A proactive approach to youth who run
Leona English1999, Child abuse & neglect
Sign up for access to the world's latest research
checkGet notified about relevant papers
checkSave papers to use in your research
checkJoin the discussion with peers
checkTrack your impact
Abstract
AI
AI
The research investigates the characteristics and backgrounds of youth in care who have run away, comparing them to a control group within the same demographic. Through analysis of data from the provincial Department of Social Services in Newfoundland, the study identifies common family issues and behavioral characteristics among the youth, revealing higher instances of problematic family dynamics such as divorce and mental health issues among those who ran. This proactive approach aims to inform policy and practice within the child welfare system to better support at-risk youth.
Related papers
Circumstances and Suggestions of Youth Who Run from Out-of-home Care
Michigan Child Welfare Law Journal, 2007
Th is study examined the preceding circumstances of youth that ran from out-of-home care. Youth off ered suggestions for preventing future running episodes. Data was drawn from 111 case records of three county courts in southeastern Lower Michigan. Data were also drawn from four focus groups of youth living in out-of-home care (n=24). Circumstances that preceded youth running included female gender, African-American ethnicity, more restrictive placements, prior running episodes, and separations from siblings and children. Focus group youth expressed concerns about placement disruptions, rules, chores, diff erential treatment, loss of control, safety, and especially, feeling that "no one cares about me." To prevent running, youth recommended caring adults, helping others, active roles in case planning, knowledge of resources, and maintaining family connections.
Behaviors of youth involved in the child welfare system
Child Abuse & Neglect, 2008
Objective: Using data from a nationally representative panel study, the National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being (NSCAW), we address the following questions: (a) What are the youth, family, community, and child welfare system risk factors that place youth (ages 11-14 years) living at home, who are referred for maltreatment, at increased risk of delinquent behaviors over time? and (b) What promotive factors at the youth, family, community, and child welfare system levels appear to minimize the risk of delinquent behaviors for these youth over time? Methods: The study uses the NSCAW data collected at baseline (Wave 1) and 18 months later (Wave 3). The multivariate analyses were conducted using a tobit model adjusted for longitudinal data and a complex survey sample. Results: Several significant risk and promotive factors were found to influence the risk of delinquent behaviors over time. Older youth were more likely to engage in delinquent behaviors than younger youth. Girls were less likely to engage in delinquent behaviors than boys. Race or ethnicity did not have a statistically significant relationship with engaging in delinquent behaviors. Compared with neglected youth, youth who were physically abused were more likely to engage in delinquent behaviors. Increases in caregiver monitoring and in the quality of relationship with caregivers were associated with decreases in delinquent behaviors. Youth at greatest risk and those who engaged in more delinquent behaviors received more child welfare services then youth who did not engage in delinquent behaviors. Conclusions: The current child welfare delivery system emphasizes provision of services to youth experiencing the more serious problems and less on preventive services. The study findings suggest that preventive services when youth first enter the child welfare system that focus on enhancing caregiver skills in building positive relationships with their youth and increased monitoring of the youth's activity may alter the pathway to delinquent behaviors for these youth.
