Child Domestic Workers: Protected Persons or Modern-Day Slaves?

Jonathan Blagbrough is programme director of Children Unite (www.childrenunite.org.uk) and an independent consultant on child exploitation.

Child domestic workers are among the most numerous, vulnerable and exploited of the world’s child labourers. Recent estimates from the International Labour Organisation (ILO) indicate that there are at least 15.5 million child domestic workers, and that there are more girls aged under sixteen years in domestic service than in any other type of work.¹ More than half of these children are in hazardous situations—work which by its nature or the circumstances in which it is carried out is likely to harm the health, safety or morals of children (ILO, Convention 182, Article 3(d)). Around 90 per cent of child domestic workers are girls, who are isolated and hard to reach not only because they work behind the closed doors of their employers’ homes, but also because societies see the practice as normal and as important training for later life.

 

Child domestic workers are those under eighteen years who work in other people’s households, doing domestic chores, caring for children, tending the garden, running errands, helping their employers run small businesses, and other tasks. They include children who “live in” and those who live separately from their employers, as well as those who are paid for their work and the many who work purely in exchange for their food, shelter and care. While it is also the case that many children bear significant domestic workloads in their own homes and face similar issues to child domestic workers, their situation is not the focus here.

 

Child domestic work demands particular attention because of its conditions of labour. Time and again, child domestic workers report that their daily experience of discrimination and isolation in the household is the most difficult part of their burden. The live-in situation of many also makes them highly dependent on their employers for their basic needs. This seclusion and dependency makes child domestic workers particularly vulnerable to exploitation and abuse, and routinely results in physical, psychological and sexual violence.

 

Besides violence, numerous other dangers threaten child domestic workers. Hazardous household chemicals (such as cleaning fluids), kitchen knives, irons, boiling water and the use of unfamiliar household appliances have caused many child domestic workers serious injury and even death—especially among younger children and those already exhausted from a full day’s work. There are also likely to be long-term health risks from chronic sleep deprivation and being on call twenty-four hours a day, as well as from heavy tasks such as water collecting.² In Indonesia, the ILO found that children do the same amount of work as adults, which is inappropriate to their physical capacity and stamina. The study also observed that the long hours of work and little time for rest, recreation or socialising affected these children’s mental, physical, social and intellectual development.³

 

However, while attention to the situation of child domestic workers has grown considerably in the last twenty years, concern about their wellbeing still stems largely from aspects of their working conditions which are easier to see and measure (such as the tasks they do and the number of hours they work), and less from the circumstances which got them there. But recognition of the relationships and beliefs which push and pull children into domestic work is central to understanding their vulnerability to exploitation and abuse by the receiving family, and is crucial to grasping why their situation can sometimes be analogous to slavery. These issues are discussed in greater depth later in this paper.

How and Why Do Children Become Domestic Workers?

While much of the literature continues to present poverty as a key driver, it has been argued that the catch-all use of the term masks more complex and fundamental push factors, such as the cultural motivations of parents to send their girls into “safe” and suitable situations in advance of married life.⁴ Initial results from a recent study of the psychosocial impact of domestic work on children have found that the level of cultural and social acceptability of child domestic work in a society affects the age at which children enter the sector and how they are subsequently treated. Children in societies where the practice is widely accepted were found to start work at a younger age and to be subject to greater exploitation than in those where the practice is less tolerated.⁵

 

Girls may also enter domestic service of their own volition, as this might offer them the only chance of continuing their education, or of escaping from family violence. Family break-ups and physical and sexual abuse in their own families were common catalysts for children to leave home and begin work, as were issues such as alcoholism.

 

“I prefer to live with my employers because they are good to me. They don’t force me to do things that I cannot do. For example, I get enough rest and I can decide when I want to do laundry.” (Child domestic worker, Philippines)⁶

 

Child domestic workers themselves have spoken to Anti-Slavery International of the many ways in which they have been pushed and pulled into domestic service.⁷ In India, a number of children were working to repay loans. In Peru and the Philippines, older children spoke of their decision to seek work in the city in order to pursue their education. In Tanzania, a quarter of respondents to the Anti-Slavery International study recounted that they were forced into domestic work because family members had died from HIV/AIDS and they had no reliable relatives to take care of them.

