‘She does not make me do it,but I want to help her’: Relational family interdependence of street-connected youth in Recife,Brazil

Abstract

Despite most street-connected youth in Brazil having existing bonds with their families, their family relations have not received enough attention in research. This article explores how street-connected youth describe their family relations and what meanings they attach to their families. Drawing on ethnographic data collected with 10 street-connected youths aged between 12 and 17 in Recife, Brazil, the results demonstrate that the relational family life of street-connected youth consists of interconnected supportive and ambivalent emotional and material interdependence, and this should not be ignored in policy and practice regarding them.

Introduction

Young people worldwide live in out-of-home and street situations. Still, even if they are seemingly isolated from their home environment, most continue to live in relation to their families (Paludo and Koller, 2008; Rizzini and Couto, 2018). Even though the cultural context is a defining factor in shaping societies and social issues, Dabir and Athale (2011) point out, that when discussing street-connected youth ¹ the combining factor is always the understanding of their vulnerable position. This has long been recognised in international discussions, and there is ethnographic research highlighting young people’s agency and focusing on their subcultures and social networks on the street (e.g., Butler, 2009; Evans, 2006; Ursin, 2011). While international research on street-connected youth has traditionally focused on agency and the direct street environment, there is a lack of understanding of how their lives are interconnected to others (Ungruhe, 2019), and the role of their families has not received enough attention (Schwinger, 2007; Van Blerk, 2012). This can be problematic, as it is commonly understood that children’s and adolescents’ right to live with their families should be supported except when not in their best interests. This is highlighted in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) and the Brazilian Child and Adolescent Statute (1990). Studies worldwide, as well as in Brazil where this study is situated, show that most street-connected youth have existing bonds with their families, even if these bonds may be ambiguous or distant (Paludo and Koller, 2008; Rizzini and Couto, 2018; Ungruhe, 2019; Van Blerk, 2012). While the reasons young people leave for the street have been studied (e.g., Rizzini and Couto, 2018; Ursin, 2011), it is important to explore how and why the interdependent connections to young people’s families remain while they navigate between the street and family home.

In Brazilian cities, the reasons for youth leaving for the street can include factors such as peer influence, the search for freedom, leisure, income opportunities and drug-related reasons (Butler, 2009; Ursin, 2011). Still, sometimes these factors can focus on individual choices and neglect the complex relational reasons behind young people’s presence on the street. Youth roam the streets for diverse reasons, but financial and affective issues, such as abuse and neglect, in family relations are stated as the fundamental reasons (Rizzini and Couto, 2018; Silva and Avelar, 2014). Nevertheless, as extreme poverty and social vulnerability are the basis for young people’s presence on the street in Brazil, it is important to recognise the phenomenon beyond the individual youth’s or family’s situation.

Brazilian research has widely adopted the notions of children and adolescents being ‘subjects of rights’ and ‘in street situations’ and who live in the context of extreme vulnerability (Rizzini and Couto, 2018). While non-Brazilian Anglophone research has focused on street peers and how they are portrayed as a substitute family (Ursin and Rizzini, 2021), Brazilian research has long rejected the narrative of street-connected youth being abandoned by their families. Yet, in Brazilian society and popular discussion street-connected youth are perceived as abandoned, ‘nobody’s child’ (Morais et al., 2010) or ‘social orphans’ (Schwinger, 2007). The abandonment narrative does not recognise the transience and temporality (Rizzini et al., 2020) of street life, nor the variety of young people’s experiences and the fluid, dynamic nature of their life between street, home and shelters (Thomas de Benítez, 2011; Van Blerk, 2012). Furthermore, instead of ‘blaming the family’ (Rizzini and Couto, 2018), the term abandonment should be applied to the state’s inability to provide a variety of essential services (Butler, 2009). The reasons behind the social vulnerability of populations living in poorer communities in Brazil, such as the legacy of slavery or the adverse effects of unemployment, are worth addressing, and the deeply rooted inequality in society needs to be recognised as the primary reasons that cause youth to search for alternative survival mechanisms from the street (Butler, 2009; Rizzini et al., 2020; Ryynänen, 2011).

