Abstract
Runaway behaviors among teenagers have been studied for some 40 years. Still, because runaway and homeless youths have often been confounded, little is known about what really defines a runaway adolescent. This study targets three objectives in a mixed-method design relying on data from official files and interviews: the descriptions of teenagers reported as missing (e.g., age, sex, runaway duration and reiteration, place left behind, type of caller reporting the child as missing, motivation for closing the file) and the understanding of runaway pathways and dynamics. These studies can contribute to prevention and intervention programs by providing new perspectives on how runaway experiences should be understood in light of the adolescent process.
The runaway phenomenon has been studied in the United States for 40 years, so that a vast majority of the research comes from the U.S. soil. However, European research on runaway is scarce. Some explanations can enlighten us. First, Europe has not faced the “60’s runaway panic” construction in the media (Staller, 2003), so that the old continent has not been encouraged to show a major political concern about this new risky behavior. Indeed, runaway became a particular concern in the United States in the aftermath of the hippie period, when youths left home for unconventional reasons. Second, European states are smaller and more anchored in paternalism than the U.S. government, so that the European runaway children are less likely to become a public matter through homelessness than the American ones. This may explain why many U.S. papers mention both runaway and homeless youth. Moreover, running away does not constitute an offense, nor status offense, in Belgium: it is a private matter contravening parental authority, even though this does not mean it is trivialized. Considering these sociological backgrounds, our article focuses on Belgian runaways and aims to fill a European gap about the phenomenon.
Runaways: Definition and Prevalence
Subsequent to the above-mentioned moral panic (Staller, 2003), social awareness led to a scientific focus on how running away should be defined. The National Statistical Survey on Runaway Youth (Opinion Research Corporation, 1976) mentioned three criteria: the person running away is not an adult, the youth is running away without his or her parents’ or guardian’s permission, and the youth is gone for a certain period of time. The first two elements are generally shared by all researchers, but the third is understood in various ways, such as “at least 24 hours,” “at least one night” (Young, Godfrey, Matthews, & Adams, 1988), or distinguishing the time according to the youth’s age (Sedlak, Finkelhor, Hammer, & Schultz, 2002). Thus, there is no unambiguous understanding of running away due, among other things, to this definitional flexibility and the resulting methodological issues.
It is crucial to distinguish between numbers according to their source, especially official versus self-reported. From the former perspective, Missing Children Europe (which includes 29 European countries) listed 54% of runaway situations among the 209, 841 missing children files for 2015. Nevertheless, we cannot ignore the fact that their definition of running away is as follows: “Runaways are children who run away or are forced out of home or institution where they have been placed” (2015, p. 4). This means that both runaway and thrownaway children/teenagers are included, and there is no time definition. A press release from the Belgian Federal Public Service of Justice (2010) points out that each year, 1% of European homes have to deal with a child running away. At the country level, there is no official record regarding running away in Belgium. But the French authorities have noted an increase of runaway episodes reported to the police from 34,438 in 2000 to 44,699 in 2007 (Malon, 2008). The “reported or unreported” issue is a criminological problem referred to as the “black box”, and gave rise to the idea that the 30,000 runaway youths per year in France are the tip of the iceberg, hiding a reality of 100,000 per year (Lafont, Vallet, & Plouznikoff, 1998). Rees and Lee (2005) made similar findings: 68% of the runaway youths they met had not been reported to the police as missing.
Considering the combined criteria of “under 18/no permission/one night away,” one out of five American youths runs away before the age of 18 (Pergamit, 2010). According to other researchers, the figure is one out of eight youths (Nye & Edelbrock, 1980).
Characteristics Associated With Runaway
Sex and Age of the Runaway Youths
The French official statistics cited above show that there are more runaway girls than boys (Malon, 2008), as do the National Services for Missing Children (Services Nationaux des Enfants Disparus; Dalley, 2008), which report 57% girls among runaway youths. It is possible that missing girls are more likely to be reported than boys, especially because they are seen as more vulnerable. Nevertheless, even with a self-report questionnaire that is not likely to be biased by reporting to the authorities, Pergamit (2010) found a lifetime prevalence of running away of 18.3% for boys and 20.6% for girls. Other studies also relate a higher prevalence of girls running away, although boys generally have their first run at an earlier age (Malloch, 2006; Sanchez, Waller, & Greene, 2006). Finally, Belgian studies found, respectively, that 3% of girls and 5.3% of boys (Born & Gavray, 1994), and that 6.3% of girls and 6.8% of boys (De Witte, Hooge, & Walgrave, 2000) ran away in the year preceding the study. Thus, the debate continues.