 

Children are also pulled into domestic service by siblings and friends already working as domestics, and because of employers’ demands for younger workers. In Nepal, children said that it was hard to continue as a domestic worker above the legal minimum working age of fourteen years as employers had told them that older children are more trouble and are able to bargain for higher salaries and other rights. Mothers often play a key role in promoting their children’s entry into domestic work. Other family members, such as older sisters and brothers who are already working, can also be the vehicle for encouraging children into domestic work—by telling them about work opportunities or helping them to get jobs.

Why Do Child Domestic Workers Deserve Particular Concern?

Discrimination and Isolation

Some days I stayed without food. I was not allowed to share the table with the family and to touch anything. I used to eat in the kitchen. (Child domestic worker, Tanzania)⁸

 

Child domestic workers often report that their daily experience of discrimination and isolation in their employer’s household is the most difficult part of their burden. A recent study in Bangladesh found that it was “neither the verbal or physical punishments, nor the possible lack of material goods or even food, that upset [the child domestic workers] most; it was the discrimination, exclusion, disrespect, ingratitude, and other assaults on their emotional needs that truly hurt them”.⁹ Even if their relationship with members of the household is good, these relationships are not on equal terms. A typical manifestation of discrimination is that the employer’s children go to school, while the child domestic worker cannot. The child often has to eat separately from the employing family, may have to eat food of inferior quality, and often receives second-rate treatment when ill. Although she may sleep in the same room as the employer’s children, she may equally end up sleeping in the kitchen or on the veranda.¹⁰

 

Once, I had tea with my employers. They told me to go in the corner and drink. (Child domestic worker, India)¹¹

 

Live-in child domestic workers have limited freedom of movement in their employers’ houses and are subject to their rules. Commonly, they are told not to leave the house by employers, who frighten them with stories of what they will face on the outside. Even if they are paid, they may not handle their wages or have enough money to escape. Although most employers do not take on child domestic workers with the express intention of inflicting violence on them, research from many regions indicates that some employers prefer children to adults because they perceive them to be more “submissive” and “easier to control”.¹²

Violence and Abuse

They hurt me, spank me, throw things at me, use hurting words—maybe just to shame me in front of other people. (Child domestic worker, Philippines)

 

The child’s isolated situation and her undefined role in the employer’s household (of which, more later) make her particularly vulnerable to physical, emotional and sexual abuse. If violence does occur, her dependency on her employer for basic needs and her acceptance of violence as an occupational hazard make her far less likely to report it.

 

My punishment was not being able to see my family; they knew my family was my weak point. (Child domestic worker, Peru)

 

Child domestic workers are subject to a bewildering array of violent treatment. Research has indicated that in some countries girls tend to suffer more from emotional bullying and boys more from physical violence. In a 2006 study of five hundred child domestic workers in West Bengal, it was found that 68 per cent had faced physical abuse, with almost half suffering severe abuse that had led to injuries. Eighty-six per cent had experienced emotional abuse. The study also found that nearly a third of families had no idea where their daughters were working. A further 27 per cent admitted they knew their children were being beaten and harassed.¹³

 

In its reports on the situation of child domestic workers in El Salvador, Guatemala, Indonesia, Morocco and Togo, Human Rights Watch has found that, almost without exception, interviewees suffered some form of psychological abuse. It concludes that “employer abuse, combined with isolation at the workplace, excessive work demands, and financial pressures may contribute to intense anxiety and depression”.¹⁴

 

I did not like my employer because she would shout at me, call me a “Tai” [shit] and “Anjing” [dog]. I did not feel comfortable. Why am I being treated this way? I could not stand my employer’s treatment of me. (Child domestic worker, Indonesia)¹⁵

 

