Listen to thisWhen I was a young residential child care worker I always used to chase absconders. Once, when was working in a boys” remand home, I had a group of thirty boys to escort back from the school house to their living unit. They walked in twos, with me at the side of the group. As we passed the long drive that led out of the Centre I caught sight, out of the corner of my eye, of a boy breaking free of the group and heading at speed down the drive. I made an instant decision to go after him, telling the rest to “wait here". As I ran I shouted a warning to the fleeing lad of dire consequences if he did not stop. After a few minutes he decided that he would not be able to outrun me and surrendered. I walked proudly back to the Centre, not sure if I would find the remaining group intact. They were. One boy said in awe “Cor Sir, you cant half run!" “Yes", I said smugly, “and don’t any of you forget it. Lead on boys."
Some causes
Running away from residential care has always been a problem. Most young
people in care are not persistent runaways, although many do abscond, to
use the official term, at least once. A Home Office Study of many years
ago, Absconding from Approved Schools, is the only detailed
research into the subject of young people running away from care.
Although this report is clearly dated, it offers some useful indicators
of the causes of the problem. Among the explanations offered were:
unease at being the “new” boy or girl in an established group.
home sickness i.e. upset at being separated from family and friends.
boredom and the need for excitement.
habitual response to the possibility of sanctions for some misdemeanour.
pressure from peers.
Two possibilities not mentioned at the time and which now seem to spring to the top of some people’s lists, are abuse by staff and bullying or abuse by peers. While I believe these last possibilities must be considered, it is rash to presume they are the only probable explanations.
Guidelines
Our Department of Health issued guidelines in 1993 on restraint, which
included directions on the way in which care staff should respond to
would be absconders. Firstly it was acknowledged that a children's home
is not a secure unit, despite the often ludicrous press reports about
young people “escaping" from such a home. There was some confusion
however, after the “Pindown" affair about the danger of restricting
children's liberty. The draft guidelines erred on the side of caution,
suggesting that apart from a verbal prohibition to a potential absconder
no further action could be taken. On reflection, in the final version,
it was acknowledged that the need to protect children from probable
danger could outweigh the fear of unjustified restriction of liberty.
This principle is governed by a number of cautions.
"Staff should recognise that there are practical limitations on their ability to prevent young people running away from an open children's home if they are determined to do so." (1993 D.O.H. Guidelines). It states that for a young child there is a strong case for doing all that can be done to stop him or her from running away, including physical restraint.
Clearly no child should be locked in his or her room but they may be closely supervised for a reasonable period of time dependent on “the space available to the child, his age, competence and physical and emotional ability."
After the horse has bolted
When children and young people do succeed in running away what then? It
is essential to recognise that this event impacts on many people. The
young persons themselves, their families, the child care workers on
duty, the social worker, the police, the staff generally, and also on
the other young people in the home. It is essential that there are clear
policies and procedures in place for care staff to follow in the event
of an unauthorised absence. It is helpful to have a good description of
the missing person, including the clothes they were wearing when last
seen. Police agreement to procedures must not be presumed but negotiated
in advance. The remaining young people will need reassurance that
appropriate action is being taken, both as an indication that the event
is regarded as a serious matter, and that staff care about the missing
person(s). When the children are apprehended or even if they return of
their own accord, they should be welcomed back, and, at the right time,
told of the considerable worry and inconvenience they have caused and
asked to give an account of their activities whilst absent. This is
especially important because distressing things do happen children “on
the run”. Bravado or shame may inhibit them from revealing all that
really happened, but careful listing may enable them to talk about their
experiences. Other children will be watching to see how the adults deal
with the absconding.
Disapproval
In my view there must be some clear signs of disapproval of this form of
behaviour. This may be a “grounding" for a reasonable period of time,
never more than a few days. It may include some recovery of money for
phone calls or petrol spent in driving to collect the missing people.
Examination of the reasons for the absence is essential. If there is a
reason that can be addressed, e.g. failure of a parent to contact or
visit this child, this should be pursued. If the running away becomes
frequent then a meeting must be called to decide what action should be
taken. If constant absconding is not dealt with then the whole home can
become destabilised. On the other hand, staff must keep their nerve and
not take drastic action, such as having the offender(s) removed from the
home prematurely. Sometimes being firm, consistent and caring will
result in a spell of frequent absconding stopping as suddenly as it
started. Getting the timing right is the art of good care, but it can be
a fine line. Instead of saying to my group at the remand home “Lead on
boys," I could well have been calling “Come back lads!" as they
dispersed into the distance.
This feature from Child Care Forum, UK