This article explores how street-connected youth describe their family relations and what meanings they attach to their families. This objective is approached by analysing the material from ethnographic fieldwork with 10 street-connected youths in the city of Recife, Brazil. The article ties the lives of street-connected youth to their families and aims to contribute conceptually and empirically to research on relational interdependence in diverse family situations. Street-connected youth and their families in Brazil live in socially vulnerable situations. Though often adverse, their life situations are heterogeneous, and young people’s family life includes also positive resources despite its challenges. The article aims to provide an understanding of the affective relations young people keep with their family members and suggests that these relations are not only negative or neglective, but also meaningful. The focus on affective relations contributes to the theoretical shift in childhood studies that broadens from the focus on children’s agency and competence to the relational aspects; reciprocity, responsibilities and the interdependent relationships that shape their everyday lives (Tisdall and Punch, 2012).

Conceptualising street-connected youth and relational family interdependence

Within the relational sociology of childhood, there is a rising discussion on recognizing children not only as agents but as their lives relationally embedded in the lives of others. Spyrou (2019) discusses how ontology in childhood studies has so far centered on questions of agency, arguing that children’s agency is socially and relationally produced rather than being a quality of the individual child. Relational ontologies emphasize interdependence, fluidity, and emergence in the context of an ever-changing relational world (Spyrou, 2022). Additionally, Crossley (2010) notes how actors interact in purposive ways, but they necessarily do so in the context of opportunities and constraints deriving from the resources that are available to them.

Child–parent relationships can be defined by expectations, obligations, connection and interdependence (Alanen, 2001). Kassa (2016) notes that although the reciprocity of child-parent relationships is recognised, many international studies on intergenerational relationships tend to emphasise parenting practices and are therefore one-dimensional. A focus on intergenerational relationships, such as young people’s relationships with members of their extended family and significant others, can reveal ideologies, expectations and values rooted in childhood (Kassa, 2016). Intergenerational reciprocity and dependence are associated with both parents and their children; both are dependent on each other, not only due to their own personal objectives but also to secure the effective running of a household (Twum-Danso, 2022).

The concept of interdependence provides insight into how interpersonal situations produce specific goals and motives, as well as how situations set the stage for interpersonal processes and interaction (Rusbult and Van Lange, 2008). Interdependence includes the level of dependence that describes the degree to which an individual ‘relies on’ an interaction partner, such as a family member. Dependence involves needing or relying on another; hence, dependence implies vulnerability (Rusbult and Van Lange, 2003). Furthermore, interpersonal family relations can be characterised by interdependence along both emotional and material dimensions (Kagitcibasi, 2017).

Interdependent relations between children and their families are not only constrained due to limited opportunities and material resources but are negotiated across and within generations. Negotiated interdependence takes various meanings and forms in different contexts, such as across countries, time and rural and urban environments (Punch, 2015). According to Kagitcibasi (2017), ‘total interdependence’ that includes strong emotional and material family expectations and obligations is linked to countries and areas with low socio-economic development and families with many children and extended family members. In total interdependence, children are valued for utilitarian as well as emotional reasons (Mayer et al., 2012).

Further, interdependence can be understood as a form of increasing well-being within the family. Especially in non-Western studies, people rarely refer to themselves alone but include the well-being of those who are close to them (White, 2015). Even in those situations where children and youth work, their ability to earn money at a young age should not be confused with possession of autonomy or self-determinacy, as they are rarely completely free from dependence on others (Abebe, 2019). Research in the Global South has found that people frequently refer first to economic resources when asked about well-being (White, 2015), which is something that cannot be ignored in describing the family relations of street-connected youth. According to studies in South Africa and Tanzania, the lack of economic resources is attached to informal agreements that obligate street-connected young people to perform tasks within the family in return for care and protection (Pearson, 2019; Van Blerk, 2012). Interdependent relations between family members are also defined as fluid dynamics of protection and power, as children, siblings, parents and other relatives seek to support one another (Van Blerk, 2012).