In Kenya, one of the few field studies which specifically look at the psychological impact of child domestic labour found significantly more manifestations of psychological problems among child domestic workers than in other children (both working and non-working). Bedwetting, insomnia, nightmares, frequent headaches, withdrawal, regressive behaviour, premature ageing, depression and phobic reactions to their employers were found to be common.¹⁶ Depression among child domestic workers has also been reported in Bangladesh and in Latin American countries.¹⁷

 

More recently, an Ethiopian study in 2006 found that “childhood mental and behavioural disorders were more common in the domestic child labourers than in the non-labourers or other categories of labourers”. The causes identified were subjection to the control of employers, excessive working hours, lack of personal freedom, and physical, verbal and emotional abuse.¹⁸

 

Sexual violence towards child domestic workers, because of the child’s vulnerability and isolation, is relatively common. For example, in Haiti the term used for child domestic workers is restavèk, literally meaning “stay with”. Restavèk girls are sometimes called la pou sa, a Creole term meaning “there for that”—implying that they are accepted sexual outlets for the men or boys of the household.¹⁹ In the West Bengal study cited earlier, a third of child domestic workers reported having had their private parts touched by members of their employing family. Twenty per cent had been forced to have sexual intercourse. In El Salvador, a study by the ILO and the International Programme on the Elimination of Child Labour (IPEC) showed that more than 15 per cent of child domestic workers who had changed their employers had done so because of sexual harassment or abuse.²⁰

 

Oh yes, the man wanted to take advantage. I lived in and had a room; he must have known that I was on my own. The lady had gone out, he arrived and he just came into my room. I was asleep, I had a gown on and the sheet but my chest was bare; I could feel somebody touching me. I got up and just then his mother-in-law came into the room and beat him with a broomstick … I left after that, I was scared, and that’s why I left. (Child domestic worker, Peru)

 

A study in Dar es Salaam (Tanzania) established that more than a quarter of girls being commercially sexually exploited were former child domestic workers—many of whom had previously been sexually abused by members of the family they were working for.²¹ In cases where girls become pregnant, they are often thrown out of the house and forced to fend for themselves on the streets, as the shame of their situation makes it difficult for them to return home. Reintegration can prove difficult as many families reject these “spoiled girls” because they believe their behaviour has brought them dishonour. In such instances, domestic work typically becomes a precursor to prostitution, since so few other options exist. Traffickers of children into the sex trade routinely deceive children and their families about what will happen to them by promising them attractive jobs as domestic workers. In the Philippines, most of the children and young women trafficked to Manila from rural areas in search of work are promised jobs as domestic workers, but a significant number end up in the sex trade.²²

 

The attitudes of child domestic workers themselves towards violence are also important to consider. The child may expect and/or accept violence for various reasons: she may have a background of being abused; she is likely to feel a strong sense of duty to her parents to make the situation work out; she may regard violence as an occupational hazard and accept it up to a certain point; she may not see any alternatives to her situation; or she may simply fear the consequences of speaking up.

Losing out on Education

Numerous studies have shown how child domestic labour directly impedes the child’s right to education. Most child domestic workers themselves attach great importance to getting an education and, in some cases, consider that being a domestic worker is a way of continuing their studies. In reality their situation is, more often than not, a serious obstacle to studying. Commonly, this is simply because employers do not allow them to go to school—or renege on an initial agreement to do so.

 

I work as a domestic but used to attend school. Before going to school every morning, I had to take a big pot full of cooked rice to the roadside. One day, the pot fell down and the rice was spoiled. My employer was angry and decided not to pay my school fees. So, I dropped out of school but continued working for her for long time. (Child Domestic Worker, Togo)

 

However, even when child domestic workers are given the opportunity to attend school, the long working hours and requirements of their job often make it impossible to do so. In Lima, for example, some child domestic workers persevere with night schools, but report that they have little time for homework and are frequently tired in class, which has made it difficult to progress. Similar issues are commonly reported among child domestic workers elsewhere.

