Victimisation vulnerability of street (community) children

1Victimisation vulnerability of street (community) children

Robert Peacock

Fernanda Fonseca Rosenblatt

Core issues in this chapter

- A global and African occurrence

- The phenomenon of street children as symptomatic of structural victimisation

- Victimisation vulnerability of street children with specific reference to the macro

and micro environments

- Legal framework and Restorative interventions

-

Key terms

discrimination

negative labelling

marginalisation

survival sex

street situation

Introduction

The onset of the third millennium marked a worldwide antithesis to the very meaning of

childhood and social responsibility. Despite international instruments such as the United

Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), children remain symptom-bearers

of prejudice, discrimination and conflict. Violent acts towards children reflect violent

environments, and pervasive cultural values sanction a climate that is permissive to their

victimisation. In a landscape of hegemonic cultural practices, inferior social status is

assigned to physique in particular, rendering children vulnerable victims of state,

structural, institutional and interpersonal violence. With domination and supremacy as

culturally energised constructs, the following discussion will focus on the victimisation

1 This chapter appears in Peacock, R (2013). Victimology in South Africa. Pretoria: Van Schaik.

vulnerability of street children, or maybe rather community children as they originate in

the first instance from communities and not the street. Also, they may still be attached

emotionally, socially and financially to their places of origin, despite their current street-

involvement.

Conceptualisation

Language has been identified as a source of inequitable distribution of power (Brown,

Esbensen & Geis, 2001). Those who control language control the “truth” and this is

especially true in the case of community children who are often labelled as “deviants”

and “outcasts”, conveniently pushed to the margins of state and societal responsibility, in

all likelihood to avoid possible “contamination”. Terminology such as “street children” as

well as other labels associated with this phenomenon invoke self-righteous middle-class

values stressing cultural differences in concepts of family life and home values as well as

the need for moral “reform”. For instance, street children are labelled as “young vultures”

(South Africa), “dust of life” (Vietnam), “bed bugs” (Colombia), “street gangs”

(Mexico), “fruit birds” (Peru), “mosquitoes” (Cameroon) or “nasty kids” (Rwanda).

Other names include “hopeless”, “parasites” and “thieves” (Smith, 1996:147).

In the social exclusion paradigm, street children are also viewed as a homogeneous

dispossessed mass which has fallen through support networks and invokes further

stereotypes related to gender, ethnicity and age such as “all street girls are sex workers”

and “older dark-skinned males should be feared” (Panter-Brick, 2002:149; Svetlana,

2001:530).

A useful conceptual framework should not only acknowledge variation in identity but

also similarities and differences in the experiences of community children to whom the

street, in its widest broadest sense of the word, has become home, with the proviso that

the categories of street children are viewed as neither discrete, nor necessarily

homogeneous, and may not always coincide with children’s own views of their lives

(Benítez, 2011; Bush & Rizzini, 2011).

The most frequently used definition is that of UNICEF and refers to a street child as a

male or female under the age of eighteen:

[...] 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 (Glasser,

1994. p.54).

A global overview

A nomadic lifestyle and other factors such as poor social support systems render it

difficult to determine the exact number of children who globally have made the street

their home, but the estimated figure of 100 million is usually most cited (Benitez, 2007).

Historically, street children have been associated more with the cities of Latin America –

where estimates have put the numbers of these children as high as 50 million (Lusk,

1992). As for Brazil in particular, estimates, or rather guestimates have been as high as 30

million, which would suggest that, in 1994, more than half of all Brazilian children were

street children However, a recently released national census on street children in Brazil,

has counted a much smaller number of 23.973 children and adolescents in what they have

named are in ‘a street situation’ (SDH & IDEST, 2011). It should be noted, however, that

critics point out that the said census was fielded without adequate consultation with all

the stakeholders and was completed in a too limited time frame in order to fully develop

and implement an adequate methodology to obtain a reasonably complete count (Bush &

Rizzini, 2011: 30. On the Indian subcontinent, the street is estimated to be home to about

18 million children (Human Rights Watch, 1996). But this phenomenon is also present

elsewhere. It is especially in Africa, with its high fertility and mortality rates that are

often stuck in extreme poverty, where street children become daily the casualties of the

collapse of economies, social disorganisation, political instability, military solutions to

social ills, and diseases of poverty such as Aids, tuberculosis and cholera. According to

the United Nations Children’s Fund (2002:2) an estimated number of 7000 children were

for example, roaming the streets of post conflict Rwanda – one of the poorest nations in

the world – orphaned by war, genocide or Aids (United Nations Children’s Fund, 2002).

There is also an estimate of 12 000 street children in South Africa and around 21 000 in

Ghana (Consortium for Street Children, 2009).