Regarding age, the running away peak in Europe rises at around 15 years old (Dalley, 2008; Missing Children Europe, 2015) or between 15 and 18 (Malon, 2008), which is similar to the U.S. statistics showing a peak at 15 to 17 years old (Hammer, Finkelhor, & Sedlak, 2002).
Main Characteristics of Runaway Behavior
This section focuses on three essential and objective characteristics: the runaway duration, the runaway as a reiteration of one or more previous runs, and the specific place left behind. Most runaway situations last less than one week (Hammer et al., 2002; Missing Children Europe, 2015). Many runaway teenagers run several times: 57.6% of girls and 43.4% of boys run away more than once, with an average of 2.7 runs for girls and 3.7 runs for boys (Pergamit, 2010). In addition, running away at an early age has been associated with an increased risk of reiteration (Rees & Smeaton, 2001). In fact, the key determinant in assessing the risk of running away is a previous runaway episode (Tyler & Whitbeck, 2004). Finally, considering the place left behind, studies have often neglected to ask about it: did the teenager run away from home, a foster home, or a residential care institution? However, institutionalized youths are overrepresented in runaway samples: while 1% of English youths and 0.3% of American youths are institutionalized, one third of English runaways and one fourth of American ones live in institutions (Attar-Schwartz, 2013).
Risks Associated With Running Away
Most previous studies focused on factors contributing to the risk of running away (Chen, Thrane, & Adams, 2012; Sanchez et al., 2006; Tucker, Edelen, Ellickson, & Klein, 2011; Tyler & Bersani, 2008; on running away specifically from foster or residential care, see Attar-Schwartz, 2013; Courtney & Zinn, 2009; Lin, 2012; Nesmith, 2006). Fewer studies have focused on the hazards potentially faced by youths during the run (Rees & Lee, 2005; Thrane, Hoyt, Whitbeck, & Yoder, 2006), or the difficulties he or she is likely to face after the run (Simons & Whitbeck, 1991; Thrane, Yoder, & Chen, 2011; Tucker et al., 2011; Tyler, Johnson, & Brownridge, 2008).
First, of the major factors that contribute to the risk of running away are family background, school and peers, mental health, and substance use. As such, primary socialization theory (Whitbeck, 1999) can be used to understand the first unconscious step toward running away through several factors: a family structure where one or both parents are not biological (Kashubeck, Pottebaum, & Read, 1994), environmental victimization (e.g., robberies, shootings; Tyler & Bersani, 2008), and families characterized by conflict, poor communication, and poor emotional cohesion (Whitbeck, Hoyt, & Ackley, 1997). According to one study, among runaway and homeless youths in a shelter, 2.3% had experienced emotional abuse, 46.5% physical violence, 23% sexual violence, and 27.9% all three while they were still at home (Gary, Moorhead, & Warren, 1996). Based on primary socialization theory (Whitbeck, 1999), we can postulate that familial issues may affect other social and relational fields, such as school and friendships. Indeed, many runaways experience academic difficulties (Toro, Dworsky, & Fowler, 2007) that put them at risk of truancy, which also leads to a risk of running away (Edelbrock, 1980; Hagan & McCarthy, 1997). Peer influence is particularly striking because these troubled teenagers are spending more time with their friends than with their families; this is especially true of teenagers who run at an early age (Whitbeck & Hoyt, 1999). Peer influence is understood as an even stronger determinant of running away than abuse sustained in the family (Robert, Fournier, & Pauzé, 2004). Moreover, deviant peer behaviors have been associated with the decision to run away (Chen et al., 2012). Considering mental health, runaway behaviors are often seen among youths with depression (Whitbeck, Hoyt, & Bao, 2000) and conduct disorder (Rohr, 1996). There is a significant relationship between running away and suicidal thoughts, and also between running away and attempted suicide (Meltzer, Ford, Bebbington, & Vostanis, 2012). Finally, running away is associated with smoking cigarettes and using illicit drugs, even when delinquency is controlled for (Windle, 1989), and with alcohol dependence (Meltzer et al., 2012). Sexually abused girls with delinquent behaviors show more runaway experiences than sexually abused girls without delinquent behaviors (Glowacz & Buzitu, 2014). Family, school, peers, and depression are the four factors addressed in the Adolescent Concerns Evaluation, a 40-item questionnaire assessing the risk of running away (Springer, 1998).