Interdependent family relations are noted in studies located in Brazil, although generalisations are impossible to make considering the diverse cultural, societal and economic differences across the country. Nevertheless, Carlo et al. (2007) state that the relationships between children and their family members in Brazil tend to be made up of various actions and behaviours of family interdependence. Many young people in Brazil are reported to participate in both domestic non-economic and economic activities to help their families (Kruger et al., 2010; Ursin, 2011). Additionally, Ryynänen (2011) describes the relations in Brazil among street-connected youth and their family members through reciprocity as mutual responsibilities are the core of family life. It can be important for young people to take responsibility within the family network, and these actions are part of the familiar negotiations and agreements to preserve family life, its maintenance and well-being. This interdependent responsibility within the family can be embedded in normative aspects of the family dynamics where everyone is expected to contribute (Lara and Castro, 2021). Nevertheless, this interdependence also takes forms where families in adverse situations are forced to send their children to work because of economic necessity, and the most vulnerable members of society continue to stay in an intergenerational poverty cycle (Kruger et al., 2010).

The family configurations of street-connected youth in Brazil often include the absence of fathers, and the head of the family is a female figure, often a mother or grandmother. Additionally, siblings, extended family, friends and neighbours are often described as family members (Paludo and Koller, 2008). Also, Fonseca (2011) has noted in the context of urban working-class neighbourhoods the young people’s tendency to speak of many women as their ‘mother’ within the extended family network. Hence, female-headed households and wide family networks within the context of extreme poverty shape the ways street-connected youth are linked with their families.

Data and methods

Ethnographic data was collected with street-connected youth in Recife which is among the largest cities ² in Brazil. It is located in one of the poorest regions in Brazil (Carlo et al., 2007). The data collection methods included participant observation, individual and pair interviews and other activities, such as drawing exercises. Data was collected for 9 months in 2018–2019 in a local civil society organisation (CSO). I was initially a volunteer and social work trainee in the CSO and collected the data in 2019 as a participant researcher. During this time, I participated in the educational activities, countryside visits, domestic visits and outreach street work of the CSO which helped build report with the participants. The participants were 10 youths aged between 12 and 17 years; 6 boys and 4 girls. The participants live or had previously lived on the street for some period of their lives and were clients of the CSO. Most of the interactions happened on the street, in the organisation and in the countryside, where the organisation took the young people for weekly visits. On the street, I was closer to their everyday life, whereas, in the calm countryside environment, it was possible to build trust and get to know the participants better and vice versa. In the interviews I asked the participants to explain about their lives and that I was especially interested in their life on the street, the people important to them and their family situation.

Despite their bond with the street, all participants had a bond with their families, here referring to ‘family’ in the wide sense (see Ferreira et al., 2014), including extended family members. Some of the participants spent many nights on the street, some slept mainly in their family homes and were on the street mostly during the daytime. Most of the participants were in between these spaces and navigated between their family home and the street. Only one boy said he lives on the street, whereas the other participants said they live with family members. The participants were in different phases of street life, meaning that some had been involved with ‘the street’ for years, whereas some had only recently started to spend time there. Those who had been on the street longer and were more involved with the work of the CSO were often more willing to share about their families and life situations. These descriptions were also relatively positive compared to those of the young people who were still familiarising themselves with the work of the organisation.

Ethical authorisation was granted by the Ethics Committee of the Tampere Region in Finland, the Ethics Committee of the Federal University of Pernambuco in Brazil and the Ethics Committee of the Brazilian Health Ministry. The main ethical considerations included sensitive and difficult conversations with the participants, obtaining informed consent and questions regarding anonymity and confidentiality. Ethical assessment of the suitable participants was carried out during the fieldwork, for example, by ruling out those youths who had a very traumatic family history with the help of the professionals working with them. Based on my previous experiences in the CSO I knew that family was a difficult topic to talk about for some youths. Instead of pushing the researcher’s objective to create research data and encouraging the young participants to turn silence into speech, it was important to attend to their silences with care and respect (see Spyrou, 2016). Therefore, the interviews were flexible, and I respected the participants’ will to speak or to be silent. I recorded some of the interviews in situations where the participant agreed, and I re-negotiated the informed consent with them on various occasions.

In addition to the interviews, the data consisted of a field diary. The data were analysed with inductive content analysis. In the analysis, I focused especially on where participants expressed the various obligations, expectations, hopes, contradictions, challenges and successes regarding their families. The analysis evolved with the three stages of inductive content analysis: reducing, clustering and abstracting the data (Miles and Huberman, 1994). The subcategories were developed based on recurring themes and then merged into more overarching categories that describe the young people’s diverse family relations and the meanings they attach to their families. These categories were: (i) financial reciprocity, (ii) taking care of one another, (iii) absence, longing and concern and (iv) neglect, silence and family ‘ideals’.

