3.0 Plan’s Anti-Child Labour Program; Approach and Implicit Address of Poverty
Program documents claim that “Plan works for long lasting change by addressing the underlying poverty and discrimination that forces many children into hazardous labour” (Plan International, 2004, p.12). Child labour is identified as a problem that affects children in both rural and urban areas, with the main differences being in the type of work expected of children. However, in an urban context anti-child labour programs need to deal with further complicating factors street children, child prostitution, begging and street crime which are not so prevalent in rural areas (Skinner and Steinberg, 2003). Although Plan does not explicitly acknowledge the two way causal link between child labour and poverty, it is implicit in its approach. In program documents Plan says that it’s strategy coincides with the work of other agencies such as UNICEF and Save the Children. UNICEF says;
If poverty, as Nobel laureate Amartya Sen argues, is to be defined not merely in terms of low income but as a state of deprivation of basic capabilities, nothing illustrates that more forcefully than child labour. A result and also a cause of poverty, child labour is a prison that withers both capabilities and potential (2001, p.3).
In this way child labour has been defined as both a cause and a consequence of poverty and thus Plan’s Anti-Child Labour Program is an urban poverty program and will be discussed within this context.
The program acknowledges that poverty is a gendered issue and approaches it as such. Plan notes that boys and girls are equally likely to be working between ages 5 to 14 years, yet as children get older there is a widening gap; more boys work than girls. However, they believe working girls to be particularly vulnerable in light of their low status in society and the gendered nature of tasks assigned to them (2004). This is reflected ‘on the ground’ by Plan’s partner and implementing NGO, CENIT. CENIT only accepts boys onto its programs if they have a sister already involved at the centre. In this way CENIT takes a pragmatic approach to the gendered discrimination against the educating of girls that is the reality in Ecuador. CENIT notes that “In addition to their street work…girls have an additional six hours of work at home caring for their younger siblings and doing housework. Girls are also more vulnerable than their male siblings in terms of sexual abuse, incest, teenage pregnancy, physical abuse, a higher probability of being forced to work, discrimination at school and in the work place, and extremely low self-esteem” (CENIT, 2005). In this way, through a campaign of positive discrimination, CENIT approaches poverty in a way that tries to help redress the balance between opportunities available for boys and girls in its area and their capabilities to make the most of those opportunities.
There are many different ways that poverty may be defined. The most commonly used approach is the Monetary Approach closely followed by, for example, the Capabilities Approach, Social Exclusion Approach, Participatory Approach and the Human Rights Approach. These approaches vary in their ideologies and methodologies, and most importantly, are not mutually exclusive. There are many overlapping elements of each definition and as such I could argue that all these approaches are evident in Plan’s approach and implicit in their address of urban poverty. However, I do not feel this would be a useful exercise, therefore I have chosen to focus, as do Plan, upon the Human Rights Approach to poverty. The next section of this paper will outline this approach, identify it as Plan’s main definition of poverty, and later in section 3 will discuss how far Plan uses this framework in its implicit approach to addressing child poverty.
In the documents I had access to Plan do not explicitly define poverty. However they do state:
Plan’s child labour programs follow preventive and curative approaches… [They adopt] a rights-based approach in which children, families and communities are active and leading participants in their own development. It enhances their capacity and opportunity to work together and with other stakeholders to address the structural causes and consequences of child poverty at all levels (Plan International, 2004).
This statement therefore clearly indicates that Plan’s approach to urban poverty is located within a rights-based definition. This is evident throughout their literature.