As for the hazards potentially faced by youths during a run, one out of six runners sleeps rough, and one out of 12 has been hurt during a run (Rees & Lee, 2005). Personal background contributes to these issues: child neglect, sexual abuse, and unsteady familial structure foster victimization during the run (Thrane et al., 2006).
Regarding the difficulties youths are likely to face after a run, they are more at risk of delinquent activity in the following 18 months (Tyler et al., 2008). Substance abuse and depression are considered as both leading to and resulting from running away (Tucker et al., 2011), and running away is associated with a risk of becoming homeless in the long term (Simons & Whitbeck, 1991). Finally, girls are more at risk of sustaining a sexual assault in the year following their return (Thrane et al., 2011).
As we have already mentioned, running away seldom occurs only once. Reiteration cruelly reveals all too clearly that reunification with the place left behind is far from easy, and the benefits of returning tend to fade away after just 6 months (Pollio, Thompson, Tobias, Reid, & Spitznagel, 2006). This finding may mean that one run is due to a specific trouble, whereas multiple runs are due to chronic problems (Thompson & Pollio, 2006).
Context and Aim of the Study
As mentioned in the introduction, this research cannot be abstracted from the sociological reality of Europe and Belgium. That is, it is an opportunity to fill a continental gap regarding runaway. Also, considering that most studies of runaway situations mention “runaway and homeless youths” so that the two are treated as equivalent, this study represents an opportunity to isolate the runaway issue and to focus on it alone. Furthermore, as Tyler and Bersani (2008) aptly pointed out, “Not all youth who run away become homeless and not all homeless youth have run away” (p. 231). By studying this specific sample, we aim to describe runaway profiles and pathways. To do so, we were given access to the official files of Child Focus, a Belgian public foundation concerned with missing (runaway, child abduction, parental child abduction, etc.) and sexually exploited children (pornography, prostitution, sextorsion, etc.). It was founded in 1996—in the aftermath of the Dutroux affair by the victims’ parents. The Dutroux affair refers to the abduction, sequestration, and rape of six girls and teenagers, and four of them were murdered. This 1995-1996 criminal affair deeply affected the Belgian people and led to various legal and institutional reforms.
The Child Focus foundation can be contacted by phone 24/7 to report missing or sexually exploited children. It opened 1,544 files in 2015, including 867 files for runaway children and teenagers (Child Focus, 2015), using their definition of runaway youths: “Youths under 18 who deliberately run away from home, or their foster home, or their residential institution without permission of their parent(s) or guardian.” These situations are mostly reported to Child Focus by phone, and anyone can do so (the child, the parents, the police, a neighbor, etc.). Finally, our mixed method contributes to the runaway research with a particular focus on singular dynamics and pathways.
Method
Mixed methods are especially appropriate in social and human sciences for reasons such as the articulation of techniques and concepts to compensate for pure quantitative or pure qualitative methods while relying on their strengths, the triangulation of results, and the increasing number of processing methods available to analyze the data (R. B. Johnson, Onwuegbuzie, & Turner, 2007). Following our examination of the files, we interviewed youths with a history of running away to understand the singular meanings associated with their run and respond to the unanswered questions remaining after the analysis of the files.
The first study analyzed 1,694 runaway files opened and closed by Child Focus between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2014. It involved the quantitative processing of data associated with each file, rather than each runaway child: it was a file-level analysis. Study 1 focused on seven kinds of information at the file level: sex and age of the runaway youth, place left behind, duration of the run, type of caller reporting the child as missing, special reasons for concern (i.e., handicapped youth, youth requiring medical treatment, youth whose life is in danger, youth for whom running away is an unusual behavior), and the motivation for closing the file. Reiteration is also described, where applicable. We used the file-level data coded by Child Focus.
The second study aimed to understand what can constitute a runaway pathway through the youth’s general background, the runaway triggers, the experiences during the run, the end of the run, and the return. We interviewed 22 teenagers (15 girls and 7 boys) who had run away and questioned them about those elements using a timeline arrow included in a semistructured interview guideline. At the time of the first interview, the participant was asked to fill out a consent form relating to participation in the study. We used a thematic and phenomenological lens to analyze the youths’ narratives in which they shared their runaway experiences, in particular the first one.