 

The inflexibility of the formal education system is seen as another obstacle to continuing their education, as is the poor teaching quality in some schools and the difficulty of affording school books, equipment, uniforms, and of paying school fees. Many child domestic workers also end up dropping out during the school year because of these problems, and are discouraged from returning to formal education because of the need to earn money for their families.

 

Even if my employer encouraged me to go to school, I decided not to enrol because I wanted to save money that I can send back to my family. (Child Domestic Worker, Philippines)

 

In addition to being a tool for advancement, education, according to a recent study, is a key factor in protecting child domestic workers, “because it denotes the support of their parents, community and teachers and allows them to participate, grow and have aspirations”.²³

Their Ambiguous Situation

Informal Care Arrangements: Protection or Exploitation?

Despite evidence of the increasing commercialisation of the practice, a child domestic worker remains as likely to be working for a relative as for a stranger—blurring lines as regards her relationship with the employing family. Whether for kin or others the child works, but is not considered a worker. She lives as part of a family, but is not treated like a family member. Because of the child’s ambiguous position in the household, she is ultimately no one’s responsibility. The resulting familial and legal-care vacuum, coupled with the child’s physical and emotional isolation in the household, serves to create her unique vulnerability to exploitation and abuse.

 

This is not a modern phenomenon. The use of children as domestic workers—usually in exchange for care—has continued for generations and remains a common parental strategy in many societies to strengthen family kinship ties, provide training for a child’s later life, protect girls from exposure to other forms of work, and as a coping strategy in times of hardship. Such arrangements—which are usually depicted as guardianship or informal foster care—are typically perceived as benign by the child’s parents and employers alike, creating a cultural “blind spot” as to the child’s actual situation. Parents strongly believe that sending their children away to be brought up by other better off families will afford their children far greater opportunities than could be offered at home. They also commonly believe that living with a “foster” family offers a more protective environment for their children, and that whatever work is asked of the child by her host is an acceptable consequence of her placement. Employer families, far from seeing themselves as exploiters, consider that they are helping the child and its family by taking the child in. Their perception of themselves is as benefactors who treat the child in their care as “one of their own”.

 

This nexus of beliefs between sending and receiving adults, and societal acceptance of the practice, continues to operate in any number of contexts, within countries and across borders. In Liberia, for example, the movement of large numbers of children from rural areas to live with relatives or friends of relatives in urban settings mirrors the long-established tradition of “child fostering” across much of West Africa. The practice of informal fostering evokes notions of benign kinship relations and community support for raising children, but in reality conceals the exploitation and abuse of children on a grand scale. Findings from Liberia indicate that, while some of these children are treated well and live in acceptable conditions in the homes of relatives or friends of relatives, many children fare otherwise.²⁴ Children’s responses in particular indicate a plethora of mistreatment such as exhausting and hazardous work as well as violence and neglect—compounded by broken promises of schooling and the household discrimination practised against them by people who purport to be their guardians.

 

My aunt made me sell cold water and after selling I had to do housework in the evening. I spent a year and a half, but I was not going to school. I sent a message to my mother, but no response. So, I decided to leave the house. I spent two months with friends until a truck driver helped me and took me back to Zwedru. My mother was not happy to see me because I had run away from my aunty. (Child domestic worker, Liberia)²⁵

 

The risks associated with informal foster care can be even greater in conflict and post-conflict situations. Research in Rwanda and Liberia has demonstrated children’s increased exposure to exploitation and abuse as a result of restricted options for external monitoring of their wellbeing, combined with uncertainty surrounding the obligations of their foster carers and the incoming child’s status in the host family.²⁶ In Liberia, respondents indicated that the breakdown in the social fabric and economic pressures created by the civil war affected how receiving families viewed the children in their care. These families seemed less bound than before the conflict by their traditional kinship obligations to the children of their relatives.

Analogous to Slavery?