Understanding organizations for runaway and homeless youth: A multi-setting quantitative study of their characteristics and effects
Children and Youth Services Review, 2017
Runaway and homeless youth (RHY) are young people between 13 and 24 years of age who have run away from or been forced to leave their homes, who reside without parental/guardian supervision in temporary situations, places not intended for habitation, or emergency shelters (Whitbeck, Hoyt, & Bao, 2000). Although precise figures are lacking, as many as 2.8 million youth are estimated to be homeless in the U.S. each year (Cooper, 2006; National Alliance to End Homelessness, 2012). Many of these young people return home within a week, but a substantial proportion remain out-of-home for substantial periods of time, or even permanently (Tevendale, Comulada, & Lightfoot, 2011). It is well documented that RHY experience high rates of physical, emotional, and sexual abuse, as well as neglect, other traumas, and chronic stress throughout their lifespans. However, they have only minimal involvement in the systems and settings that typically foster and protect young people, such as supportive families, pro-social peers, safe communities, and schools (Bao, Whitbeck, & Hoyt, 2000; Gwadz et al., 2009; Gwadz, Nish, Leonard, & Strauss, 2007). As a result, RHY evidence high rates of serious relational, mental health, physical health, psychosocial, and behavioral problems. These problems, in turn, place them at grave risk for adverse long-term outcomes, including chronic unemployment, entrenchment in the street economy (e.g., drug dealing, transactional sex/being trafficked), hazardous substance use, incarceration, adult homelessness, unstable relationships, poor health, and even early mortality (Cleverley & Kidd, 2011; Gwadz et al., 2010; Tucker, Edelen, Ellickson, & Klein, 2011). African American/Black and Hispanic young people, those with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and other non-heterosexual sexual orientations, and individuals with transgender gender identities are over-represented among RHY compared to the general population (Cochran, Stewart, Ginzler, & Cauce, 2002; Keuroghlian, Shtasel, & Bassuk, 2014). These minority group statuses influence youths' patterns of risk, in part due to aspects of the larger environment, such as youth from these minority groups facing a greater likelihood of being stopped by police among compared to their White, heterosexual, and/or gender normative peers (Himmelstein & Children and Youth Services Review 73 (2017) 398-410
Recidivism in child protective services
Children and Youth Services Review, 1997
Recurrent maltreatment of children previously discharged from child protective services is an indicator of how well the child welfare system is performing. Using administrative data from the California Social Services, this study examines trends in child protective case openings in California to identify patterns of service provision and factors associated with recidivism. Prior protective service case openings were found in nearly 50 percent of cases in 1993, representing a 55 percent increase from 1985 to 1993. Nearly two-thirds of cases investigated in 1993 by the Emergency Response component of California's child protective service system were discharged after the assessment process, despite frequent substantiation of maltreatment and previous case openings for maltreatment. Few children discharged from the system received medical or social services or referral to services. Repeated case openings may indicate that potentially vulnerable children are returned to high risk environments without sufficient services to reduce risk; that risks are overestimated; or that a growing number of children hover at a risk level that is just above the threshold for intervention. Recidivism may be reduced through improved risk assessment, provision of appropriate services targeted to children and families in need, and post-termination follow-up with families. There is general agreement that the fundamental goal of the child welfare system is to prevent further maltreatment of children who are reported to protective services. Recurrent maltreatment of children previously The data for this study were obtained from the California Department of Social Services Information Services Bureau. The authors thank Neal Kaufman, M.D., M.P.H. for thoughtful comments and Connie Hudson and Carl Laya of the California Department of Social Services Information Services Bureau for their helpful review of this paper. This study was supported in part by the Bureau of Maternal and Child Health and Resources Development (MCJ-069500). The interpretations and conclusions are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the data collection agency or the funding institutions. Requests for reprints should be addressed to Moira Inkelas, Rand Corporation,
WHO USES COMMUNITY-BASED YOUTH SHELTERS? AN INTERGROUP AND INTRA-GROUP ANALYSIS
2000
UMI Number: 3369214
Children and young people on the edge of care, out of home and alone
2020
Yet no formal, comprehensive response to this problem exists in any state or territory. Programs to identify children and young people at risk are patchy and under-resourced, and specialist crisis services non-existent. Because no department or agency holds sole responsibility for their welfare, children may be referred back and forth between service sectors without receiving the care and support they need. We identify this problem as one of systemic carelessness.
Determinants of runaway episodes among adolescents using crisis shelter services
International Journal of Social …, 2006
Child Welfare Workers' Connectivity to Resources and Youth's Receipt of Services
Advances in social work, 2010
Youth involved in the child welfare system are at high risk for mental illness, substance abuse, and other behavioral health issues, which child welfare workers are expected to address through referrals. Child welfare workers (N=27) who participated in Project IMPROVE (Intervention for Multisector Provider Enhancement) reported on services they provided to youth (N=307) in their caseloads. Using survey and administrative data, this paper examines workers' service actions on behalf of youth. Results were consistent with the Gateway Provider Model and showed that youth received help from a greater variety of service sectors when their workers were able to identify behavioral health problems, and were familiar with and connected to other providers in the community. Improving service delivery to youth in child welfare may be accomplished by training workers in the signs and symptoms of behavioral health problems and familiarizing them with providers in the community.