Family interdependence in young people’s daily relations

The street and family lives of the young people in Recife are formed in diverse relations. Many youths expressed a sense of mutual responsibility towards their families. These interdependent actions could take the form of family members providing for, being concerned about and offering protection to one another. The supportive aspects the young people mentioned were that the family takes care of them, they can trust at least one family member, they do things together and staying closer to their family makes it possible to pursue future dreams like education and work. Reciprocally, the participants said how they contribute to family income and support their family members. Most of the youths expressed their relationships with their family members as mostly good, despite often having at least one family member with whom they had a difficult relationship. The family was present in the young people’s everyday lives through different activities and shared experiences. They talked casually about how they flew kites, went to the beach, played football, bought hot dogs or danced passinho (a local dance style) with their family members. The participants talked about going home after spending enough time on the street, or that their family was expecting them to come home. Families and home communities tended to be on the young people’s minds even when they were on the street.

However, in some conversations with the participants, the difficult and ambivalent aspects regarding their families included stories and experiences of absent family members, longing, concern, neglect and silence. Family members could represent a ‘bad’ route for life; they might be a warning example of what could happen if the youth was to follow their lead. Family members could also complicate the participants’ wish to detach themselves from an undesirable lifestyle. Some of the participants discussed family members who did not care for them or did not want to have contact with them. Some of the participants shared about their lives relatively freely, but in some of the conversations, silence was a common response to questions regarding family. Sometimes the participants expressed that they felt more responsible for their family members instead of their family taking care of them. Ambivalent interdependent expectations can also include situations where the parents (or other guardians) expected or pressured their child to bring home the money they earned on the street. Hence, the family was a highly sensitive topic and in addition to supportive factors, was charged with various forms of ambivalence.

Financial reciprocity

In the participants’ descriptions, these mundane activities and emotional attachment were combined with the fact that the street is a vital source of survival. Sometimes the participants were important providers for the family as families might depend on everyone to contribute financially. Gabriel ³ (17) talked about financial reciprocity with his father. He used to live with his father, but lately he had preferred to sleep on the street. When I asked how things between Gabriel and his father are, Gabriel answered ‘it is okay, he helps me, he buys me clothes, gives me money. I help him with recycling, we collect rubbish, sell it and divide the money.’ ⁴ Gabriel and his father did business together, and this work kept Gabriel closer to his father although he was not spending the nights at his father’s place anymore.

Financial reciprocity was also visible in Bruno’s (12) situation. Bruno’s mother was familiar with street life because she had been on the street since she was a child. The mother and the children had come to the same location to beg for money for years. Bruno’s family was an example of an intergenerational street situation where the street socialisation process begins with children being on the street with their families due to financial necessity. When the children become older and develop a stronger bond with the street, they start to spend time there more independently, sleeping on the street and using the money for themselves, sometimes to use glue ⁵ or other drugs. These connected and contested relational processes both encourage them to leave home and remain part of it (Van Blerk, 2012). Nevertheless, there was a sense of mutual responsibility as the whole family participated in earning income, as Bruno explained:

I am not in the (transport station) that much anymore. […] When I was younger, I was with my mum at the station, when she was there begging. I was also selling gum. I still sell, and I beg. I want money for myself, but sometimes I take it to my mum. She does not make me do it, but I want to help her.

In the participants’ descriptions of the mutual financial contribution, the material and emotional factors were intertwined. There were situations when the family expected their child to bring home the money they had earned on the street, but there were also times when they wanted to help their family, such as in Bruno’s description where his mother did not obligate him to contribute financially. Intergenerational familial expectations are not shaped solely by parental interests and values but also by what children and youth want to be (Kassa, 2016). However, like Bruno, young people are rarely free from dependence on others (see Abebe 2019). Although he had become less dependent on his family relations, Bruno’s survival on the street was still relationally dependent on others; peers, passersby, and others who facilitate his life on the street.