Interviewees were recruited via Child Focus (10) and psychosocial associations (12) that intervene with teenagers facing problems. More than 60 institutions were contacted. These associations were youth shelters, educational structures in an open environment, or crisis centers. Despite a call for participants by the researcher on Facebook™, no youth were recruited on this social network. Nine youth come from the Flemish Community and 13 from the French Community of Belgium. Inclusion criteria were as follows: running away before the age of 18, for at least one night; the last run occurred from 3 months ago (to avoid overly high emotional burdens) to 3 years ago (to allow for oversight). Participants were 12 to 20 years old (M age = 15.8). Interview generally took place at the association location or where the interviewee was able to move to meet the researcher. It lasted between 30 and 90 minutes. Interviews were tape recorded and then transcripted. Interviews focused on elements previously mentioned such as sociodemographic information, family, domicile, school, peers, behaviors, and mental health to fill in the timeline arrow that the interviewee used to structure his or her narrative.
Results
Study 1
Sixty-seven percent of the 1,694 files involved runaway girls. Sixty-four percent of the runaway youths were between 14 and 16 years old. One third of the sample had run away from an institution. Regarding runaway duration, most runaway experiences lasted less than 1 week (Table 1). The callers who reported the missing youths were generally the child’s mother or the police (Table 2). Special reasons for concern turned up 42 files related to handicapped youths, 16 to youths receiving medical treatment, 48 to youths whose life was in danger, and 23 to youths for whom running away was unusual. Regarding the ending of the episode, 42.7% of the runaways were found by the police and 40% came back on their own (Table 3).
Runaway Duration.
Callers Reporting the Missing Youths.
End of Runaway Episode.
Crossing some of those variables with age and sex, we see no age-related difference according to sex, χ²(1, N = 1693) = 0.8424919, p = .35869; no age-related difference according to place left, χ²(1, N = 1693) = 0.4045697, p = .52474; no sex-related difference according to place left, χ²(1, N = 1693) = 0.5370368, p = .46366; no sex-related difference according to type of caller, χ²(5, 1,694) = 10.44257, p = .06362; and no sex-related difference according to type of ending, χ²(13, N = 1694) = 19.34303 p = .112885. But there was an age-related difference in duration, χ²(5, N = 1694) = 34.26986, p = .00001; youths under the age of 14 ran away for a shorter period than the older ones did. There was also a sex-related difference in duration, χ²(5, N = 1694) = 38.72742, p = .00001, whereby boys ran away for a shorter period than girls; and an age-related difference in type of ending, χ²(13, N = 1694) = 23.91390, p = .03193, without any post hoc indication as to where the difference lies.
As for reiteration, 9.4% of the files were related to youths who had previously been reported to Child Focus as running away (261 girls and 68 boys), and 36.5% of the files were related to youths who had previously run away without being reported to Child Focus (445 girls and 174 boys).
Study 2
The timeline arrows for the 22 teens we interviewed are sequenced in five thematic parts (i.e., general background, triggers, experiences during the run, end of the run, coming back) to describe runaway pathways. All names associated with transcript extracts are aliases.
General background: Most of the youths described their life prior to running away as characterized by familial or institutional unease, with tension, conflicts, and lack of recognition: “I told her (i.e., mother) it was him (i.e., stepfather) or me. She said it was him. . . . We were always arguing about him . . . He was violent” (Sophie)/“He’s very strict, my dad. He’d confiscate my mobile, search my bedroom, and didn’t want me to go out with friends” (Chris)/“Before 15 . . . maybe (i.e., family rules) when I was told I could go out or not, yes. But then, I’d live my own life, no one was watching my back or anything” (Tom). Some of the institutionalized youths ran away to return home. The teens who were living with their parents often described parental supervision as inappropriate: it was either too much or not enough. The former gave rise to a desire for independence and autonomy, and the latter led to a feeling of not being cared for. Most interviewees remembered experiencing bad feelings at those times (feelings we would describe as depressive symptoms are often mentioned), but some acknowledged that they were not able to identify their feelings so they did not think about the possibility of seeking help. Other youths did not know whom to talk to; those who had the opportunity to talk to adults often felt that they were not really listened to. In other words, running away was often viewed as the ultimate message. School was generally described as a place of academic failure and rejection, but it could also be an environment youths felt committed to, especially as it could compensate for familial difficulties: “At school . . . it changed from the atmosphere at home. I had fun at school” (Margot). Runaways often talked about their plans to run away with friends, who might then try to deter them from doing so or try to help them once the run had begun (e.g., by giving a runner a place to stay or contacting them through social networks to ask them to return). For some youths, though, peers were understood as providing opportunities to run away and engage in problematic behaviors. Finally, interviewees were seldom able to talk about their needs prior to the run, which may explain why it was so difficult to help them beforehand and, thus, so difficult to prevent the run.