The developing world is particularly vulnerable to market fluctuations and it was the

collapse of the currency of a country such as that of Indonesia that forced the poorest

onto the street and caused the abandonment of children (Amnesty International, 1999).

Due to economic strain, as in the case of Brazil, children live and work on the streets of

Haiti to supplement the meagre income of their families. Here it is conservatively

estimated that close to 500 000 of the country’s seven million people, are children who

are living and working on the streets of the major cities (D’Aubreu, Mullis & Cook,

2001; Kovats-Bernat, 2000). As a result of the current global economic slump, an

estimated 6 000 children live and sleep on the streets of the capital of Madagascar where

they receive no public services and face frequent police harassment, whereas the number

of a further estimated 75000 street children are on the rise in Manila, the capital of the

Philippines (Médecins Sans Frontières, 1998).

The end of communism also created conditions whereby there was no safety net for the

unemployed and disadvantaged members of society and cities such as Moscow, St

Petersburg, Kiev, Sophia and Bucharest – as elsewhere in the Eastern Bloc – are

experienced an unprecedented growth in the number of street children. For instance, it

has been estimated that there are one million homeless children in Russia alone (Jones,

2003; Amnesty International, 1999).

Although in developing countries the phenomenon of street children can reach far more

dramatic dimensions – in terms of both size and severity of the problem, street children

also occur in the New World (i.e. North and South America) and Europe (Panter-Brick,

2002:153). However, in Great Britain it has been argued that estimates of homeless

youths tend to be inflated by welfare agencies to legitimise their role, but also minimised

by bureaucratic institutions to sidestep legal or financial problems. Statistics are thus

manipulated and characterised by hidden agendas, but suffice to say that with current

global projections of a record number of 180 million people unemployed worldwide

(United Nations News, 2003a), it is likely that the street will increasingly become a place

of refuge (albeit paradoxically) to the marginalised and most vulnerable ones in our

respective societies.

In South Africa, apartheid and its associated total institutions (institutions of oppression,

exclusion and conflict) stratified the street child phenomenon according to race with the

highest incidence recorded amongst the African population, followed by the “strollers”

from the coloured community (Peacock, 1989; Schärf, 1988; Swart, 1988a). The legacy

of apartheid, and in particular apartheid capitalism, continues to reproduce social

inequality with the phenomenon of street children as symptomatic of class society

amplified by strain, frustration, multiple deprivations and experiences of recurrent

indignities.

Worldwide, the vast majority of street children are boys. Depending on the country,

estimates of the percentage of street girls range from as low as 3% to 30% (Wernham,

2004). Until recently, gender-defined roles, such as caring for siblings, kept girls at home

(Pilotti & Rizzini, 1994; Wernham, 2004). Furthermore, once girls are on the street,

authorities are more likely to intervene than in the case of their male counterparts (World

Health Organisation, 1996).

The typical age of a street child varies from place to place. In developing countries

children as young as eight live completely on their own, but in developed countries such

children are usually over the age of 12. In the developing world children as young as five

(or younger) living on the streets are usually the infants of homeless parents (Panter-

Brick, 2002; World Health Organisation, 1996).

CRIME AND VICTIMISATION RISK FACTORS

The economic deprivation of individuals and groups eventually produce chronic poverty

and overt conflict. However, one also needs to take into account emotional concomitants

of group traits and interaction. Intra- and intergroup prejudice and discrimination will

contribute to strain, rendering nationhood, ethnicity, gender, class and age as

interconnecting systems of difference, but belonging to a larger system of privilege and

inequality (Peacock, 2002). Political and institutional factors (state structure, elite politics

and discriminatory political systems), geography and demography may play important

parts in terms of the final manifestation of crime and victimisation, especially with

relation to problems of overpopulation, resource scarcity and underdevelopment in

general (Utterwulghe, 1999). Large-scale socio-political changes often cause the

disintegration of social and political systems, contributing to further imbalances of power

and societal pathology. We see, for instance, throughout history that whenever societies

are in turmoil there is usually an ascent in the numbers of street children (Peacock, 1994).

Changes in the political and economic arrangements in the post-communist countries

following the fall of the Berlin Wall (1989), transitions from right-wing rule to

democracy in Latin America, the aftermath of apartheid in South Africa (and economic

apartheid elsewhere), post-war turmoil and urban conflict, as well as the trauma of loss of

life and a family home are all variables making street children a common sight in

countries such as South Africa, Latvia, Romania, Tajikistan, Bosnia, Kashmir,

Afghanistan and Peru. Iraq can now also be added to the latest list of casualties. A million

refugees from former Yugoslavia’s multifaceted conflict were under the age of 18,

highlighting also the worldwide plight of 25 million people displaced in their own

countries (Children’s Rights Worldwide, 1994; United Nations News, 2003).

