Who are “street children?” a hirerarchy of street use and appropriate responses

A working compromise based on a hierarchy of street use, from minimal to total dependency on the streets is proposed, to demonstrate the need for different types of education/welfare intervention at different levels.

Abstract

"Street children" have come to public attention again as they did in the guise of the "street Arabs," "blackguards," and "war-vagrants" at periods of European history. Is this classification useful when considering education/welfare policy, or does it artificially mark a group for special attention in a manner that is misleading? There are two perspectives: (a) that this classification is imperfect, which leads to incorrect intervention; or (b) that unclassified can mean unrecognized and that labels are a prerequisite of motivating a response. From a comparative analysis, this paper proposes a working compromise based on a hierarchy of street use, from minimal to total dependency on the streets. Four overlapping levels are discussed: (a) beneficial street use; (b) an "assumed adult" status; (c) those who suffer school exclusion; and (d) a state of "degenerative estrangement." The aim of the hierarchy is to demonstrate the need for different types of education/welfare intervention at different levels. Intervention needs to emphasize three types of change: (a) in awareness of street life for those making little use of the streets; (b) in the capabilities of those using the street as a major resource; and (c) of the condition of those totally dependent on the street environment.