Triggers: We examined triggers through Homer’s (1973) typological lens, distinguishing between running-to and running-from experiences. On one hand, some youths run away from a situation they want to leave (e.g., family conflict), and on the other hand, some run away to seek something (e.g., adventure, independence, etc.). Three of the 22 interviewees had a running-to profile, and they ran from a residential institution back home: despite family conflicts that often led to the placement, attachment to the family remained strong and triggered the run. Running away in that kind of situation can be understood as a back-to-basics process in which the youths want to get back to a primary environment that was lost. Nevertheless, most of the interviewees had a running-from profile: “Feeling far away, being at the boarding school in Brussels . . . I went crazy after three days.” (Quentin)/“With all my problems, school and all, I got fed up and ran away” (Alice)/“She (i.e., foster mother) told me I was not her daughter. I said ‘if I’m not your daughter, I won’t come back.’ I sent her a text during classes to tell I wouldn’t come back, I warned her”(Tania)/“My dad wanted to throw my mum away, so I head-butted him” (Will). Some cases looked like a classic runaway from a problematic background; for others, it is a way to oppose a placement decision and express a will to stay home. Here again, the runaway behavior is a message. Finally, most youths considered their run as impulsive and unplanned.
Experiences during the run: Most youths were put up by family members or friends so they did not sleep rough. Contact with other family members prevents detachment from the nuclear family and generally encourages prosocial solutions that can lead to a return, while relying on friends’ bad influence help can put a youth at risk of inappropriate, even delinquent, survival strategies, particularly in the case of young people seeking freedom and sensations: “I was sleeping all day and going out at night with my best friend. We were smoking, drinking and stealing copper” (Tom)/“I was often at my friends’ house. I played and slept there. I never really got problems during my run. I ran away but went to people I trusted, friends I knew for years. They understood me and didn’t call my parents” (Quentin). Some of the sample considered stealing under those circumstances to be legitimate to survive, especially as they did not want to ask for help. Furthermore, they understood stealing as a kind of autonomy: they wanted to show themselves and others that they could handle life on their own. Some youths did not want to go anywhere in particular, and preferred to roam the streets to be alone and think about their situation. Needs during the run were described as primary needs (i.e., food, sleep, etc.): “I didn’t know where to sleep or anything. It was bloody annoying” (Will)/“I did nothing special: I went shopping with my boyfriend, we have to eat. I washed myself. We used to have a walk, go to his friend I get along well with, and things like that” (Helen). Placing oneself in a struggle for survival involving basic needs can be a strategy to avoid more complex emotional states and contribute to an emotional regulation strategy. Regarding contact with the family during the run, the running-from youths said they were looking for a break: they turned off their mobile phones and did not post on social networks. They did this so they would not be found by the police and to avoid contact: they wanted to be alone until the right moment came to talk again, a moment that they wanted to determine.
End of the run: Voluntary returns were rarely the result of the youths’ own decision: “I asked my mum whether I could come back home, she said yes. And my dad, I didn’t talk to him during one month” (Will). Instead, they were encouraged by someone else (family, friends, etc.): “My friends told me I had to come back because everybody was worried” (Tania)/“I went to see my older sister of 19 years old. She told me that I had to go there (i.e., Child protection service) otherwise she would be in trouble. So we went straight to it” (Jessica). But that person could not be heard until the need for a break was over. For the runners, this involved pointing out their reachability by turning on their mobile phones so that they could be called. Once they felt ready to be contacted, they longed to hear that people were still waiting for them to come back. Some youths also wanted to come back because of a lack of comfort and privacy: many of them said they missed their own bed. Again, primary needs were stressed, allowing for denial of psychic needs for psychological comfort and security. In the case of involuntary returns, police interventions were generally deemed to be appropriate by the runners. Indeed, some of them were satisfied with having left the problematic situation they had decided to run away from and felt able to survive on their own, so that they would not have considered coming back without social workers or police intervention. In other words, lending one’s support to certain youths, or even forcing them, to go back home may be the only way to get them to come back.