In a climate of socio-economic deprivation and political turmoil, children are often

devalued in economic terms. For instance, in Guatemala (where 70% of the population

live in abject poverty), in Honduras (where the figure is 80%) and in Mexico City (the

most populated city in the world), it is estimated that three out of ten children fight to

survive the streets (Casa Alianza, 2003). Economic and social conditions of marginalised

communities in Canada and the United States also make a street lifestyle preferable to

that of a family life characterised by poverty, family disintegration and parental rejection

(Beavis, Klos, Carter & Douchant 1997; Flynn & Brotherton, 2008; Gibson, 2011;

Miller, Hoffman & Duggan 1987). In Ethiopia, impoverished children from dysfunctional

families and communities seek refuge on the streets of Addis Ababa in the hope of

receiving a formal education (Niewenhuys, 2001:548).

In the recently released first national survey on street children in Brazil (SDH & IDEST,

2011), 70% of the children who admitted sleeping on the street indicated violence at

home as the main reason for not returning home in the evenings – either referring to

verbal quarrels with their parents or brothers/sisters (32.2%), to physical violence

(30.6%), or to sexual violence or abuse (8.8%). According to other research – also carried

out in Brazil in 1992 – “street-living” children reported higher levels of physical violence

(corporal punishment) at home (62%), compared to “street-working” children (23%)”

(Wernham 2004:49). International research supports the notion of family-based violence,

abuse and neglect as important pathways to the streets (Benítez, 2011), However, this

should also be seen in the context of macro-level factors that impact negatively on family

and community life. Sanders’ (1987:5) summation of social factors that contribute to the

presence of street children in Brazil could also be extended to elsewhere in the world: “…

a consequence of poverty associated with massive social disruptions like internal

migration and rapid urbanisation which confront traditional cultures with unprecedented

challenges.”

According to Human Rights Watch organisations (Amnesty International, 1999:3;

Human Rights Watch, 2003:2), state violence is pervasive and impunity is the norm in

countries all over the world once community children arrive on the street. Massive

killings took place in Brazil and Colombia and the notion of “social cleansing”, notably

in Bulgaria and the Sudan, is based on the racial, ethnic or religious identification of

children. In countries such as Guatemala, India, Kenya and Ethiopia, street children are

viewed as “anti-social”, a scourge on a city’s tourist-filled streets, routinely subject to

harassment and physical abuse, or charged with vague “offences” such as vagrancy or

loitering, or “status offences” such as being in need of discipline. The research of Kovats-

Bernat (2000:415) highlights the antagonistic stance taken by the Haitian state – not too

dissimilar from the apartheid regime in South Africa – and its paramilitary proxies

towards displaced youth. The predominant form of street violence in Haiti is largely

quasi-political in nature, and child morbidity and death have become an expected

outcome for children who live and work on the street.

Impact and consequences of living on the street

Street children lack basic resources to sustain healthy living. They lack proper shelter and

thus can regularly be seen in shop doorways or other public spaces using newspapers or

whatever else they can find as a mattress (Fonseca, 2008). An inadequate diet leads to

malnutrition, anaemia and vitamin deficiencies. In adverse weather conditions they are

exposed to common diseases such as tuberculosis, and skin and parasitic diseases. In

addition to dental problems, they frequently experience, according to the World Health

Organisation (1996), sexual and reproductive health problems – all of which can be

prevented relatively easily if their most basic needs are met. Chemical addiction and

survival sex also place street children in a high-risk category. Research conducted during

the apartheid era (Peacock, 1989), predicated that black male street children as young as

ten years old were frequently sexually abused by white paedophiles (male and female)

whilst attempting to survive a street lifestyle.

According to a study conducted by Peacock and Theron (1992) of a group of street

children in Hillbrow (Johannesburg), 85% engaged in survival sex to avoid hunger and

cold, whereas a further 48% of research participants were also inhaling solvents so as not

to experience cold or hunger. Chemical addiction served furthermore to mask feelings of

aversion and anxiety when the research participants engaged in sexual practices with

adult clients.

Amnesia, depression and suicidal thoughts are negative side effects associated with

solvent inhalation or “glue sniffing”, with extensive brain, liver and kidney damage as

further symptoms. Laryngeal freezing and thus suffocation may also occur, and the

Sudden Sniff Death syndrome has been identified, referring to sudden cardiac arrest as a

result of inhalation (Lowenstein, 1987; O’Connor, 1979).