As has been shown, the term “child domestic work” covers a broad range of practices and outcomes—some of which can be positive—for the children involved. This makes sweeping generalisations equating all child domestic work situations to slavery both impractical and inadvisable. While it is clear, therefore, that by no means all child domestic workers are in slavery-like situations, slavery experts have nevertheless been concerned about such children for some time. In 1925, for instance, the Temporary Slavery Commission of the League of Nations condemned as slave-dealing the transfer of children for domestic service under the pretext of adoption. Article 1(d) of the United Nations 1956 Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade, and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery considers as “servitude” the situation of children who live away from home to work, whether or not they are paid. Discussions during the drafting process of this convention provided strong indications of the practices it was intended to prohibit. These included versions of the Mui Tsai (“Little Sister”) system prevalent in China earlier in the twentieth century, which involved the transfer of young children (mainly girls) by parents or guardians, under the guise of adoption, to be used by their new family as domestic servants.

 

In practice, there are several parallels between the Mui Tsai system and the situation faced by many live-in child domestic workers today. First, control of the child has been handed over to another person. (This occurs in all cases—whether the child has been sold, or given up to be “looked after”, or is used as collateral for a debt.) The child is therefore under the control of adults whose first concern is not her wellbeing. Second, the child is living, as well as working, away from family and home, limiting the ability of parents to monitor the child’s welfare and increasing the child’s dependence on her employer for her wellbeing and basic needs. Third, the child is often not directly compensated for her work (if she is paid at all). Wages may be transferred to her parents, or deducted in repayment of a debt, or withheld on any number of pretexts. This not only denies the child access to her own money but has the effect of tying her to her employer.

 

A further example of the close relationship between aspects of child domestic work and slavery was picked up on by the ILO in 1993 when its Committee of Experts on the Application of the Conventions and Recommendations (80th Session) discussed the situation of young child domestic servants as a forced labour issue. The committee drew on information it had received about restavèk children in Haiti. There, children, generally girls from poor rural backgrounds, are given away or sold by their parents to other families for whom they are expected to work as domestic servants. The placement of such children is often arranged by an intermediary. The committee recognised and noted the child’s separation from her home and family, the threat of physical and sexual abuse, the long hours, the exploitative conditions, and the humiliation she must endure. It also took note of the restavèk child’s total dependence upon the employing family for her welfare, and her complete lack of freedom of movement. It further noted that the child was not consulted about her work as a domestic, and was often so young upon leaving her natural family that were she, at some point, able to return home she would not know where to go. The committee commented that restavèk children were found “to work as domestics in conditions which are not unlike servitude. The children were forced to work long hours with little chance of bettering their conditions; many children were reported to have been physically and sexually abused”.

 

More recently, with the development of international standards on trafficking, child domestic labour has also been seen as a trafficking issue. At its simplest, child trafficking may be described as the process of recruiting and moving a child for the purpose of exploitation.²⁷ It can occur within one country, across national borders or between regions, and may involve collaboration among several people. While prospective employers may approach the child or her family directly, more often than not it is intermediaries who broker the deals between parents and employers, and who transport the children to their employing families. Intermediaries tend to be known in the communities from which they recruit children for domestic service. They are often local vendors or business people, with connections in both the source and destination areas, but they may also be recruiters from job placement agencies, friends, or even family members. In West Africa, for example, “aunties” (who may or may not be actual relatives) are frequently involved in recruiting children from rural areas for domestic work in urban centres, both within the country or in neighbouring states. Commonly, intermediaries deceive or coerce the child or her parents/guardians, who are fed false promises about working conditions, opportunities for education, and what life for the child will be like. This means that the way in which significant numbers of children enter domestic service can legitimately be described as trafficking. Sometimes it is the children themselves or their families who take the initiative and approach recruiters. Although these children may be more aware of what they will end up doing, they are generally unaware of the hardships they are likely to face.²⁸ Invariably, the trafficked child is totally dependent on the trafficker for her wellbeing, particularly during the transportation process. Additional vulnerabilities arise when national borders are crossed illegally, for example, in situations where the child is undocumented or placed somewhere she doesn’t speak the local language.