Coming back and the aftermath: Many youths dreaded returning because they were afraid of their relatives’ or institutional workers’ reaction: “I didn’t want to be told off, and that’s all. I was afraid to come back” (Sophie). This apprehension justifies the building of a deep trust between the social workers and the youths to prevent the fear of coming back, just as it may also prevent the initial will to run away. When the youths were questioned about the consequences of their run, some said it did not have the expected impact, meaning that whatever they had tried to solve by running away, there was still a problem after the run: “In a way . . . yes (i.e., the run had an impact) . . . I don’t have to go to my dad’s anymore, but it created even more worries because, now, I’m locked up” (Margot). Although others could be satisfied, “I grumbled because I had been found . . . I was relieved because my runaway had worked (i.e., he then got help from the boarding school to have a special educational program). If it had not worked, I would have felt even worse” (Quentin). Others said that the situation got worse as they had to leave home for a residential care institution after their run. Nevertheless, even though placement is often reported as a bad experience, some youths do feel better in this environment: it involves a framework that can be helpful for providing the organizational and psychic security lacking at home. The first run may potentially be the first of many runs. One interviewee described herself as runaway addicted: “After that (i.e., the first run), I couldn’t stop running away . . . so yes, it was only a beginning” (Sophie). Another one has developed a strategy to stop running: “I gave my boyfriend’s address to the institution I live in to force me to stay here and negotiate the time I can spend outside. As I gave the address, they would directly look for me there. Since then, I stopped running away” (Helen).
Discussion and Conclusion
Our research provides information on runaway youths from two perspectives. The first study aimed to describe the runaway phenomenon encountered by Child Focus. The second one helped us understand what the youths experienced during their runaway pathway.
Our first study showed that most runners were between 14 and 16 years old, a peak age found in other reports and studies (Dalley, 2008; Hammer et al., 2002; Malon, 2008; Missing Children Europe, 2015). Beyond the fact that the definition of runaway necessarily requires the person not to be an adult, these results should be understood in light of the developmental challenges adolescents are likely to face, meaning that, even though there is a definitional framework, the behavior seems especially linked to teen issues, as the interviewees suggested (i.e., family conflict, parental monitoring, school, peer influence, etc.). Furthermore, those teen issues may be even more difficult to handle for institutionalized youths, who made up one third of the runaway sample, underscoring the overrepresentation mentioned by Attar-Schwartz (2013).
Two thirds of our sample are girls, as previously noticed (Malloch, 2006; Pergamit, 2010; Sanchez et al., 2006). Considering that externalization is more frequent among boys and internalization among girls (Leadbeater, Kuperminc, Blatt, & Hertzog, 1999), we would suggest that running away is an externalized reaction specific to girls, whereas boys prefer externalized reactions such as substance abuse and delinquent behaviors. Furthermore, runaway boys generally have internalized patterns (passive avoidance), whereas girls have mixed patterns (passive and active avoidance) (De Man, Dolan, Pelletier, & Reid, 1990). We might, therefore, hypothesize that, as girls are generally socialized in a way that fosters internalization (Keenan & Shaw, 1997, 2003; cited by Hill, Degnan, Calkins, & Keane, 2006), they know how to handle internalized symptoms, whereas boys are not raised to handle them, and this can lead to runaway behaviors for boys with internalized patterns. That is, runaway girls (need to) rely on mixed patterns (internalization and externalization) to run, whereas runaway boys rely on (or only need) internalized patterns to run. This may help us understand why we see more girls running away than boys. Nevertheless, although this overrepresentation of girls has long been noticed even outside official reports (Malloch, 2006; Pergamit, 2010; Sanchez et al., 2006), we cannot ignore a potential gender bias leading to more reports of missing girls than of missing boys, especially in the case of Child Focus, which was founded after the abduction and rape of several girls and young women in the 1990s.