A stressful past, a deprived and hostile street environment, and a transitory lifestyle make

street children vulnerable to emotional problems and learning difficulties. They also tend

to be excluded from participating in most of the community activities and facilities

afforded to other children. For example, they generally end up having little or no contact

with formal schooling (Benítez, 2011).

Resilience towards adversity is certainly also a characteristic of many street children

(Smith, 1996). Although they are marginalised and frequently labelled as criminals – and

the definition thereof is always relative – they are able to form sophisticated social

networks, providing a surrogate family environment by caring for the younger ones.

Many children as young as ten years old are also on the street to provide financial

assistance to their families through begging and the performance of odd jobs (Peacock,

1993). The apartheid experience has taught us, however, that resilience towards adversity

should never be overestimated, leading us to underestimate the real impact and

consequences of victimisation.

The problem of street children in perspective

From the above discussion it is clear that the phenomenon of street children could be

viewed as a product of unequal power relations in and between societies. Their

victimisation is an outcome of struggles over ideological interests and material goods

unevenly distributed according to nationality, race, ethnicity, gender, class and age and

stabilised in its dynamics by the functioning of social institutions and cultural practices.

Repeat victimisation on the street will concur with the functions the street holds for a

child. According to Swart (1988:41), the street has the following three functions:

• It provides some refuge from adversity that can be permanent or temporary, individual

or collective, where the child eats, sleeps and suffers.

• It forms the child’s turf or source of livelihood where he or she can obtain money, food

and shelter, subject to negotiation, arbitration or warfare.

• The streets beyond the familiar are blank, unknown territory, holding fascination and

risks.

In the absence of guardianship, street children will be considered attractive targets,

especially when vulnerable and engaged in high-risk activities such as solvent inhalation

(see also Cohen, Kleugel & Land, 1981).

Their victimisation is, however, not a discrete experience and any analysis should also

take cognisance of

• the cyclical nature of crime and victimisation (victim and offender sequences, victim

and offender homogeneity, as well as victim and offender recidivism)

• the relative meaning of crime and victimisation

• the shortcomings of a criminal law definition thereof.

Research on street children needs to adopt frameworks that accept their definitions of

their own circumstances and should encompass a culturally sensitive understanding of

risk factors that shape their lives. The notion of belonging to the street is generally a very

important component to street children’s individual identities and, therefore, the decision

to leave the street may well imply a change in the way each of these children perceive

themselves and conceive their own life choices (Lucchini, 1996). Hence, programmes

involving street children should allow for their voices to be heard as a means of

understanding their own views (about themselves and their “street situation”) and of

enabling interventions that could assist them to reorganise their sense of selfhood and

identity.

For purposes of further research, multi-method research methodologies or triangulation

on this complex phenomenon would be particularly important as it may demonstrate how

closely violent patterns of behaviour are tied together with everyday reproductions of

social structures, thereby examining the relevance of cultural patterns of interpretation

together with institutional constructions of violence. To view the phenomenon of street

children as simply the result of personal pathology or family dysfunction would be

reductionist and distortive, and distracts from the multi-locational and embedded nature

of this phenomenon with structural causes that sustain victimising processes.

Furthermore, intervention strategies based on notions of “victim support” rather than

contextually and culturally relevant assistance will disempower street children through

the perpetuation of patronising middle-class values. Such a condescending portrayal of

being passive and helpless constitutes an arrest of personal agency and may contribute to

a victim career (see also Chapter One on destructive notions of victimhood and

empowerment).

LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

The street situation of millions of children across the globe comprises grave violations of

fundamental rights set forth in legislative endeavours. For instance, the intention behind

Article 54 of the most ratified human rights treaty in existence, namely the Convention of

the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) (1989) is to hold governments accountable in

respecting the rights of children including:

• freedom from violence, abuse and hazardous employment

• freedom from hunger and protection from diseases

• free compulsory primary education

• adequate health care

• equal treatment regardless of gender, race or cultural background.

Similarity exists between Section 28 of the South African Constitution (Act 108 of 1996)

and the contents of Article 40 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the

Child (1989). The Bill of Rights of the South African Constitution, in particular Section

28, describes the rights of the child referring, amongst others, to the right of the child to

be protected from maltreatment, neglect, abuse or degradation.

South Africa is also a member of the African Union and the British Commonwealth. Both

these bodies subscribe to the protection of the rights of children. In fact, the UNCRC is

the only one of the core human rights treaties supported across all 53 Commonwealth

member states (Sen & Hajdu, 2009). Most notably, is the African Charter on Human and

Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) which was adopted in 1986 and is relevant to countries on the

African continent. The Charter includes the recognition of human dignity inherent to any

human being, and exploitation and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment is prohibited.

In addition, the Child Justice Act (75 of 2008) recognises the ‘best interests of the child’

(see also Artz and Smythe in this volume).