Project Fact for minors: Fostering alternative care for troubled minors (JUST/2015/RCHI/AG/PROF/9578): Final Report
2018
In Portugal, until the child reaches the age of 18 (following the concept of child defined by the Committee on the Rights of the Child), 3 distinct levels of judicial intervention can be applied when he/she has committed a fact qualified as crime by the penal law, depending on child's age when the crime is committed: 1. Below 12 years old, children can only be subject to protection measures within the scope of the Promotion and Protection Law for Children and Young in Danger (Law n° 149/99, of 1st of September); 2. Children aged between 12 and 16 years old fall under the responsibility of the Juvenile Justice System and can be subject to a youth justice measure, including custodial measures; 3. Youths aged between 16 and 18 years old fall under the Adult Justice System, as 16 are the minimum age for criminal responsibility in Portugal, and can be subject to penal measures. Therefore, taking into account the scope of the project, we have focused on youths aged between 12 and 16, to who can be applied juvenile justice measures, which are based in the Youth Justice Act (Law n° 166/99, of 14th of September). The general principle of this law is the need to educate the children for the Human Rights and to promote an adequate socialization process. Young people who perpetrate, between 12 and 16 years old, an act qualified as crime by the penal law are subjected to custodial measures, under the Youth Justice Act (Law n° 166/99, of 14th of September), which aim youth offenders' socialization and education for law compliance and for fundamental values of living in society. Custodial measures are executed in Educational Centers, when the child's behaviour is considered a crime, and whose penalty would be more than five years if practiced by an adult. These children can be placed in an open, semi-open or closed regime, according to the level of liberty and autonomy ascribed to them. The placement on these facilities is organized in residential units with secure accommodations. The concept of "Alternative Care" specifically designed for these children (who are under penal measures and have mental health problems) is a process under development, since the law is strict about the measures that must be applied to children who are in the scope of the project. Also, for this reason, an Educational Center has proved to be the most appropriate and feasible setting to develop and implement the process of capacity building. Although these constraints, FACT FACT FOR MINORS-Fostering Alternative Care for Troubled Minors JUST/2015/RCHI/AG/PROF 3 data collected through the several interviews, meetings and focus group with Experts, show that there is motivation and that are already being taken steps to strengthen the intervention on mental health issues in the existing contexts, as well as that are intentions to create alternative answers to the existing model, namely through a greater connection and integration of these children in the community 1. The educational guardianship procedure provides several measures aimed at providing a child-friendly environment and steps should be taken, as far as possible, to promote the education and development, and not a punitive setting. Children's dignity and maturity, as well as their physical, intellectual and psychological health must be respected and, according to the socialization principle, they keep all their social rights as long as they are not incompatible with the placement, keep all their family and social ties to the maximum extent possible, as well as their educational and social activities. The Youth Justice Act also guarantees to the young person a specific set of rights through all legal proceedings, among which be assisted by an expert in psychiatry or psychology whenever required for the purpose of evaluating the need for the application of an educational measure. Also, during internment youths have the right to an appropriate hospital and medical care, including regular clinical supervision, such as medical exams, medical treatments, medication, vaccination, and screenings. 1.2. The actors involved Throughout all phases of the project we have been trying to involve several key actors (in-depth interviews, focus groups, meetings with the National Advisory Board) who have diverse professional activities (e.g., judges, public prosecutors, academic/researchers, psychologists, psychiatrists, politicians, social workers, social educators, family doctors, teachers, other professionals from the protection system), but who are involved with youths at risk, in conflict with the law and with mental health issues. Moreover, in order to amplify the effects on the different systems implicated in the process of taking care of these young people, through contacts promoted with professionals, we have also been involving institutions with different roles, namely the Commission for the Protection of Children and Young People at Risk, the General Direction of Reinsertion and Prison Services, the General District's Attorney of Porto, the Center for Judicial Studies,
