A Study of Shelters for Street Children from an Organizational ...
A Study of Shelters for Street Children from an Organizational ... A Study of Shelters for Street Children from an Organizational ...
and language of the interviewees and participants in the focus groups discussions (Terre Blanche and Kelly, 1999:141). In keeping with the purpose of the research, semi structured interviews were conducted to collate views and experiences of four shelter managers or directors. Views and experiences of shelters staffs and residents were expressed in focus groups discussions. The views and experiences were with regard to motivation and philosophies behind shelters intervention and reintegration programs, management style, physical structures, goals and objectives, recruitment of staff, admission of shelter residents and their participation in shelter programs, service delivery, funding, routine and recreational facilities and activities. Four shelters in Durban were visited at different times conveniently arranged with the shelter management to suit the shelters' routines and availability of the interviewees. (1) First, interviews were with managers from shelters A, B, C and D at different months, days and times convenient to the time schedules of the interviewees, because the researcher honoured time schedules and programs of the shelters. Henning et al. (2003: 56-60) argues for use of discursive oriented interviews. Terre Blanche and Kelly (1999:128) state that interviews are simply conversational. Interviews with shelters were semi-structured which allowed free and flexible interaction between the researcher and the interviewees. Managers were very cooperative and freely engaged in the interviews. (2) Second, focus group discussions with a selected number of staff members and children living in the shelters. As noted in chapter three, the criteria of selection was previously discussed, time constraint was also experienced hence the focus group discussions were spread over a period of time. Each focus group discussion was undertaken at different months, days and time. Residents in shelter are constant for a period of one year except in shelter D where children have a choice whether to remain in the shelter or not to remain. Consequently, different of time and days did not affect nor impact on data collection, as would have been the case if the residents changed. Discussions followed after the researcher answered participant's questions and the process eased the anxiety of the participants. 51
4.2. Shelters Services and Programs This study focused on four shelters A, B, C and D. The researcher visited them and shelters managers volunteered information regarding each shelter's services delivery, programs of intervention and reintegration, residential capacity, physical location, structural set-up, admission procedures, daily routines, and social and recreational facilities as following. 4.2.1 Physical Location and Capacity of Shelters There was a debate surrounding the location of shelters. On one hand, the proximity of the shelter close to the city centre worked against the process of removing children from the streets. The city centre offers the same excitement, and former friends and confidants of children were a great temptation to those in the shelters because peer pressure is a culture of children living and/or working on the streets (Osborne 1995: xiii). On the other hand, shelter's proximity to the city centre, offered easy access for deliveries of essential commodities and making service delivery quicker and communication faster. It was observed further that taking children away from the city would be disorientating them from their habitual environment. Consequently, it was not the location of shelters that mattered, rather the programs of intervention and reintegration. The two perceptions have their merits, but need to be evaluated within the context of the re-integration process cognisant of the fact that a majority of children are drawn from rural communities, townships and informal settlements. Re-integration into mainstream society, therefore, would mean going back to their same old places and habits away from the life on the streets. Taking them away from the street may trigger a resistance and unwillingness to cooperate or participate in the intervention programs. According to Basson, (2001) and English, (2002) the shelters did not need children who resisted their programs. None of the shelters rented buildings they occupied; the buildings are donated and maintained by the umbrella organisations to which they are affiliated. Running costs of water and electricity bills together with other overheads are met by (the shelters) rather than by the umbrella organisations. 52
- Page 9 and 10: LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Showing the
- Page 11 and 12: children's homes. In 1996 the Europ
- Page 13 and 14: specifically in its policies (http:
- Page 15 and 16: Hosken, (2004) in an article titled
- Page 17 and 18: 1.5 The Purpose and Objective of th
- Page 19 and 20: names of the shelters have been ren
- Page 21 and 22: 1.8.2 Organizationalll1eory Shelter
- Page 23 and 24: Chapter Four: Data analysis. The ch
- Page 25 and 26: communities posing enormous challen
- Page 27 and 28: To perceive human social reality as
- Page 29 and 30: Shelter's intervention/reintegratio