Addressing the Situation of Child Domestic Workers

It is neither correct nor sensible to consider all child domestic workers as slaves—and yet it is evident that even such children in the best of circumstances remain dependent on, and under the control of, adults whose first priority is not their wellbeing. Child domestic workers of all ages are undoubtedly isolated and highly vulnerable to the whims of their host family. In various studies, child domestic workers have clearly articulated that their vulnerability to exploitation is directly due to the isolation and discrimination they face in their employers’ households. Maintaining contact with their own families, and socialising with other children of their own age (other than their employers’ children), is vital to countering potential exploitation and abuse. Also helpful in this regard might be the establishment of local support groups where domestic workers, young and old, can assist one another and fight collectively for improvements in their working conditions and treatment.

 

Evidence also indicates that access to education (schooling or vocational training) is a priority for child domestic workers. Schools must adapt to the needs of older children who combine work with study by providing them with appropriate material and academic support. In addition, although it is easy to demonise employers, child domestic workers often indicate that the most effective form of protection is to enlist their employers’ co-operation.

 

Child domestic workers themselves must be involved directly as agents for change. Practitioners and policymakers are obliged to learn from children who have found ways of mitigating the exploitation to which they are subjected. Moreover, providing a context in which children can articulate their experiences is crucial to their personal development and ability to “move on”. Enabling child domestic workers to meet and organise in self/mutual-help groups, and involving them in the operation of services for their benefit, increases the likelihood that their needs will be met.

 

Practitioners and policymakers must also ensure that, in a context where attitudes and care practice for children are shifting away from large-scale residential care towards kinship and family foster-care options, safeguards are in place which minimise the potential for exploitation and abuse. Such safeguards include effective legislation, a trained child-welfare workforce, and regular monitoring of placements.

 

In the absence of adequate legal protection for child domestic workers in many countries, international standards such as the ILO’s “Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention (C.182)” of 1999 have been instrumental in putting child domestic labour on various national agendas. National and local legal provision for child domestic workers remains a policy priority because it both establishes minimum standards of protection and makes it easier to bring the issue out into the open. The ILO’s adoption in 2011 of standards specific to domestic workers (Convention 189 and Recommendation 201) is likely to be a further step towards highlighting the inherent vulnerability of domestic workers and protecting them from exploitation and abuse. The new standards require states to protect young children from domestic work, while ensuring that adolescents who are entitled to work do so without impairing their education. States are further recommended to provide special protection for adolescents entitled to work by strictly limiting their working hours and banning night work, as well as carefully controlling and monitoring their working conditions.

 

Fundamentally, a significant shift in societal attitudes (especially those of parents and employers) is needed if progress is to be made in protecting children from exploitation. The good news is that, little by little, the seeds of change are being sown in many parts of the world to effect this crucial social transformation. These seeds, and the individuals and organisations who have planted them, must be nurtured to ensure an end to the exploitation and abuse of child domestic workers. 

Endnotes

1. ILO Domestic Workers Policy Brief No. 4, Geneva, 2011 (15.5 million figure); ILO–IPEC (International Programme on the Elimination of Child Labour), Helping Hands or Shackled Lives? Understanding Child Domestic Labour and Responses to It (Geneva: ILO, 2004).

 

2. UNICEF–ICDC, “Child Domestic Work”, Innocenti Digest No. 5, UNICEF, Florence, International Child Development Centre, 1999.

 

3. ILO–IPEC, Flowers on the Rock: Phenomenon of Child Domestic Workers in Indonesia (Jakarta: ILO, 2004), pp. 70–1.

 

4. See Maggie Black, Comic Relief Review: What Are the Best Ways to Develop Effective Strategies and Approaches to Reach and Support Child Domestic Workers? (London: Comic Relief, 2011).

 

5. Anti-Slavery International, “Interim Research Report on the Psychosocial Impact of Child Domestic Work” (unpublished), London, Anti-Slavery International, 2010.

 

6. Anti-Slavery International and Children Unite, Stand with Us—Protecting Young Workers through the ILO Convention and Recommendation on Domestic Work (London: Anti-Slavery International and Children Unite, 2011).