As young people navigate personal desires and collective responsibilities, they make various decisions. Mutual emotional and material reciprocity were also notable when Fernando (17) talked about how his family and dreams were tied together. He dreamed of being a firefighter, buying his own house and living there with his ‘woman’. Fernando explained the interdependent connections within his family: ‘I want to buy things to help my family when I have money.’ Fernando did not have the money ‘yet’, and neither did his mother or father because they did not work. ‘My sister works and helps the family. My family helps me’, he described. Therefore, Fernando’s idea for the well-being of the family is strongly linked to reciprocal support.

Still, not all participants felt the obligation to contribute financially. For instance, Fernando’s brother André (16) also mentioned his sisters supporting their family financially but, in contradiction to Fernando, André said that as his sisters already take care of the family he does not necessarily have to, even if he gets a job. Despite Fernando and André living in seemingly similar situations between their family and the street, their relational lives are unique. They viewed their role within the family network differently regarding material interdependence, although both mentioned their family relations being important. Children’s and young people’s economic responsibility towards their families is stated especially regarding families in vulnerable situations (Carlo et al., 2007; Kruger et al., 2010). In these various situations where young people intentionally leave for the street to earn income, the negotiations between the family and the street are necessarily formed within the limited opportunities available to them (see Crossley, 2010). Still, the youth are social agents in actively producing their relations with important others (Van Blerk, 2012), and the relations are not only constrained due to limited material resources but negotiated within generations (Punch, 2015).

Taking care of one another

In addition to financial interdependence, family members can offer one another various forms of interdependent support; some of the youths in Recife explained how they took care of and defended their family members and contributed to housework. Likewise, some participants described how their family members supported them and helped them with practical issues, and their family home offered food, clothes, a shower and other necessities. One example of this type of support was (extended) family members who helped with childcare in situations where adolescents had their own children. Like many other girls in a similar situation, Ana (17) who was pregnant explained:

Ana: When the baby is born, I will take her home. I will be there during the time of breastfeeding. Then I will come back to the street. But I don’t want to bring the baby here, it is dangerous here. The street is not a place for small children.

Researcher: But you want to come back here?

Ana: Yes, I am used to being on the street. But maybe, if I would be at home with the baby, I would get used to that. But probably I will leave the baby with my mum, and I will visit them from the street. My mum will take care of her.

Ana was aware of the dangers on the street, but her bond with the street and the relationships she had there were strong. She seemed to be at odds with the option that she could stay at home with the baby. Meanwhile, she knew that her mother could also take care of the baby, and her mother’s house had facilities for it – Ana also went there to eat, sleep and take a shower now and then. The mother’s emotional support, as well as material facilities in the household, enabled Ana to come back to the street. If she left the baby with her mother, she would trust her mother to take good care of her baby. Whereas Ana seemed to appreciate her mother’s support, her hesitation to stay more at home with the baby also demonstrated her ambivalence and the relational situation she was in. Although Ana knew the street would not be a place for her baby, the street with its community remained important for Ana – there she had income opportunities and important people taking care of her. Hence, in Ana’s relational world, interdependence, fluidity and mobility between multiple networks (see Crossley, 2010; Spyrou, 2022) were present within the street community and her mother’s house.

Emotional and material family support were also visible in the story of Larissa (17) when she described her mother’s and sisters’ mutual dreams for her and the actions Larissa’s mother was taking:

I see everyone studying but me. I stopped studying. My mum went to the council, for me to go to school. She said that if I go back, she will give me everything. My sister hopes that I would stop using glue and cigarettes. She said even weed is better than glue. And my mum’s wish is to put me in school. Every time she talks about this. I talked with the school director; she wants me to come back. I will go back. If God wants.

Larissa explained how her whole family was trying hard to help her to go back to school, which was something she wanted as well. These changes were encouraged by the people around her: mother, sister and school director. Despite this support, Larissa said she will go back ‘if God wants’ – implying that going back to school was something out of their hands. Despite Larissa’s feeling of having support from people around her, she may not see pursuing her dreams as a realistic option in the reality she lives in. This social reality consists of the various relations – at home and on the street – which influence her decision to not go to school.