Despite these legal safeguards, in South Africa, as well as elsewhere (most notably from

the developing world), children are frequently forced to supplement the meagre income

of their families, and are often compelled to leave their family homes, despite parental

love and care, thereby falsely dichotomising free will and victimisation. They are

deprived of the rights to develop to the fullest, to be ensured of protection from harmful

influences, abuse and exploitation, to participate fully in family, cultural and social life.

rendering them particularly vulnerable to adversity, interpersonal violence and contact

with the criminal justice system.

Regardless of the spirit in which legal frameworks have been developed to ameliorate

problematic situations (both nationally and internationally), and maybe at times with the

best of intentions, the social and political environment in which legislation needs to be

introduced can never be ignored (Peacock, 2009). Within the context of political will and

the availability of resources, the rather substantial legislative frameworks tend to design

“one-size-fits-all” protection nets for children in any (risk) situation overlooking the

particular victimisation vulnerability of street children. The challenge would require a

shift from an “abstract” to a more “concrete” notion of children, wherein the particular

risks and needs of street children are carefully differentiated from those of other children.

(Melo, 2011). For instance, the UNCRC right to “free compulsory primary education” is

somewhat impractical for street-involved children who have no longer contact with

school. For those, the right to “street social education” – a more targeted “service”

provided by “street educators”, who identify children on the street and provide them with

education and counselling – is far more useful and a potentially important force in the

process of “street detachment” (Oliveira, 2000).

Given the circumstances in which street children live, and archaic legislation that

criminalises poverty (such as anti-vagrancy and anti-begging laws) they are very likely to

come into contact with the criminal justice system, regardless of whether or not they have

actually engaged in criminal behaviour. In fact, they are commonly seen as “a threat” to

the safety of public spaces and, in turn, repressive responses are the most common

initiatives amongst authorities’ attempts to tackle the street children phenomenon (Bush

& Rizzini, 2011). And once they are caught up in the criminal justice system – where

commonly they become further victimised – street children often get trapped in a cyclical

process, moving back and forth between the streets and detention (Wernham, 2004).

Generally, street children are under-policed as victims and over-policed as offenders.

Reflections upon street children’s almost inescapable contact with the criminal justice

should lead to the promotion of diversion programmes designed to turn these children

away from formal court proceedings and detention (Benítez, 2007; Fonseca,

2008;Wernham; 2004). Such repressive interventions do not allow for their voices to be

heard and individual experiences to be considered, but instead deliver blanket responses

that further reinforce their criminal label and lessen the (already few) life options

available to them In this context, restorative justice (see also Batley and Weitekamp on

restorative justice in this volume), offers a realm of principles and values that might well

shed light on how youth justice systems around the world could be reformed to become

more sensitive to, and more efficacious for, the street children phenomenon (Fonseca,

2008). Whilst challenging the strategy of punitive segregation, restorative justice calls for

informal participatory processes of conflict resolution that allow for the active

involvement of all parties concerned. In turn, restorative justice promotes an empowering

model of justice in which work is supposed to be carried out with – and not at – victims,

offenders and communities (Cunneen & Hoyle, 2010; Johnstone, 2011; Woolford, 2009).

Conclusion

Notwithstanding legal safeguards, street children remain socially expendable and the

relative autonomy and subsequent multiple victimisation inherent to the constructs of age,

class, gender and race resonated in their labelling as “deviants”, “commodities” or

“outcasts”. The tyrannical nature of their victimisation is sustained by societal

constructions of institutional, structural and cultural violence, a world shaped by privilege

and status, and their only “crime” is to be a child.

Content and application questions

~ You are a member of an urban renewal team with the responsibility of focusing on

vulnerable children. Indicate how you will go about identifying the street children

problem in the area and particularly the impact of the macro and micro environments,

child labour and the legislative safeguards to prevent it, as well as commercial sexual

exploitation of children.

~ In your opinion, what could be done to better harmonise governmental and

nongovernmental responses to the street children phenomenon?

~ In your opinion, how could the youth justice system be reformed in order to become

more sensitive to, and more efficacious for, the problem of street children in your

country?

Websites, films and suggested activities

Websites

Consortium for Street Children (www.streetchildren.org.uk)

Street Child World Cup (www.streetchildworldcup.org)

UNESCO (www.unesco.org)

Pangaea – Street Children – Worldwide Resource Library

(http://www.pangaea.org/street_children/kids.htm).

Films

Masud, C. & Masud, T. (Writers). 2005. A Kind of Childhood. Bangladesh.

Padilha, J. (Writer). 2002. Bus 174. Brazil.

