CYC-Net

CYC-Net on Facebook CYC-Net on Twitter Search CYC-Net

Join Our Mailing List

Quote

Just a short piece ...

8 MAY 2009

NO 1433

Street children and self-determination

The parameters defining client self-determination are viewed as a critical problem for social workers intervening with street children in the absence of parental guidance (Staller and Kirk, 1997). Children who are minors are legally presumed to have limited decision-making capacity about their lives. Therefore, the dilemma facing social workers is whether to treat minors as competent in directing their case plan (especially if there is conflict) or to provide substitute parental guidance? The minor's level of autonomy in the decision-making process is seen to be a function of their level of competency. In working with street children, social workers need to have a particular understanding of the "unique professional niche they fill in youth shelters and how their work relates to the overall mission of the profession and the value it espouses" (Staller and Kirk, 1997, p. 225). Advocating for the client's role in decision-making, Rothman (1989, p. 609) argued that he/she should be involved in defining the problem and the course of action, but at the same time stressed that the "... center of gravity, from the standpoint of structuring practice, lies with the professional". In the absence of guidance for practice in a youth shelter, social workers' intervention should be based on a presumption in favour of the youth's level of competence, which is in keeping with the core mission of social work (Staller and Kirk, 1997). Possible obstacles to the implementation of a child-centred approach include the lack of skills in involving children by social work and Child and Youth Care professionals or operation of the shelter. The philosophy, culture and structure of the shelter are essential in providing the necessary guidance and support for social workers when making decisions about the child's participation in the helping process (Rothman, 1989). Empowerment is viewed as an important goal in working with street children. Hence, some analysts (Boyden and Holden, 1991; Orme, 1996) advocated that street children should become catalysts for change and assume some responsibility for their own problems, which according to Corey (2001) is the essence of Adlerian theory. This however, entails taking risks such as forsaking the street lifestyle, going back to school or being reunited with their families.

In the analysis of services, neglected and abused children are predominantly catered for by child welfare agencies, while juvenile justice departments assume responsibility for delinquent youth. However, street children appear to fall out of these provisions with little clarity on the state's responsibility for them. Since services for street children are generally voluntary, shelters appear to favour the autonomy of the child. This presents a dilemma for social workers where legal statutes do not adequately protect minors (street children) and where they are expected to make decisions independently. This is particularly applicable to the practice of the "open door policy" in the case of very young street children. The "open door policy" in South Africa refers to the child's voluntary decision to enter and remain in a shelter. This practice, however, does not cohere with the Child Care Act 74 (1983), which is supposed to protect children "in need of care". In terms of legislation all children should be admitted into care through statutory procedures and not of their own free will. However, recent amendments in the Child Care Amendment Act 96 (1996) allow children to be in care (street shelters) without being subjected to statutory procedures. The resistance of most street children to admittance to a street shelter relates to their extreme aversion for the statutory (attending a children's court procedure) process.

The premise is that client self-determination, which acknowledges individual needs of street children, is central to the development of intervention strategies. Provision of services should reflect the needs and rights of children generally, as well as more specifically in relation to their living on the street. Where the needs of individuals are reflected in the programmes, it is highly likely that street children would be cooperative and enthusiastic to participate.

VASINTHA VEERAN

Veeran, V. (2004). Working with street children: A child-centred approach. Child Care in Practice, 10, 4. pp. 362-364.

REFERENCES

Boyden, J. E. and Holden, P. (1991). Children of the cities. London. Zed Books.

Child Care Act No. 74 of 1983. South Africa. Government Publishers: Pretoria.

Child Care Amendment Act 96 of 1996. South Africa. Government Publishers: Pretoria.

Corey, G. (2001). Theory and practice of counseling and psychotherapy. Pacific Grove. Brooks/Cole.

Orme, J. (1996). Participation or change: changes in social work practice brought about by community care policies in Britain. In K. Yeung, (Ed.), Participating in change – Social work profession in social development. Proceedings of the Hong Kong: Joint World Congress of the International Federation of Social Workers and the International Schools of Social Work.

Rothman, J. (1989). Intervention research: Application to runaway and homeless youths. Social Work Research and Abstracts, 25, 1. pp. 13-18.

Staller, K. M. and Kirk, S. A. (1997). Unjust freedom: The ethics of client self-determination in runaway youth shelters. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 14, 3. pp. 223-242.

The International Child and Youth Care Network
THE INTERNATIONAL CHILD AND YOUTH CARE NETWORK (CYC-Net)

Registered Public Benefit Organisation in the Republic of South Africa (PBO 930015296)
Incorporated as a Not-for-Profit in Canada: Corporation Number 1284643-8

P.O. Box 23199, Claremont 7735, Cape Town, South Africa | P.O. Box 21464, MacDonald Drive, St. John's, NL A1A 5G6, Canada

Board of Governors | Constitution | Funding | Site Content and Usage | Advertising | Privacy Policy | Contact us

iOS App Android App