With the participants, in addition to the parents or parental figures, diverse forms of reciprocity were visible in sibling relations. Out of ten participants, seven mentioned their sibling(s) being involved with street life, and five were on the street together with their sibling(s). The social locations of the family affect how siblings view their role and sense of responsibility towards their family members. Older siblings might express the responsibility to take care of their younger siblings or go to the street to provide for the family. These expectations and contributions are also influenced by the age, gender and birth order of the children and youth (Van Blerk, 2012). In addition to this responsibility, siblings tended to have a specific emotional role in the young people’s lives. Sometimes the participants were on the street with their siblings, and especially in these situations, the siblings depended on each other a lot. For instance, Bruno talked about how he defends his brother on the street when others ‘get rough with him’. Siblings can offer meaningful love and support and take care of each other. However, being born in the same family does not mean the same kind of life, and each sibling has a unique social and relational world. Even if all the siblings were on the street, the reasons behind it might be different, and the relationship between the street and family can vary (see Lehtonen, 2021).

Absence, longing and concern

The participants’ difficult emotions were commonly related to physically or emotionally absent family members. Absence referred to family members who were in prison, had passed away or who did not accept their children or had thrown them out of the house. For Gabriel, there was a lack of support and trust towards his family, apart from his father. Gabriel talked about his mother and stepfather who ‘kicked him out of the house’, and aunts who ‘don’t care’. Gabriel said that he did not care about the situation at home, but talking about it also made him visibly sad. Sometimes the participants expressed that they wish they could restore bonds with their families but that they might be unable to do so. Van Blerk (2012) discusses how street-connected young people contest negative relations by crossing spatial boundaries between the home and the street. For instance, Gabriel, after being ‘thrown out’ of his mother’s house, kept moving between his father’s house and different locations on the street. These situations seemed to be difficult, as many participants became emotional when talking about challenging relationships with their family members. Longing and affective ambivalence can be present in these sometimes idealised relations (Rizzini and Couto, 2018; Silva and Avelar, 2014).

Some of the youths talked about important family members who had passed away. For instance, Paulo (17) talked about his brother who died; it ‘touched his heart’. The absence of Paulo’s brother made him reflect on his own life. There was a time Paulo experienced a traumatic event; he was shot during a police intervention in his community when he had marijuana with him. ‘I lost, almost lost my life. But now it’s alright. I want to change my life and not stay on the street anymore. On the street I’d just do stupid things’, he declared. Paulo’s brother was also involved in street life. Paulo’s family was worried the same would happen to him if he stayed on the street, and they were afraid he would disappear again. Paulo talked about his grandmother’s worry and distrust:

I told my grandma that I am going to (the organisation), I am here now. But she thinks I’m on the street using drugs. Can we go to her house and tell her that I was here? For her to know that I am not using drugs and all. Because she knows I am not in my mum’s house. So that she believes me.

According to Paulo, the strong and difficult emotions regarding his brother affected Paulo’s decision to try to change his life and to not be on the street as much. This interdependent connection between Paulo’s and his brother’s situation was therefore emotional, but the brother’s situation was also ‘a warning example’ that influenced Paulo’s life decisions. Paulo explained how he did not want to go to his mother’s place because he wanted to avoid a bad influence; a friend who was a drug dealer. Paulo considered his mother’s place a risk factor, and this was one of the reasons why Paulo was living with his grandmother. Hence, Paulo’s current reality and his life choices were influenced by a complex relational situation in which many family members took part.

In the participants’ descriptions, concern and worry were some of the dominant feelings regarding their family members. It was common for the young people to mention their family members, especially mothers, grandmothers and siblings, being worried about them, wishing them to come back home and to stop using drugs. This worry was also reciprocal, as the young people frequently expressed concern regarding, for instance, their family members’ safety, well-being and financial situation. Interdependent concern and support among siblings could be present simultaneously, as siblings shared spaces on the street and at home. Bruno’s presence on the street was also partly influenced by his brother, as he explained how he started going to the street after his brother because Bruno was worried about him. ‘I ask him to come home with me when we had been on the street. But sometimes he runs away from home, and I go after him on the street.’ Besides siblings offering care and support, they could also be a ‘pull factor’ for their sister or brother to end up in the street environment.