Polak, H. (Writer). 2004. Children of Leningradsky. Russia.

Pritchard, T. (Writer). 2011. Street Kids United. United Kingdom.

Activities in class

Street Kids United reports the journey of homeless children living on the streets of

Durban, as they form a team to compete in the Street Child World Cup. An interesting

activity in class would be to watch this inspiring documentary and then form a circle to

debate the street children phenomenon. The use of a “talking piece” (e.g., a book), as

used in peace-making circles, should provide the opportunity for everyone in the class to

speak and be listened to.

20.10 Suggested readings

Baron, S.W. 2003. Street youth violence and victimization. Trauma, Violence and Abuse,

4:22-44.

Bordonaro, L. I. 2010. From home to the street: Cape Verdean children street migration.

In S. J. T. M. Evers, C. Notermans, & E. van Ommering (Eds), African children in focus:

A paradigm shift in methodology and theory?. Leiden: Netherlands African Studies

Association and Brill Academic Publishers.

Cheng, F. and D. Lam. 2010. How is street life? An examination of the subjective

wellbeing of street children in China. International Social Work, 53(3): 353-365.

Cross, C. & Seagar, J. 2010. Towards identifying the causes of South Africa’s street

homelessness: some policy recommendations. Development Southern Afgrica, 27(1):

143-53.

Dimenstein, G. 1991. Brazil: War on Children. London: Latin America Bureau.

Hagan, J. and McCarthy, B. 1999. Mean Streets: Youth Crime and Homelessness,

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lalor, K. J. 1999. Street Children: A Comparative Perspective. Child Abuse & Neglect,

23(8): 759-770.

Nkomo, M. & Olufemi, O. 2001. Educating street and homeless children in South Africa:

the challenge of policy implementation. International Journal of Education Policy,

Research and Practice, 2(4):337-56.

Pinheiro, P. 2006. World Report on Violence against Children. New York: United

Nations Secretary General’s Study on Violence against Children.

Ward, C. L. & Seager, J. R. 2010. South African street children: a survey and

recommendations for services Development Southern Africa, 27(1):85-100.

References

Amnesty International. 1999. On the streets. Available at:

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news/mag/mar99/cover.html (accessed on 28 April 2003).

Aptekar, L. 1994. Street Children in the Developing World: A Review of Their

Condition. Cross-Cultural Research, 28(3): 195–224.

Brown, S.E., Esbensen, F. & Geis, G. 2001. Criminology. Cincinnati: Anderson.

Beavis, M.A.N., Klos, T., Carter, T. & Douchant, C. 1997, January. Literature review:

aboriginal peoples and homelessness. CMHC Research Report. Ottawa: Lexus.

Benítez, S. T. d. 2007. State of the World's Street Children: Violence. London:

Consortium for Street Children.

Benítez, S. T. d. 2011. State of the World’s Street Children: Research. London:

Consortium for Street Children.

Bush, M. & Rizzini, I. 2011. Closing the gap between rights and realities for children and

youth in urban Brazil: reflections on a Brazilian project to improve policies for street

children. Rio de Janeiro: CIESPI: PUC-Rio.

Butler, U. & Rizzini, I. 2003. Young People Living and Working on the Streets of Brazil:

Revisiting the Literature. Children, Youth and Environments, 13(1). Available at:

http://colorado.edu/journals/cye (accessed on 11 February 2012).

Casa Alianza. 2003. Street children. Available at: http://www.casa-alianza.org/EN/street-

children (accessed on 28 April 2003).

Campos, R., Raffaelli, M., Ude, W., Greco, M., Ruff, A., Rolf, J., Antunes, C. M.,

Halsey, N., & Greco, D. 1994. Social networks and daily activities of street youth in Belo

Horizonte, Brazil. Child Development, 65:319-330.

Cohen , L.E., Kluegel, J.R. & Land, K.C. 1981. Social inequality and personal

victimisation: a test of the model with Canadian data. Journal of Crime and Justice,

3:129–139.

Children’s Rights Worldwide. 1994. Street children – community children. Available at:

http://www.pangaea.org/street_children/worl/rights2.htm (accessed on 27 April 2003).

Consortium for Street Children, 2009. Street Children Statistics. Available at:

http://www.streetchildren.org.uk/_uploads/resources/Street_Children_Stats_FINAL.pdf

(accessed on 11 February 2012).

Cunneen, C., & Hoyle, C. (2010). Debating Restorative Justice. Oxford: Hart

D’Aubreu, R.C., Mullis, A.K. & Cook, L.R. 2001. Social support and the ability to adapt

to life among Brazilian street children. Journal of Social Psychology, 141(1):127–136.