In 1989 the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) was ratified by more nations than has been any other charter or convention, thus meaning it was accepted by governments across the world. This took place forty years after the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (HDHR) and moved beyond the original charter to recognise children’s rights to include a political and moral dimension (namely the child’s right to shape decisions that affect them) as well as the physical needs dimension outlined in the 1959 HDHR (Franklin, 1995). The CRC clearly outlines the child’s rights to survive, develop, participate and be protected, yet the problem many scholars identify is that of how to translate these rights ideals into practise within a poverty context (Gordon et al, 2003a). Chinkin tries to clearly define the relationship between rights and poverty. He states that the “…denial of human rights is both a cause and a consequence of poverty. Poverty constitutes in itself a denial of fundamental human rights and a barrier to the enjoyment of all other human rights. A human rights shortfall is an obstacle to the eradication of poverty" (Quoted in Gordon et al, 2003a, p.8). Yet this still leaves the problem of defining a clear working concept which may be related to practise. Gordon furthers this concept with the suggestion that child poverty may be defined in relation to specified rights to “freedom from material and social deprivation” focusing upon premature death, hunger, malnutrition, and lack of access to clean water, sanitation, education, health care and information as indicators (2003a). Yet he also suggests that child rights may also be defined in regard to rights to “freedom from insufficient resources” with which he means access to an adequate standard of living and the right to social security (2003a). This second definition may be seen as an extension to the first and although is closer to defining a working concept remains difficult as it fails to define what may be considered by ‘adequate’ and what indicators and factors may thus be used in the formulation of a poverty program. However as outlined above this is the approach in which Plan places itself, thus the logic follows that it must consider poverty as a lack of child rights to survive, develop, participate and be protected.
4.0 Implicit Messages in the Selection of Poor Locations
The way in which Plan selects areas within which it will focus it’s Urban Poverty programs is illuminative. This is because the ways in which it identifies the poor people with which it is to work indicates ways in which it will implicitly be addressing poverty. This is presented in the form of a table and forms part of Plan’s Integrated Urban Program, under which the Anti-Child Labour Program falls (Plan International, 2004, Skinner and Steinberg, 2003). It is important to note however that the reading of this table must be done in view of Plans acknowledgment that it’s urban poverty programs must be “manageable from the viewpoint of own capacities and of possible partners” (Skinner and Steinberg, 2003, p.13). Therefore I have tried to take care to not infer too much meaning into a slightly pragmatic approach to the selection criteria.
The criteria suggests that Plan focuses on communities with high levels of both economic and social poverty. Yet it rules out communities where people do not have the capacity to contribute their own resources, thus ruling out the very poorest and the most excluded. This may be a pragmatic approach, fuelled by their concern for sustainability, however it does bring to light ways in the address of poverty may leave the poorest behind. Plan also rules out working with illegal communities and those at risk of a natural (or man-made) disaster. This rules out a huge proportion of the poorest and most vulnerable people and again illustrates the limitations with which Plan addresses the issue of urban poverty.
Plan outlines that ‘willingness and commitment of communities [to collaborate in participatory development projects] should be seen as one of the most important criteria for selection’ (Skinner and Steinberg, 2003). This is in line with their rights-based definition which champions the empowerment of the poor and marginalised to claim their rights (Piron, 2003). However, the level to which Plan engages in participatory approaches is debatable. There is no evidence of child participation in the writing of the Anti-Child Labour Program which seems to have been written in consultation rather than with true participation of working children. This was also true during my experience at CENIT. The centre was run for children not by children. It did run courses in civic duty, thus encouraging children to participate in later life. However there were no elements of real child participation in its address of poverty, thus not fully embracing a child-rights approach to poverty.
More importantly, in my opinion, is that in the selection of cities criteria Plan does not specifically mention children only communities. Although it may be argued that children are part of a community and as such poor communities contain poor children this is in opposition to a rights-based approach to child poverty which highlights that this is not always the case (UNICEF, 2001, UNICEF, 2002, Leavy et al 2002). In Plan’s literature they acknowledge that children are a group in their own right and stress the importance of recognising their rights by hearing their voice. If in the selection of locations to be working Plan only targets poor communities they may be missing poor children. This selection implies that children are invisible; the child as part of the community and nothing more. This is a denial of their rights-based mandate they portend to use and thus implicitly addresses poverty as a community centred problem rather than a child centred problem. This is in direct opposition to their literature in which they state;
Children's problems are largely a result of the problems which their parents and communities face…Plan recognizes this and seeks to work with families and communities in addition to working directly with the children who are at the centre of their mission (My italics, Skinner and Steinberg, 2003).