One of the most common acts of concern was family members going to look for their children on the street, which is a common phase in the street socialization process (see Butler, 2009). These stories strongly contradict the concept of abandoned children – a narrative still present in Brazilian society but frequently criticised in research (Lehtonen, 2021; Morais et al., 2010; Schwinger, 2007). Larissa explained a recurring dynamic regarding her mother’s concern:

These days I was on the street a lot, I slept on the street, and she (mother) came to take me home. Sometimes I go with her, sometimes I don’t. But this time I went because I missed my mum. She has been on the street before, she knows how dangerous it is. She said that she wants to buy a Playstation for me, my stepdad and sister to play. For me to leave the street. I will leave. Clothes, food, games... She is trying hard. My mum said there is a bad spirit on the street. It takes people’s lives. She does not want me to be on the street. There are many bad people. My family, they wish I would come back home.

In addition to going to look for their children on the street, the parents tried to make the home more appealing by buying them goods, despite the families’ financial struggles. These types of street-home negotiations can be understood as intertwined emotional and material concerns. Sometimes intergenerational street life and concern were tied together, and parents’ strong bond with the street meant they were unlikely to romanticise street life. Instead, often parents who had been on the street for a long time were very aware of its dangers, and they hoped that their children would not become too attached to the street.

Neglect, silence and family ‘ideals’

Nevertheless, some family relations included highly adverse situations. Unfortunately, neglect, conflicts, and domestic violence were frequent in the young people’s descriptions and life histories. Some of the participants, like Maria (13), described their family members as ‘bad’: ‘there are crazy people at home’. Poverty and other challenges in the young people’s home environment can lead to increased stress, which is sometimes manifested in different forms of abuse, and the parents can socialise their children based on their own experiences (O’Haire, 2011). The intergenerational poverty cycle cannot be ignored in this dynamic. However, it is rare for young people to say that relationships are ruptured with all their family members (Lehtonen, 2021). Some participants’ common reaction to questions about family was silence, and some left the conversation. For example, Maria, Julia (13) and Thiago (15) became visibly hesitant and closed when mentioning their family, and hardly shared anything about their situation. There were also differences regarding which family members the youths mentioned freely and whom they only mentioned when specifically asked (see Spyrou 2016). In the CSO, the challenge to touch family situations was reflected by what the professionals called sensitisation (sensibilização); the process of getting to know the youth, being sensitive to their individual needs, and raising awareness about their situation on the street and in the family (see Lehtonen, 2021).

Ferreira et al. (2014) state, that despite the ambivalence and conflicts, the family is the core of the affective bonds and social support of street-connected children and youth. Families both enable and constrain young people’s dreams, such as education, work and having their own family. In some situations, the positive aspects the participants demonstrated towards their families could be an idealisation of what the youth wished their family life could or should be like (Ferreira et al., 2014). Some of the participants talked beautifully about their family relations although, based on the daily conversations with the CSO’s professionals, their backgrounds involved heavy conflicts. Often the youths who were connected to the street and its dangers, drugs and violence talked about their current life situation and dreams that were noticeably contradictory. The family could enable their dreams, but many participants had difficulty pursuing these dreams in the adverse conditions in which they were living. Ideally, family represents a crucial support network for street-connected youth and is not easily replicated in street relationships (Pearson, 2019). Nevertheless, this ‘family ideal’ is not possible in situations of abuse and neglect, where young people leave for the street as a survival mechanism (Rizzini and Couto, 2018; Ursin, 2011), reflected in a dichotomy of ‘idealised family’ and ‘lived family’ (Morais et al., 2010). Additionally, having a family as a future ideal is something that came up in the participants’ stories and is stated in former research (Rizzini et al., 2020; Ursin, 2011). Comments such as ‘family takes care’ and ‘family helps if you have problems’ left open questions of whether this was their internal experience or an idealised wish for their future – or both.

Concluding discussion

This article explored how street-connected youth describe their family relations and what meanings they attach to their families. The article approached the topic with the concept of interdependence, aiming to grasp the diverse meanings, expectations and obligations in the family relationships of the youths. In the results the diverse relational character of street and family life is evident, and the young people’s well-being is relationally embedded in the lives and well-being of meaningful others. The results demonstrated that despite the participants’ presence on the street and the variety of family backgrounds, they often felt connected to their families and had a sense of mutual reciprocity and responsibility towards their family members. These interdependent relations included positive perspectives regarding mundane activities, support and care, as well as ambivalent emotions of concern, neglect and longing for absent family members. Material interdependence was visible in the participants’ descriptions of their family members supporting them with schooling, raising children and reciprocal financial support. The young people reported various ways how they contributed to family life, as did their family members. Hence, both emotional and material reciprocity aimed to increase the families’ well-being. Still, despite presenting the results with these categorisations, it is impossible to create comprehensive categories regarding family relations and their interdependent actions, as the young people’s descriptions were highly complex and beyond strict emotional, material, positive or negative distinctions.