Ennew, J. & Swart-Kruger, J. 2003. Introduction: homes, places and spaces in the

construction of street children and street youth. Children, Youth and Environments,

13(1). Available at: http://colorado.edu/journals/cye (accessed on 11 February 2012).

Flynn, M .& Brotherton, D. (2008). Globalizing the Streets: cross-cultural perspectives

on youth, social control, and empowerment. New York: Columbia University Press.

Fonseca, F. C. d. 2008. Meninos de Rua: um Desafio para a Justiça Restaurativa no Brasil

[Street Boys as a Challenge for Restorative Justice in Brazil, Portuguese]. In E. Kosovski,

H. Piedade Jr. and R. Roitman (Eds.), Estudos de Vitimologia [Victimology Studies,

Portuguese]. Rio de Janeiro: Letra Capital.

Glasser, I. 1994. Homelessness in a global perspective. New York: Maxwell.

Gibson, K. E. (2011). Street kids: homeless youth, outreach, and policing New York's

streets. New York, New York University Press.

Hindelang, M.J., Gottfredson, M.R. & Garafalo, J. 1978. Victims of personal crime: an

empirical foundation for a theory of personal victimisation. Cambridge: Ballinger.

Human Rights Watch. 1996. Police Abuse and Killings of Street Children in India.

Available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae6a7eb0.html (accessed on 10

February 2012).

Human Rights Watch. 2003. Street children. Available at:

http://www.hrw.org/children/street.htm (accessed on 28 April 2003).

Inciardi, J. A. & Surrat, H. L. 1997. Children in the Streets of Brazil: Drug Use, Crime,

Violence, and HIV Risks. Substance Use and Misuse, 33(7):1461-1480.

Johnstone, G. (2011). Restorative Justice: Ideas, Values, Debates (2nd ed.). London:

Routledge Violence, and HIV Risks. Substance Use and Misuse, 33(7):1461-1480.

Jones, L. 2003. Homeless and alone: Russian street children. Available at:

http://www.news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/world/ newsid (accessed on 28 April 2003).

Kovats-Bernat, J.C. 2000. Anti-gang Arimaj and the war on street children. Peace

Review, 12(3):415–422.

Lowenstein, L.F. 1984. Glue sniffing and substance abuse. Contemporary Review,

224(1421): 309–313.

Lucchini, R. 1996. Theory, Method and Triangulation in the Study of Street Children.

Childhood, 3:131-145.

Lusk, M. W. 1992. Street children of Rio de Janeiro. International Social Work, 35(3):

293-305.

Lusk, M. & Mason, D. 1994. Fieldwork with Rio’s Street Children. In I. Rizzini (Ed.),

Children in Brazil Today: A Challenge for the Third Millennium. Rio de Janeiro: Editora

Universitária Santa Úrsula.

Medecins sans Frontieres, 1998. Top ten humanitarian stories under-reported by the US

media. Available at: http://www.msf.org/content/cfm (accessed on 28 April 2003).

Melo, E. R. (2011) Crianças e Adolescentes em Situação de Rua: Direitos Humanos e

Justiça, São Paulo: Malheiros.

Miller, D., Hoffman, F. & Duggan, R. 1980. Runaways: illegal aliens in their own land.

New York: J.F. Bergin.

Niewenhuys, O. 2001. By the sweat of their brow? Street children, NGOs and children’s

rights in Addis Ababa. Africa, 71(4):539–556.

Noto, A. R., Galduróz, J. C. F., Nappo, S. A., Fonseca, A. M., Carlini, C. M. A., Moura,

Y. G., Carlini, E. A. 2003. Levantamento Nacional sobre o Uso de Drogas entre Crianças

e Adolescentes em Situação de Rua nas 27 Capitais Brasileiras [National Survey on

Drug Use among Street Children in Brazil’s 27 Capital Cities, Portuguese]. São Paulo:

CEBRID.

O’Connor, D.J. 1979. A profile of solvent abuse in school children. Journal of Child

Psychology and Psychiatry, 20(4):365–368.

Oliveira, W. (2000). Working with children on the streets of Brazil: politics and

practices. New York: Haworth Press.

Panter-Brick, C. 2002. Street children, human rights and public health: a critique and

future directions. Annual Review of Anthropology, 13:147–171.

Peacock, R. 1989. Die manlike swart straatkind: ’n verkennende psigokriminologiese

ondersoek. Unpublished Master’s dissertation, University of Pretoria.

Peacock, R. 1993. Family stress in the lives of street children. Social Work: a

Professional Journal for the Social Worker, 29(2):173–180.

Peacock, R. 1994. Street children. Africa Insight. 24(2):138–143.