Regarding duration, most runaways last less than 1 week, which is congruent with previous results (Hammer et al., 2002; Missing Children Europe, 2015). The callers who report the missing child to Child Focus are mostly the police and the mother of the child. These calls highlight a growing awareness of Child Focus’ work (e.g., posters with a description and photograph of the missing child) by the policemen and mothers who turn to this foundation when they want to report missing children. It should be noted that mothers are particularly involved in reporting procedures, which may be linked to the fact that many runaway youths live with a single parent ( Johnson & Peck, 1978; Kashubeck et al., 1994) or in a stepfamily where the biological parent is mostly the mother, as is generally determined by child custody decisions. The reasons for closing a file are equally likely to be police intervention and the child coming back on his or her own. Police intervention is often necessary to bring back youths—at least earlier than they might have come back on their own (like shown in the interviews); that is, it shortens the runaway duration and reduces the risks likely to be experienced during the run.
When we cross the variables, we find no age difference according to sex. The runaway duration is shorter for younger runners than for older ones, which may lead to the hypothesis that older teenagers have more survival skills. Looking at sex differences, boys have shorter runs than girls. We can triangulate this result with the interviews where runs were reported unplanned for both boys and girls. We postulate that boys may indeed use the run as an unplanned, immediate tool for a “come-and-go” regulation strategy so that the duration is short. Meanwhile, we hypothesize that girls only feel as if the run is unplanned, because the run and the survival strategy have already been thought about (even slightly). This can be understood in light of Kufeldt and Nimmo’s (1987) typology distinguishing “in-and-outers” (short, impulsive runs as a coping mechanism) from “true runners” (longer runaway duration). The fact that boys tend to be “in-and-outers” can also be understood in light of the work of De Man et al. (1990), who noticed internalized patterns among runaway boys: their run is an impulsive coping strategy that involves passive avoidance and cannot last for long. Regarding girls, they could be considered “true runners.” Finally, multiple runaways are frequent: this suggests the presence of chronic problems that running away never really solves (Thompson & Pollio, 2006).
The interviews show runaway pathways built on difficult foundations. Whether associated with the youth’s home, the residential care institution, school and/or peers, a combination of issues is at stake: from parental supervision to academic failure and peers’ bad influence. While talking about this background, interviewees remembered being, and were still, unable to identify their needs prior to the run. This might explain their inability to look for help and show how difficult it is to respond to those unidentified needs. Regarding what triggered the runaway, conflicts and placement decisions were the most often mentioned by running-from youths, but running-to youths also mentioned a desire to go back home after placement. The youths described their runs as impulsive and unplanned. Just as they were not able to identify their needs prior to the run, they were not able to see any process leading to this run: they seemed to be caught up in a dynamic that overwhelmed their ability to know what was happening to them.
Considering the runaway experience (of running-from youths), family members (other than the nuclear family) and friends were important resources providing help, such as housing. Family members’ help was more prosocial, whereas friends’ help risked leading to delinquent survival strategies. Running-from interviewees insisted on their need not to contact their family and to take a break, like Zide and Cherry (1992) noted for the running-from type. That is, both survival strategies such as theft and drug trafficking, on one hand, and decisions not to maintain contact with the family, on the other hand, indicated an individuation process through which autonomy is found and tested. Theft and drug trafficking involve testing one’s material survival skills, whereas avoiding contact is a means of testing affective survival. Distance is experienced as an opportunity to know whether one is able to survive on one’s own. But survival skills are especially problematic as mentioned by Greene (2012) with his “Paradox of Street Survival”: the more a youth is able to survive on the street, the less likely the youth is to come back home.
The end of the run was often encouraged by a significant other, but only if the youth was ready to listen. Some interviewees emphasized that they would not have come back without police intervention, especially because they felt able to survive on their own (see Greene, 2012). Again, their autonomy was in question. For some, the break was fruitful and they achieved sufficient autonomy to allow for a return that confessed their attachment to their families. For others, autonomy was overachieved, making it impossible to think about returning: family ties seemed to be definitely cut so that isolation and alienation had replaced autonomy (Orten & Soll, 1980). Once youths decide to return, they are often still afraid of coming back. Again, this underlines the importance of trust to convince runners to come back by reassuring them about their parents’ or institutional workers’ reactions. Following their return, many interviewees deplored the fact that running away had not changed what they expected to see changed. When that happens, they are likely to run away again (we saw that 36.5% of the youth from the Child Focus’ files had already run away) as a means to solve the remaining problems or any new ones. For others, though, the run was no longer a means leading to a solution; it had become a preferential solution in itself.