- Page 32 and 33: 2.4 Definitions The focus of the re
- Page 35: enforcement officers, outreach work
- Page 40 and 41: 3.1 Introduction CHAPTER THREE RESE
- Page 42 and 43: given to the demands of shelter pro
- Page 44 and 45: views and perceptions over the topi
- Page 46 and 47: 3.4 The Researcher in Qualitative I
- Page 48 and 49: which means children there, are sta
- Page 51 and 52: paid to the recording devices. The
- Page 53 and 54: esearchers need to agree or disagre
- Page 55 and 56: • Staff morale was high when moti
- Page 57 and 58: 3.11 Ethical Considerations Babbie
- Page 59: 4.1 Introduction CHAPTER FOUR OATA
- Page 63 and 64: children with their families where
- Page 65 and 66: y the shelter's philosophy, goals,
- Page 67 and 68: 4.2.5 Shelter Routine and Regulatio
- Page 69 and 70: 4.2.6 Policy on Visitors The four s
- Page 71 and 72: children played; this was done depe
- Page 73 and 74: living and/or working on the street
- Page 75 and 76: 4.3.1 Structure and physical locati
- Page 77 and 78: Apart from management of shelters,
- Page 79 and 80: Regarding transparency, accountabil
- Page 81 and 82: Staff expressed that children shoul
- Page 83 and 84: was immediately reassuring to child
- Page 85 and 86: will to choose whether to or not li
- Page 87 and 88: Sangoma (traditional doctor) and I
- Page 89 and 90: Look at this shelter look at the do
- Page 91 and 92: preferable. Participants continued
- Page 93 and 94: It is okay when one is going with a
- Page 95 and 96: 5.1 Introduction CHAPTER FIVE DISCU
- Page 100 and 101: The challenges of children living a
- Page 102 and 103: differed greatly from the feelings
- Page 104 and 105: een on the streets for a very long
- Page 106 and 107: from the overseas. Some of the loca
- Page 108 and 109: programs to communities and familie
<strong>an</strong>d l<strong>an</strong>guage <strong>of</strong> the interviewees <strong>an</strong>d particip<strong>an</strong>ts in the focus groups discussions<br />
(Terre Bl<strong>an</strong>che <strong>an</strong>d Kelly, 1999:141). In keeping with the purpose <strong>of</strong> the research, semi<br />
structured interviews were conducted to collate views <strong>an</strong>d experiences <strong>of</strong> four shelter<br />
m<strong>an</strong>agers or directors. Views <strong>an</strong>d experiences <strong>of</strong> shelters staffs <strong>an</strong>d residents were<br />
expressed in focus groups discussions. The views <strong>an</strong>d experiences were with regard to<br />
motivation <strong>an</strong>d philosophies behind shelters intervention <strong>an</strong>d reintegration programs,<br />
m<strong>an</strong>agement style, physical structures, goals <strong>an</strong>d objectives, recruitment <strong>of</strong> staff,<br />
admission <strong>of</strong> shelter residents <strong>an</strong>d their participation in shelter programs, service<br />
delivery, funding, routine <strong>an</strong>d recreational facilities <strong>an</strong>d activities. Four shelters in<br />
Durb<strong>an</strong> were visited at different times conveniently arr<strong>an</strong>ged with the shelter<br />
m<strong>an</strong>agement to suit the shelters' routines <strong>an</strong>d availability <strong>of</strong> the interviewees.<br />
(1) First, interviews were with m<strong>an</strong>agers <strong>from</strong> shelters A, B, C <strong>an</strong>d D at different<br />
months, days <strong>an</strong>d times convenient to the time schedules <strong>of</strong> the interviewees, because<br />
the researcher honoured time schedules <strong>an</strong>d programs <strong>of</strong> the shelters. Henning et al.<br />
(2003: 56-60) argues <strong>for</strong> use <strong>of</strong> discursive oriented interviews. Terre Bl<strong>an</strong>che <strong>an</strong>d Kelly<br />
(1999:128) state that interviews are simply conversational. Interviews with shelters<br />
were semi-structured which allowed free <strong>an</strong>d flexible interaction between the<br />
researcher <strong>an</strong>d the interviewees. M<strong>an</strong>agers were very cooperative <strong>an</strong>d freely engaged<br />
in the interviews.<br />
(2) Second, focus group discussions with a selected number <strong>of</strong> staff members <strong>an</strong>d<br />
children living in the shelters. As noted in chapter three, the criteria <strong>of</strong> selection was<br />
previously discussed, time constraint was also experienced hence the focus group<br />
discussions were spread over a period <strong>of</strong> time. Each focus group discussion was<br />
undertaken at different months, days <strong>an</strong>d time. Residents in shelter are const<strong>an</strong>t <strong>for</strong> a<br />
period <strong>of</strong> one year except in shelter D where children have a choice whether to remain<br />
in the shelter or not to remain. Consequently, different <strong>of</strong> time <strong>an</strong>d days did not affect<br />
nor impact on data collection, as would have been the case if the residents ch<strong>an</strong>ged.<br />
Discussions followed after the researcher <strong>an</strong>swered particip<strong>an</strong>t's questions <strong>an</strong>d the<br />
process eased the <strong>an</strong>xiety <strong>of</strong> the particip<strong>an</strong>ts.<br />
51