Asking for Directions: Partnering with Youth to Build the Evidence Base for Runaway and Homeless Youth Services
2013
Each year it is estimated that almost 2 million American youth run away from home, are thrown out of their homes, or otherwise end up homeless. As concerning as those numbers are, the risks runaway and homeless youth are exposed to when they find themselves on the street are even more so. Running away from home dramatically increases the risk of victimization, both physically and sexually. Moreover, youth living on the streets exhibit much higher health risks including higher rates of substance abuse, suicide attempts, sexually transmitted disease, pregnancy and death. Because runaway and homeless youth find themselves lacking skills and resources necessary to fully engage in employment, they are left with few legally permissible options for survival. The research literature has addressed many aspects of the lives of runaway and homeless youth (RHY): the history, policy, practice and research but has neglected youth perspectives on their needs. The complexities associated with the RHY population such as age, pathways to running away and/or homelessness, mental health, abuse, neglect, etc. make this a challenging field to work in. Yet understanding these complexities and evaluating the interventions used by community social service programs designed to help youth return home, or enter other safe, stable housing, is critical to helping this field develop and improve interventions, programs, and prevention strategies that will be used by this uniquely vulnerable population. In 1974, Congress first passed the Runaway Youth Act (RYA) providing funding for community shelter programs called Basic Centers. In subsequent years Transitional Living Programs (1988) and Street Outreach services (1994) were added to the act. Unfortunately, researchers, youth advocates, and many service providers report that the vast majority of runaway and homeless youth reject the services and programs designed to meet their needs and keep them safe. This dynamic exacerbates an already perilous situation for youth who find themselves on the streets. Much of the research to date has focused on the pathology of youth and/or their families. This project suggests that if to understand the complexities of these youth and move toward a system with improved utilization rates, we should begin by asking-what are programs doing that work for RHY? Which services or practices do the youth feel are most helpful? Is there a way to synthesize these practices, codify them, and begin to build the evidence base for working effectively with RHY? This study began this process by conducting 14 focus groups with 52 youth ages 14-21, who were receiving services from a Basic Center (3), a drop-in center (3), a street outreach program (2), or a Transitional Living Program (6), and asking them what is it about this program that works for you? Then the researcher hired RHY to analyze those responses. Findings hold the potential to begin filling the chasm that exists in the literature around effective practice with RHY.
Related papers
High prevalence of exposure to the child welfare system among street-involved youth in a Canadian setting: implications for policy and practice
Background: Street-involved youth are more likely to experience trauma and adverse events in childhood; however, little is known about exposure to the child welfare system among this vulnerable population. This study sought to examine the prevalence and correlates of being in government care among street-involved youth in Vancouver, Canada. Methods: From September 2005 to November 2012, data were collected from the At-Risk Youth Study, a prospective cohort of street-involved youth aged 14-26 who use illicit drugs. Logistic regression analysis was employed to identify factors associated with a history of being in government care. Results: Among our sample of 937 street-involved youth, 455 (49%) reported being in government care at some point in their childhood. In a multivariate analysis, Aboriginal ancestry (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 2.07; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.50 -2.85), younger age at first "hard" substance use (AOR = 1.10; 95% CI: 1.05 -1.16), high school incompletion (AOR = 1.40; 95% CI: 1.00 -1.95), having a parent that drank heavily or used illicit drugs (AOR = 1.48; 95% CI: 1.09 -2.01), and experiencing physical abuse (AOR = 1.90; 95% CI: 1.22 -2.96) were independently associated with exposure to the child welfare system. Conclusions: Youth with a history of being in government care appear to be at high-risk of adverse illicit substance-related behaviours. Evidence-based interventions are required to better support vulnerable children and youth with histories of being in the child welfare system, and prevent problematic substance use and street-involvement among this population.
