness of interventions for street children, however, is in the end dependent upon support at national and international policymaking levels. The above mentioned example in the Philippines was brought about as a result of new constitutional mandates in 1986 at the end of the Marcos regime which coordinated governmental departments and NGOs to turn increased attention to the welfare of street children (Balanon, 1989, p. 160). Brazil’s 1988 adoption of new constitutional mandates legislation on children’s’ rights and the subsequent approval in 1989 of the Child and Adolescent Statute brought new attention to the plight of street children, although the Statute has yet to be implemented successfully (Dewees and Klees, 1995). In South Africa in 1992 members of the International Children’s Summit approved the Children’s Charter of South Africa (ANC, 1996) . Finally, at the international level, in 1990 UNICEF began the ratification process of its Convention on the Rights of the Child. All but six countries have ratified it (UNICEF, 1996). A key factor in increasing support depends upon redefining public stereotypes that dehumanize street children, perhaps through developing initiatives aimed towards increasing the awareness of the conditions of street children, and ways in which the public can be involved in alleviating them. Such advocacy initiatives may often come directly from the children and supporting groups. For example the National Street Children’s Movement in Brazil was instrumental in publicizing the situation of street children, through the signing and presentation to the National Assembly of petitions (Blanc, 1994, p. 393). The Children’s Charter of South Africa was created by over 200 child delegates from different parts of the country. Stereotypes can also be reshaped through more non-traditional means. Olodum (a name for “God” in traditional Afro-Brazilian religion) from Salvador, Brazil, went from being a local Carnival group in the late 1980’s to becoming an international superstar which has worked with celebrities such as Michael Jackson, Paul Simon, and Spike Lee. The group is also active in socio-economic change for their community, operating a factory where they make drums, costumes, and other items which they sell to the public. Olodum also runs and sponsors a school for Salvador's underprivileged children in which academic and arts courses are taught to facilitate self-esteem and economic ascension (Rodigues, 1993; Narin 1996). Through these efforts the organization has become not only an institution of service for street children in Brazil, but also their advocate and an educator to the larger international public. Conclusions The emergence of policy level legislation and international activities concerning improved welfare for street children is encouraging. If inaccurate societal perceptions about street children can be turned around, communities stand a chance of being reinvigorated. In Nicaragua in August 1979 (at the end of the civil war) there were 70,000 street children. Only six months later that number had decreased to about 25,000. A town councilor of Esteli remarked: “We were determined that not one of our children would have to leave us and that not one of our children would be without a family. All of us in Esteli are each child’s family...” (Agnelli, 1986, p. 68). All members of society must be able to see the human being among those who are different or in harsh circumstances if we are to live together.
References
Agnelli, S. (1986). Street Children: A Growing Urban Tragedy. London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson.
Aptekar, L. (1994). Street children in the developing world: A review of their condition. In Cross-Cultural Research, 28 (3): 195-224.
Balanon, L. (1989). Street children: Strategies for action. Child Welfare, 68 (2): 159-166.
Blanc, C. (1994). Urban Children in Distress: Global Predicaments and Innovative Strategies. Gordon and Breach.
Cosgrove, J. (1990). Towards a working definition of street children. International Social Work, 33: 185-192.
Dewees, A., Klees, S. (1995). Social movements and the transformation of national policy: Street and working children in Brazil. Comparative Education Review, 39 (1): 76-100.
Diouf-Kamara, S. (1995). Senegal upgrades its Koranic schools. UNICEF Features Service [On-line]. Available: http://www.unicef.org/features/feat143.htm
Easton, P., Klees, S., Milton, S., Papagiannis, G., Clawson, A., DeWees, T., Hobson, H., Lyons, B., Munter, J. (1994). Asserting the Educational Rights of Street and Working Children: Lessons from the Field. Report submitted to UNICEF, Urban Section: New York.
Foley, M. (1983). Coping strategies of street children. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, :5-20.
Gigengack, R. (1994). Social practices of juvenille survival and mortality: Child care arrangements in Mexico City. Community Development Journal, 29 (4): 380-393.
Hemenway, D. (1990). “...Cause I can’t learn from the system of my nation...”: Interpersonal relationships and student motivation at a western Massachusetts urban alternative learning center. Unpublished manuscript, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
International Children’s Summit. (1992). The Children’s Charter of South Africa. ANC [On-line]. Available: http://www.anc.org.za/misc/childcht.html
Knutsson, K. (1994). The poor make the city work: Can the city work for the poor? In C. S. Blanc (ed.), Urban Children in Distress: Global Predicaments and Innovative Strategies (preface). Gordon and Breach.
Le Roux, J. (1994). Street-Wise: Towards a relevant education system for street children in South Africa. Education and Society, 12 (2), 63-68.
Lundy, K. (1995). “Sidewalks Talk”: A Naturalistic Study of Street Kids. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc.
Lusk, M. (1989). Street children programs in Latin America. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 16 (1): 55-77.
Lusk, M. (1992). Street children of Rio de Janeiro. International Social Work, 35 (3): 293-305.
Mutuku, M., Mutiso, R. (1994). Kenya: The urban threat for women and children. In C. S. Blanc (ed), Urban Children in Distress: Global Predicaments and Innovative Strategies (pp. 217-258). Gordon and Breach.
Narin, A. (1996). Olodum [On-line]. Available: http://www.narin.com/olodum/
Noble, C., Coram, R. (1994). Nobody’s Child: A Woman’s Abusive Past and the Inspiring Dream that Led Her to Rescue the Street Children of Saigon. New York: Grove Press.
de Oliveira, W., Baizerman, M., Pellet, L. (1992). Street children in Brazil and their helpers: Comparative views on aspirations and the future. International Social Work, 35: 163-176.
Ortiz de Carrizosa, S., Poertner, J. (1992). Latin American street children: Problem, programmes, and critique. International Social Work, 35: 405-413.
PANGAEA. (1995). Street Children: Russia. PANGAEA [On-line]. Available: http://www.tc.umn.edu/nlhome/m027/bonzi/kids/russia/russia.htm
Rodrigues, J. (1993, April). Olodum. Speech given at the Center for Latin American Studies “Black Brazil” Conference, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
Spry-Leverton, J. (1995). Rwanda's street children live by their wits--and a little help. UNICEF Features Service [On-line]. Available: http://www.unicef.org/features/feat163.htm
Street children: A global disgrace. Hearing before the Select Committee on Hunger, House of Representatives, 102d Cong., 1st Sess. (1992).
Street Children Memorial Page. Streetkid-L [On-line]. Available: http://www.jbu.edu/business/sk.html
UNICEF. (1996). About the Convention. UNICEF [On-line]. Available: http//www.unicef.org/crc/conven.htm
Williams, C. (1993). Who are “street children?” A hierarchy of street use and appropriate responses. Child Abuse and Neglect, 17: 831-841.