Social Risks and Protection Gaps Among Children Working on the Streets in Ho Chi Minh City Vietnam

In the bustling heart of rapidly growing cities, a quiet tension plays out every day between the need for children to go to school and the need for their families to eat. This is not just a story about poverty, but about how a household survives when money is tight. When adults cannot earn enough to cover rent, food, or debt, children often step in to help, taking on work that keeps the family afloat. This dynamic creates a difficult situation for the children involved. They are legally protected as minors who should be learning and playing, yet their daily reality is shaped by the immediate necessity of earning cash. Researchers call this the "survival-protection gap." It describes a space where laws exist to protect children, but the economic conditions that force them to work remain so strong that those laws feel distant or impossible to follow. Understanding this gap is crucial because simply telling a child to stop working does not solve the problem if their family still faces hunger or homelessness. The real question is how to support these families so that children can choose education over labor without the threat of destitution.

A team of researchers from Vietnam recently set out to understand exactly how this gap looks and feels for children working on the streets of Ho Chi Minh City. In May 2024, they conducted a deep dive into the lives of 150 children between the ages of five and seventeen. Instead of just counting how many children were working, the team wanted to know the texture of their days: how long they worked, what they sold or did, how often they went to school, and what dangers they faced. They combined a written survey with long, quiet conversations, group discussions, and detailed stories of five specific children to get a full picture. Their goal was to move beyond simple labels like "street child" and see the complex reality of children who might live with their parents, attend school sometimes, and still spend their days selling goods or performing on busy sidewalks to help their families survive.

The picture that emerged was one of intense, routine labor that has become woven into the fabric of family life. For the majority of these children, work was not a part-time activity or a way to earn pocket money; it was a full-time job that competed directly with childhood. More than sixty percent of the children surveyed worked every single day of the week. Nearly half worked between four and eight hours a day, a schedule that leaves little time for rest, play, or studying. This intensity was not limited to teenagers; even children under the age of thirteen were working long hours, with nearly half of them spending four to eight hours on the street daily. The work itself was varied but often low-paying and high-visibility. Most were selling small items on the street, while others worked in small shops, asked for money or food, or performed for passersby. Crucially, almost all of the money these children earned went straight to their families. Nearly seventy percent of the children who received cash used it to support basic household needs like food and rent, showing that their labor was a vital lifeline for their households.

This heavy reliance on children's earnings came at a steep cost to their education. The study found that schooling for these children was fragile and often temporary. Nearly sixty percent of the children in the survey had already dropped out of school entirely. For many, this happened early, often before they reached the age of thirteen, cutting off their education before they could finish their primary schooling. Even among the children who were still enrolled, their attendance was shaky. Many struggled to keep up with their lessons, and their performance was often average or poor, suggesting that the fatigue from long work hours was making it hard for them to learn. The school system, while still a path for some, was often unable to compete with the immediate need for income. For the children who remained in school, the experience was often one of exhaustion, with work taking precedence over homework and rest.

Beyond the loss of education, these children faced significant dangers in their daily lives. The street environment exposed them to a range of harms that went beyond simple hard work. A large number reported being insulted, stigmatized, or discriminated against simply for being there. More than twenty percent had been physically attacked, slapped, or beaten. A smaller but deeply concerning number reported inappropriate touching or being forced into unwanted sexual situations. While the frequency of these severe events was not as high as the daily insults, the impact was often described as severe by those who experienced them. The risks were not limited to violence; children also faced the danger of being forced to use drugs or alcohol, or being coerced into stealing. The researchers noted that these dangers were often blurred with the work itself. For instance, a child might be forced to work late at night to earn more money, which increased their exposure to violence and traffic accidents. The line between a child helping their family and a child being exploited was often thin, especially when the adults in their lives depended on their income.

Despite the clear dangers and the heavy workload, the children's connection to official help was remarkably weak. The study revealed a massive gap between the existence of protection programs and the children's ability to reach them. More than ninety percent of the children did not know of any local programs designed to help them. Over eighty percent had never attended a meeting, watched a film, or joined a group activity about child labor or their rights. This was not because the children did not want help, but because the help was not reaching them. The programs that did exist were often located in fixed places or scheduled at times that did not match the children's chaotic and mobile lives. If a child was working late into the night or moving from street to street to sell goods, a classroom-based program or a fixed office was simply out of reach. The researchers found that the children were effectively invisible to the very systems meant to protect them.

When asked what they needed to change their lives, the children offered a nuanced view that challenged simple solutions. They did not just want to stop working; they wanted better options. More than half expressed a desire to return to school or get a better education, and many spoke with deep emotion about missing their friends and classrooms. However, a similar number said they needed "suitable work" or wanted to continue working, but in a safer environment. They recognized that their current work provided money and a sense of contribution to their families. For many, the idea of stopping work entirely was not realistic unless their families had another way to survive. They also highlighted a strong need for safety at work and protection from physical and mental harm. The children understood the risks they faced and were open to protection, but they needed solutions that respected their reality. They did not want to be rescued from the streets only to return to poverty; they wanted a path that allowed them to learn and grow while keeping their families safe.

The researchers concluded that solving this problem requires more than just enforcing laws against child labor. The "survival-protection gap" they identified shows that children are caught between legal rights and economic necessity. To close this gap, interventions must be coordinated and practical. This means providing support to families so they do not have to rely on their children's income, ensuring that schools are flexible enough to accommodate children who work, and creating protection services that can actually reach mobile children on the streets. The study suggests that effective solutions must address the whole household, not just the child. It is not enough to tell a child to go to school if their family cannot eat without their earnings. Instead, communities and governments need to create credible pathways that allow children to leave the streets without leaving their families in crisis. This involves sustained outreach, family livelihood support, and a recognition that for these children, work is often a matter of survival, not just a choice. The path forward requires understanding that these children are not just victims of poverty, but active participants in their families' struggle for survival, and that helping them requires addressing the economic pressures that keep them on the streets.