Our thematic approach allows a step further in understanding the runaway phenomenon. Indeed, our research suggests five major dynamics leading to the run; these dynamics can be combined:
Most interviewees’ discourse revealed an emotion-regulation strategy. Adolescents face multiple issues and have to deal with many different feelings that they are often unable to identify and manage. In that case, they may contemplate running away as an opportunity to create distance so they can think and obtain some emotional relief. However, this strategy is not a fruitful one: when runners come back home, they usually have to deal with the same problems, which they are still not able to solve.
Some runaway behaviors are the expression of a depressive state made up of sadness and despair. In these circumstances, youths can see running away as an appropriate strategy based on action rather than passive suffering. They attribute analgesic properties to the run. These first two dynamics may explain why interviewees talk so much about the primary needs they experienced during their run: it is true that primary needs are easier to identify than emotional needs, but they also probably express a kind of protection against complex emotional needs.
Running away is frequently described as a message. Youths often have the feeling that they are neither listened to nor understood: running away is their ultimate message. Because they often lack words, action may seem relevant and less subject to ambivalence and misunderstanding. This means that the run is a call hoping for an answer; as awkward a means as a run may seem for sharing a message, it still involves a dialogue that the youths would like to enhance and continue.
Runaway behavior can be a way to test the quality of the ties with the environment. Through their temporary autonomy, runners want to know not only how much people care for them but also how much they miss those significant others. What is usually considered to be obvious is questioned, so that the teenager feels that he or she is participating in the process of defining how people care for each other.
A back-to-basics dynamic was noticed among the three running-to youths who ran away from a residential care institution to go back home. Although they were often placed in an institution because of multiple family issues, they still had strong ties with their families. Consequently, the interviewees seldom saw leaving an institution as a kind of runaway behavior: in their view, they were only going back home.
Our European results corroborate the U.S. ones in many ways, while adding a singular understanding of the runaway pathways with new dynamics to explore. Pathways highlight the importance of considering other elements than “risk factors from the personal background” and to study the triggers, what happens during the run, how the run ended, and how reunification is experienced to prevent new runaways.
Strengths and Limitations of These Studies
Our two studies provide information about the runaway phenomenon, and especially runaway youths; in other words, our sample was not made up of “runaway and homeless youths.” Moreover, the mixed-method design is an opportunity to gain a complementary understanding with both quantitative and qualitative analyses.
Nevertheless, our article also has some limitations. Regarding Study 1, we had access only to runaway cases that were reported in Child Focus official files, so that unreported runaway behaviors were not studied: we faced the black box mentioned in the introduction. Regarding Study 2, a bigger sample size would have been preferred but it was especially difficult to contact youths with regard to the institutional filters and their multiple vulnerabilities, as Meade and Slesnick (2002) also underlined.
Future Directions and Interventions
Future research is encouraged to systematically distinguish between runaway and homeless youths so that each profile can be understood for itself. There is still a need to study the characteristics of runners, runaway behaviors, and the associated factors. New typologies may be established in light of the runaway pathways presented here to take into account a more developmental and phenomenological perspective.
Also, bearing in mind that there are different kinds of runners with different backgrounds, triggers, runaway experiences, and dynamics could be especially useful for professionals who work with youths (e.g., social workers, police officers); it could help them produce different programs and strategies depending on the runaway pathway they face or want to prevent, so that one-size-fits-all strategies can be set aside. Regarding background and triggers, it is crucial to foster a secure family environment through communication. This is especially true for new and complex family structures. Schools and friends also contribute to prevention by compensating family issues and being complementary. Social workers are here encouraged to foster ties with the environment and to propose a tutor of resilience. As for the runaway experience, family, friends, social workers, and police officers have to remain available for the runaway teen even though the youth wants a break. Moreover, this door left wide open can fuel the youth’s ambivalence and facilitate the comeback. As long as the youth is ambivalent, there is a call for help: it means a potential comeback. The real danger relies in alienation, meaning that the runner has chosen not to come back (Orten & Soll, 1980). When this alienation is noticed, and even coupled with marginalization, the police have to be considered. Maintaining prosocial contact can also prevent runners from dangerous survival strategies. Moreover, a youth coming back still requires our attention: long-term interventions have to be tailored to their needs to prevent subsequent runaways. Finally, comprehensive policies involving before/during/and after the runaway interventions are needed.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: the author(s) received financial support by Child Focus for the research, but not for authorship/publication of this article.