 

7. Jonathan Blagbrough, “ ‘They Respect Their Animals More’: Voices of Child Domestic Workers”, London, Anti-Slavery International/WISE, 2008.

 

8. Ibid. The epigraphs quoting child domestic workers used in this article are from this report, unless sourced otherwise.

 

9. Nanna Baum, “Girl Domestic Labour in Dhaka: Betrayal of Trust”, in Working Boys and Girls at Risk: Child Labour in Urban Bangladesh, ed. G. K. Lieten (Dhaka: University Press Limited, 2011).

 

10. UNICEF–ICDC, “Child Domestic Work”.

 

11. Anti-Slavery International and Children Unite, Stand with Us—Decent Work for Domestic Workers: Recommendations to the ILO from Young Domestic Workers (London: Anti-Slavery International and Children Unite, 2010).

 

12. See Jonathan Blagbrough, “Violence against Child Domestic Workers” (paper presented at workshop “Towards a Strategy to Address Corporal Punishment of Children in South-East Asia–Pacific”, Save the Children Alliance, Bangkok, 6–9 October 2003).

 

13. Save the Children UK, “Abuse among Child Domestic Workers: A Research Study in West Bengal”, Calcutta, India, 2006.

 

14. Human Rights Watch, “Swept Under the Rug: Abuses against Domestic Workers around the World”, HRW 18, no. 7 (c) (July 2006), pp. 10–11.

 

15. Ibid., p. 10.

 

16. Nimrod O. Bwibo and Philista Onyango, Final Report of the Child Labour and Health Research (Nairobi: University of Nairobi, 1987).

 

17. Helen Rahman, “Child Domestic Workers: Is Servitude the Only Option?”, Shoishab Bangladesh, Dhaka, 1995; M. C. Salazar, “Child Work and Education in Latin America”, in Child Work and Education: Five Case Studies from Latin America, ed. M. C. Salazar and W. A. Glasinovich (Aldershot: Florence and Ashgate Publishing, 1998).

 

18. Cited in Arti Meyers, “Psychosocial Impacts of Domestic Child Labour in India: Through the Lens of a Save the Children Development Education Resource” (master’s thesis, Institute of Education, University of London, 2008).

 

19. Jocelyn McCalla, “Restavèk No More: Eliminating Child Slavery in Haiti”, National Coalition for Haitian Rights, New York, April 2002.

 

20. Oscar Godoy, El Salvador. Trabajo infantil doméstico: Una evaluación rápida (Geneva: ILO–IPEC, 2002).

 

21. Rosemary Mwakitwange, Fighting Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children: Study of Good Practices in Interventions in Tanzania, vol. III (Dar es Salaam: ILO–IPEC, 2002); and author correspondence with local NGO.

 

22. Cecilia Flores-Oebanda, Roland Pacis, and Vio Montaño, The Kasambahay. Child Domestic Work in the Philippines: A Living Experience (Manila: ILO and Visayan Forum Foundation, 2001).

 

23. Meyers, “Psychosocial Impacts of Domestic Child Labour in India”, p. 74.

 

24. Jonathan Blagbrough, “Blind Hope: Children on the Move in Liberia” (report prepared for Save the Children UK, 2008, unpublished).

 

25. Ibid., p. 12.

 

26. EveryChild, “Fostering Better Care: Improving Foster Care Provision around the World”, Positive Care Choices, working paper 2, June 2011, p. 18.

 

27. This paraphrases the UN Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children (supplementing the UN Convention against Transnational Organised Crime, 2000). The protocol defines child trafficking as “The action of recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring, or receipt [of a child] for the purposes of exploitation, which includes exploiting the prostitution of others, sexual exploitation, forced labour, slavery or similar practices, and the removal of organs.”

28. Panudda Boonpala and June Kane, “Unbearable to the Human Heart: Child Trafficking and Action to Eliminate It”, ILO–IPEC, Geneva, 2002.