Peacock, R. 2002. Macro and micro links between interpersonal violence and violence in

broader society: an integrated etiological perspective. Acta Criminologica: Southern

African Journal of Criminology, 15(3):39–44.

Peacock, R. & Theron, A. 1992. Die verband tussen swart straatkinders se biologiese en

emosionele behoeftes en die tipe misdaad wat deur hulle gepleeg word. South African

Journal of Sociology, 23(1):26–30.

Peacock, R. (2009). Institutional victimisation: Legislative framework and youth

marginalisation in post apartheid South Africa. Paper presented at the XIII International

Symposium on Victimology. Mito: (23 – 28 August).

Pilotti, F. & Rizzini, I. 1994. The (Dis)Integration of Latin America and its Impact on

Children. In I. Rizzini (Ed.), Children in Brazil Today: A Challenge for the Third

Millennium. Rio de Janeiro: Editora Universitária Santa Úrsula.

Ribeiro, M. O. & Ciampone, M. H. T. 2001. Homeless Children: the Lives of a Group of

Brazilian Street Children. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 35(1): 42-49.

Rizzini, I. 1996. Street Children: An Excluded Generation in Latin America. Childhood:

A Global Journal of Child Research, 3(2): 215-233.

Rizzini, I. & Butler, U. M. 2003. Life Trajectories of Children and Adolescents Living on

the Streets of Rio de Janeiro. Children, Youth and Environments, 13(1). Available at:

http://colorado.edu/journals/cye (accessed on 11 February 2012).

Roux, J. L. 1996. Street Children in South Africa: findings from interviews on the

background of street children in Pretoria, South Africa. Adolescence, 31(122):423-431.

Sanders, T.G. 1987. Brazilian street children, Part 1: who they are. UFSI Reports. Latin

America: UFSI.

Santos, B. R. d. 2008. Street Youth in New York City and São Paulo: Desconstructing the

Striking Differences, Global Similarities, and Local Specificities. In M. Flynn and D. C.

Brotherton (Eds.), Globalizing the Streets: cross-cultural perspectives on youth, social

control, and empowerment. New York: Columbia University Press.

Schärf, W. 1988. Street kids: past achievements and future challenges. Child Care

Worker. 6(8):13–15.

Scheper-Hughes, N. & Hoffman, D. 1994. Kids out of place. NACLA Report on the

Americas, 27:16-23.

Scheper-Hugues, N. & Hoffman, D. 1998. Brazilian Apartheid: Street Kids and the

Struggle for Urban Space. In N. Scheper-Hugues and C. F. Sargent (Eds.), Small Wars:

The Cultural Politics of Childhood. Berkeley: University of California Press.

SDH – Secretaria de Direitos Humanos da Presidência da República & IDEST – Instituto

de Desenvolvimento Sustentável. 2011. Primeira Pesquisa Censitária Nacional sobre

Crianças e Adolescentes em Situação de Rua [First Census Study of Children and

Adolescentes in a Street Situation, Portuguese]. Brasília: SDH.

Sen, P. & Hajdu, C. (Eds). 2009. Child Rights in the Commonwealth: 20 Years of the

Convention on the Rights of the Child. London: Commonwealth Secretariat.

Schurink, W.J., Snyman, I., Krugel, W.F. & Slabbert, L. 1992. Victimisation: nature and

trends. Pretoria: Human Sciences Research Council.

Siegel, L.J. 1998. Criminology, 6th ed. London: West Wadsworth.

Smith, C.S. 1996. The life-world of street children in the Durban metropolitan area.

Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Pretoria.

Svetlana, S. 2001. Street children in Moscow: using and creating social capital.

Sociological Review, 49(4):530–541.

Swart, J. 1988a. Streetwise: opening the way to self-actualisation for the street child.

Africa Insight, 18(1):32–41.

Swart, J. 1988b. An anthropological study of street children in Hillbrow, Johannesburg,

with specific reference to their moral values. Unpublished Master’s dissertation, Unisa.

United Nations Children’s Fund. 2002. New York Amsterdam News, 12 April: 2.

Utterwulghe, S. 1999. Rwanda’s protracted social conflict: considering the subjective

perspective in conflict resolution strategies. The Online Journal of Peace and Conflict

Resolution, Issue 2.3. Available at: http://www.trinstitute.org/ojpr (accessed on 15 April

2003).University of South Africa: Pretoria.

Wernham, M. 2004. An Outside Chance: Street Children and Juvenile Justice – an

International Perspective. London: Consortium for Street Children.

Woolford, A. (2009). The politics of restorative justice: a critical introduction. Halifax:

Fernwood.

World Health Organisation. 1996. Working with street children. Available at:

http://www.WHO/MSD/MDP/0014 (accessed on 20 April 2003).