YOUTH WHO CHRONICALLY AWOL FROM FOSTER CARE Why They Run, Where They Go, and What Can Be Done
2004
Adolescents who leave foster care without permission may encounter dangerous situations and place burdens on many government agencies. Child welfare case managers and foster home staff, along with the police, are charged with the task of finding and returning youths who run from care-commonly called going AWOL. Some AWOL youth end up in youth shelters. If they are gone long enough, they may lose their placements, forcing child welfare managers to find emergency placements for them. At the request of New York City's Administration for Children's Services (ACS), the Vera Institute of Justice conducted a study of youth who repeatedly run from group care. Prior Vera research showed that most AWOLs from foster care in New York City are concentrated among a small group of adolescents who run more than once, and that most AWOLs are from congregate care settings. This study sought to determine what causes youth in foster care to go AWOL repeatedly and the level of risk these youth experienced. The study also aimed to provide information that child welfare staff and managers might use to develop new strategies to reduce AWOL activity. Using data from ACS's Child Care Resource System (CCRS), Vera researchers selected a group of adolescents in foster care who had "chronic" AWOL histories. We interviewed 30 youth (24 girls and 6 boys) as well as 17 facility staff who have responded to AWOL situations. We conducted a search of the limited research on this subject and solicited input from several child welfare managers familiar with the problem. No single paradigm describes the experiences of youth who chronically AWOL from foster care, but some trends were apparent. Very few youth in our study spent time on the streets while AWOL. The majority stayed with friends, rather than family, often hiding their AWOL status. And most-nearly two-thirds-returned to care voluntarily after an AWOL. About a third encountered little or no risk during their period away from care. Another third experienced moderate risk and described activities such as consensual sex and casual drug use. Finally, a third were involved in one or more AWOL events in which they experienced high-risk situations, including heavy drug use, drug selling, or being the victim or perpetrator of physical violence. Most of the youth we interviewed said they left care because of perceived or actual problems with their placements. In addition to the usual adjustments to placement that affect all youth who enter foster care, the youth we interviewed reported that boredom heavily influenced their decision to leave unannounced. Many told us they had nothing to do during evenings, weekends, and summers. Romantic and sexual relationships also appeared to play a role, with many girls reporting that they often left to see boyfriends. Several girls were already mothers. None of the youths we interviewed reported that they engaged in paid sex work while AWOL, but a sufficient number said they knew other youths who did that the issue is a concern.
“I Ran to Make a Point”: Predicting and Preventing Youth Runaway from Foster Care
Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal
Youth who run away from foster care experience danger to health and safety and increased risk of adverse child welfare outcomes. By applying a concurrent mixed-methods approach, this study aimed to develop a deeper understanding of runaway risk that used a person-centered lens and amplified youth voices. Collectively, this approach can inform service innovations to support youth placed in out-of-home care. Working with a foster care agency in Kansas, data sources comprised administrative data for youth ages 12 + in care, and interview data with 20 youth, 12 + in care. Quantitative analyses involved latent class analysis followed by multinomial logistic regression to investigate whether the population of youth in care was comprised of subpopulations with differential runaway risk and whether subpopulations would predict runaway behaviors. Qualitative analyses applied modified analytic inductive thematic analysis to explore critical life experiences that may act as risk or protective ...
Foster Youth_CH18.pdf
This chapter examines the methodological issues in measuring disproportionality in foster care and out-of-home placement. We begin with some key definitions. This is followed by a concise review of the literature regarding racial and ethnic disparities along different stages of the child welfare system. Next, the chapter illustrates the concepts of disparities, disproportionalities, and discrimination with applications and original calculations using national data on child maltreatment cases, substantiations, and foster care placements. A concluding section discusses implications for practice and for professionals working in the field.
Canadian youth in care: leaving care to be on our own with no direction from home
Children and youth services review, 1989
The Health of Shelter-based Foster Youth
There is a lack of information on the health needs Over the past decade, the number of children in foster care of foster care adolescents in emergency shelters or group homes.