5.0 Conclusion
Plan does not define or address poverty as solely a monetary concept, as is still surprisingly common in many arenas (Laderchi, 2003). Plan embraces a multi-dimensional approach to poverty that acknowledges and addresses poverty as different by gender and age. Plan’s approach also emphasises a child’s right to survival, development, protection and participation. However, implicit within it’s address of poverty seems to be a denial of the rights of children to affect decisions that currently affect them. For example, Plan’s program in Ecuador only manages to empower the children to take hold of their rights at a later age. Also, implicit in Plan’s strategic approach is often a community centred approach over a child-centred approach. However, this was not the case in Ecuador, where the child remained central to the poverty program. This paper hopes to have highlighted the way in which an organisation has both defined and addressed urban poverty and the disparities between the two. These types of disparities are not uncommon, as the broadening and multi-dimensionality of poverty becomes every more recognised, these disparities will continue to flourish as definitions and approaches will become ever more difficult to translate from paper and into practise.
References
Centro de la Nina Trabajadora (CENIT) (2005) ‘CENIT’. Internet. Accessed May 2005. Available at
CHIP (2004) ‘Children and Poverty: Some Questions Answered’. Internet. Accessed May 2005. Available at
Fernando, P. and G. Porter, (2002) ‘Bridging the Gap between Gender and Transport’. In Fernando, P. and G. Porter (eds.) Balancing the Load: Women, Gender and Transport, London: Zed Books: 1-14
Franklin, B. (ed.), (1995) The Handbook of Children’s Rights: comparative policy and practice, London: Routledge
Gordon, D., Nandy, S., Pantazis, C., Pemberton, S. and P. Townsend, (2003a) ‘The Distribution of Child Poverty in the Developing World. A report to UNICEF’. Internet. Accessed May 2005. Available at
Gordon, D., Nandy, S., Pantazis, C., Pemberton, S. and P. Townsend, (2003b) ‘Child Poverty in the Developing World’. Internet. Accessed May 2005. Available at
International Labour Organisation (ILO), (2005) ‘The International Programme for the Elimination of Child Labour (IPEC)’. Internet. Accessed May 2005. Available at
Laderchi, C., (2003) Does it matter that we don’t agree on the definition of poverty? A comparison of four approaches, Oxford: Queen Elizabeth House
Leavy, J., Masters, A. and H. White, (2002) ‘Comparative Perspectives on Child Poverty: A Review of Poverty Measures’. Internet. Accessed May 2005. Available at
Lok-Dessallien, R. (1998) ‘Review of Poverty Concept and Indicators’. Internet. Accessed May 2005. Available at
Piron, L., (2003) ‘Learning from the UK Department of International Development's Rights-Based Approach to Development Assistance’. Internet. Accessed May 2005. Available at
Plan International, (2004) ‘Child Labour: A Plan Working Paper’. Internet. Accessed May 2005. Available at
Robinson, S., (2003) ‘Children First In the Poverty Battle! A Review of Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers in the Southern African Region -from a Child Rights Perspective’. Internet. Accessed May 2005. Available at
Skinner, R. and F. Steinberg, (2003) ‘Poverty Alleviation and Children in Urban Latin America: The New Strategic and Programmic Framework of Plan’, Children, Youth and Environments, Vol. 13, No. 2
UNICEF (2001) ‘Beyond Child Labour, Affirming Rights’. Internet. Accessed May 2005. Available at
UNICEF (2002) ‘Poverty and Exclusion Among Urban Children’. Internet. Accessed May 2005. Available at
Please see CHIP, 2004, for clear definitions relating to the differences between Child poverty, Childhood poverty and Poverty experienced in childhood and youth. For the purpose of this paper they will be accepted to all mean the same thing; the latter.
Please see Fernando and Porter, 2002, for more information regarding the gendered nature of tasks.
Please see Lok-Dessallien,1998, for an outline and comparison of these approaches to poverty.
This paper find’s useful Leavy et al’s expansion of these as “Survival: adequate living conditions and adequate medical services. Development: right to education, information, play, leisure. Protection: prohibits all forms of exploitation and cruelty including separation from families and abuses of the Criminal Justice System. Participation: freedom to express opinions and play an active role in society”(2002).
This is closely to the UN definition of absolute poverty. See Gordon et al, 2003b, for more information.
This is closely to the UN definition of overall poverty. See Gordon et al, 2003b, for more information