The negotiations between the street and home were frequent. The young people described a variety of contradictions; the interdependent responsibilities and love within their family, as well as ambivalence and neglect, that influence their choices to both distance themselves from home and remain part of it. The young people’s dreams and aspirations were often interconnected with the hopes their families had for them. Families could enable their children’s dreams but also restrict them. The article suggests that the family life of street-connected youth consists of interconnected emotional and material interdependence, which is also influenced by other social relationships in which the youth are involved, and through which they and their families created alternative ways to survive in their challenging life situations. Nevertheless, we can ask how many of the young people’s descriptions are based on idealisations of how they would like their family situation to be (Ferreira et al., 2014; Rizzini and Couto, 2018; Silva and Avelar, 2014).

The article has introduced a side to young people’s family life that is relatively positive compared to some former studies on the family relations of street-connected children and youth (e.g., Rizzini and Couto, 2018). It needs to be acknowledged that all the participants were clients of the CSO and had a bond with their families. Additionally, some participants who shared more about their experiences had a relatively ‘good’ situation with their families, which consequently influenced the research results. Therefore, this article does not speak for all street-connected youth in Recife, not to mention those in other parts of the world. With a different group of participants, especially if they had been more attached to street life or not as familiar with the professionals of the organisation, their descriptions of family life could have been noticeably different. The family situations of young people, and other relationships influencing those, are diverse, and the objective of this article has not been to romanticise the family relations, nor to stigmatise them.

By understanding the various interdependent connections young people express, we can explore resource-oriented approaches and diverse mechanisms of intervention for family-focused work that recognise the variety of roles of these affective relationships in the lives of street-connected youth. This orientation combined with exploring young people’s family relations and street-family mobility and multi-locality would offer interesting topics for further research. The article’s implications unite with the Brazilian and international discussion on the importance of family-focused, community-based policy and practice regarding street-connected youth (Ferreira et al., 2014; Schwinger, 2007; Van Blerk, 2012). It is rare for the families of street-connected youths to completely neglect their children, but due to socioeconomically vulnerable family situations and intergenerational poverty, the families need support to complement their children’s needs. Early interventions, such as emotional and financial assistance and conflict mediating with families (see Pearson, 2019) would be very important for children and youth who are only just starting to spend time on the street.

The will of street-connected youths to be reunited with their family, especially with emotionally close members, is expressed in this article and in former Brazilian and international research (e.g., Beazley, 2000; Ferreira et al., 2014). When pursuing the objective of family reintegration and strengthening family ties, it is crucial to reflect on which family member(s) the youth wants to and can stay with. Hence, there is a need for exploration of wider family and community relations and alternative living arrangements within the family network. Additionally, sibling relations have a powerful significance that is important to recognise in work practice (Van Blerk, 2012). Sensitisation is important in earning young people’s trust, and it can be viewed as a tool to attend the youths’ silence – not as something to be ‘solved’ but something to be respected (see Spyrou, 2016). This type of approach can lead to sustainable change in their life situation but requires, firstly, time and patience from the professionals and secondly, continuous work possibilities with these youths and their families instead of short-term projects.

Young people’s stories of interdependence and mutual familial responsibility contradict the normative ideal that children and youth should be solely dependent on their families for their well-being. Neither are they independent on the street. Youths’ contribution and reciprocity with their family members directly influence the survival of these families in their living conditions that are shaped by extreme poverty. It is also important to note that the lives of these youths are embedded in the politics and resources available to them (see Crossley, 2010), which shape the relational aspects of street and family life. The concept of interdependence can illuminate new ways to frame and acknowledge the diverse situations of street-connected youth as relational and reciprocal, as it is evident that they live in relations that go beyond the direct street environment. The child’s best interest should be approached by exploring the connectedness of young people to their families, home communities, and to the other relationships on the street and elsewhere which define their family and home connectedness. The article argues that family relations are important in shaping the worlds of street-connected youth and therefore should be acknowledged in policy and practice to understand their situations thoroughly.