Health-Risk Behaviors in Young Adolescents in the Child Welfare System
Journal of Adolescent Health, 2010
Purpose: To examine rates and patterns of health-risk behavior (e.g., sexuality, depression/suicidality, substance use, delinquency) among a national probability sample of youth active to the child welfare/ child protective services system. Recent federal legislation, P.L. 110-351, encourages child welfare systems, Medicaid, and pediatric experts to collaborate to ensure youth entering foster care receive comprehensive health examinations. Methods: Analysis of baseline caregiver, caseworker, and child interviews, and assessment data for a subsample (n ¼ 993) of youth, aged 11-15 years, from the National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being, a national probability sample of children and adolescents undergoing investigation for abuse or neglect. Results: Almost half of the sample (46.3%) endorsed at least one health-risk behavior. On Poisson multivariate regression modeling, factors related to higher rates of health-risk behaviors included older age, female gender, abuse history, deviant peers, limited caregiver monitoring, and poor school engagement. Conclusion: Given the heightened vulnerability of this population, early screening for health-risk behaviors must be prioritized. Further research should explore specific subpopulations at risk for health-risk behaviors and possible interventions to change these youths' trajectories. Ó Multiple professional organizations serving children have long championed comprehensive health and mental health examinations of children entering foster care. In fact, some groups, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, have identified foster care as one of their top priority areas. These advocacy efforts culminated in the passage of Public Law 110-351 in October 2008, which called for enhanced collaboration between child welfare, Medicaid, and pediatric experts to improve health care for children in foster care .
Discharge Due to Running Away from Residential Treatment: Youth and Setting Effects
Residential Treatment for Children & Youth, 2008
Running away from residential treatment is a relatively common and dangerous outcome for youth. Both clinical and program factors have been associated with the risk of running away. The present study directly compared the relative importance of youth-specific and program-specific predictors in a large sample across 52 treatment sites. Data from a state-wide outcomes management system for residential treatment were used to study youth who were discharged because of running away. A sample of 2,114 treatment episodes was analyzed. Consistent with prior research, youth-specific variables such as gender and substance use were associated with risk of discharge due to running away. However, program was an equally powerful predictor of who runs from treatment. While some youth are at greater risk of running from treatment than others, it also appears to be the case that some programs are better at preventing running, even among high risk youth.
Youth's Characteristics and Backgrounds: Findings from the Survey of Youth in Residential Placement. Juvenile Justice Bulletin
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2010
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention's constellation of surveys providing updated statistics on youth in custody in the juvenile justice system. It joins the Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement and the Juvenile Residential Facility Census, which are biennial mail surveys of residential facility administrators conducted in alternating years. SYRP is a unique addition, gathering information directly from youth through anonymous interviews. This bulletin series reports on the first national SYRP, covering its development and design and providing detailed information on the youth's characteristics, backgrounds, and expectations; the conditions of their confinement; their needs and the services they received; and their experiences of victimization in placement. * Estimates for this category are less reliable because they are based on fewer than 100 participating youth. † Excludes youth who did not respond to the race/ethnicity categories and those who chose only the "some other race" answer in response (n = 170 of the survey participants, or 2.3 percent of the estimated youth in placement).
Runaway and Homeless Youth: Legislative Issues
1997
The Runaway and Homeless Youth Program (RHYP) funds basic centers and transitional living projects. Funding for FY1998 remains at the FY1997 level ($58.6 million). The reauthorization of RHYP is traditionally part of the reauthorization of the juvenile justice and delinquency prevention programs-this year the Violent and Repeat Juvenile Offender Act of 1997 (S. 10) in the Senate and the Juvenile Crime Control and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1997 (H.R. 1818) in the House. The House has passed H.R. 1818, and the Senate Committee on the Judiciary has reported S. 10. Demographics of Runaway and Homeless Youth 1 Runaways. About 15% of youth who responded to a household survey reported that they had had a runaway experience-suggesting that an estimated 2.8 million youth aged 12-17 had runaway at least once. Those reporting a runaway experience were primarily white (63%) and evenly split between males and females. While those who reported a runaway experience were not especially more likely to live in poor households, the runaways were somewhat more likely than non-runaways to report that they did not live with both parents. Those reporting a runaway experience were much more likely than non-runaways to report sexual activity, drug use, physical fights, and carrying a weapon. Street Youth. About 56% of youth aged 12-21 who lived on the streets or in public places reported that they had never used a youth shelter. They were more likely to report that the shelters were dangerous, dirty, exclusionary, and oriented too much toward
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.