Hubbry Logo
Runaway (dependent)Runaway (dependent)Main
Open search
Runaway (dependent)
Community hub
Runaway (dependent)
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Runaway (dependent)
Runaway (dependent)
Runaway (dependent)
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

A runaway is a minor or (depending upon the local jurisdiction) a person under a specified age who has left their parents or legal guardians without permission.

Causes

[edit]

Current studies suggest that the primary cause of youth homelessness is family dysfunction in the form of parental neglect, physical or sexual abuse, family substance use disorder, and family violence.[1][2] Nearly half of runaway youths report that at least one of their parents struggles with alcohol addiction, and at least one third reported a parent struggling with drug addiction.[3]

Studies also show that 89% of child runaways were encouraged to do so by their peers.[4]

Consequences of running away

[edit]

Runaways have an elevated risk of destructive behavior. Approximately fifty percent of runaways experience difficulties with schooling, including dropping out, expulsion, or suspension.[5] Running away can increase the risk of delinquency for adolescents, and expose them to the risk of victimization.[6] There have been many studies in multiple countries about "street children"—youth who have run away and are presently homeless—showing that they have a high risk of taking illicit drugs, developing sexually transmitted infections (STIs), unintended pregnancy, depression, suicide attempts, and sexual exploitation.[7] Greater proportions of runaway youths experience clinically significant post-traumatic stress disorder than normative youths. Trauma generally begins with runaway youth's experiences within the family and is increased by prolonged traumatic events.[3] The likelihood of depression among female runaways is typically related to family conflict and communication. Depression in male runaways is typically related to paternal alcohol use disorder and poor family relationships. Negative interactions in relationships within the family appear to greatly influence depressive symptoms for both of these genders.[8]

Runaways in international contexts

[edit]

Hong Kong

[edit]
See also: Young night drifters and youth in Hong Kong

In Hong Kong, 51.1 percent of at-risk youth identified by social workers have been a runaway during the age range of 11 to 18.[6]

India

[edit]

Approximately 47 million runaway and homeless adolescents are estimated to be on the streets of India.[9]

Familial respect is important in India. Much of the Indian runaway population describes themselves as young people doing everything right at home, but having received harsh treatment from family members all throughout life.[9]

Mainland China

[edit]

Social control theory describes the runaway situation in China. Adolescent friendships can interfere with positive influences parents place in the adolescent's life. According to the Chinese National Bureau of Statistics, approximately 150,000 runaway children and youth were documented in 2006.[10] Unrealistic expectations of school has caused many adolescents to run away. Many runaways are low achievers who reported they were constantly criticized by their teachers and experienced their teachers indifferent attitude toward them.[10] Overbearing parents' authoritarian, overprotective, and neglectful[10] styles have led to adolescents running away.

United States

[edit]
See also: Homeless children in the United States

In the United States, a runaway is a minor who leaves home without permission and stays away either overnight (14 years old and younger or older and mentally incompetent) or away from home two nights (15 or over) and chooses not to come home when expected to return.[11] A runaway is different from child abandonment or a "throwaway" youth (a youth who isn't formally abandoned by parents, but is frequently ignored in favor of another sibling). Runaway youth are evenly divided male and female, although girls are more likely to seek help through shelters and hotlines.[12] In the United States, runaway children or youth are widely regarded as a chronic and serious social problem. It is estimated that each year, there are between 1.3 and 1.5 million runaway and homeless youth in the United States[13][14] According to a 1983 training report on the United States Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs website, a large percentage of runaways in the US leave their home to escape sexual assault.[15]

Running away from home is considered a crime in some jurisdictions, but it is usually a status offense punished with probation, or not punished at all.[16] Giving aid or assistance to a runaway instead of turning them in to the police is a more serious crime called "harboring a runaway", and is typically a misdemeanor.[17][18] The law can vary considerably from one jurisdiction to another; in the United States, there is a different law in every state. A 2003 FBI study showed that there were 123,581 arrests for runaway youths in the United States.[19]

The Family and Youth Services Bureau of the United States Department of Health and Human Services funds grant programs to help runaway and homeless youth. The organization also provides funding for the National Runaway Switchboard, a national hotline for runaway youth, youth who are thinking about running away or are in crisis, parents, and other concerned adults.[20][21]

Notable runaways

[edit]
  • Isa Hasan al-Yasiri – (1942), Iraqi-Canadian poet. When he was ten years old, he ran away from school without the knowledge of his family to the village of his maternal uncles. He traveled there with a caravan of camels, walking with them all night long. He stated years later at the age of 74 that he had defined his childhood self-concept based on freedom. [22]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Runaway (dependent)

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A runaway (dependent) is a minor under 18 years of age who absents themselves from home or a place of legal residence without the permission of a parent or legal guardian, often remaining away for at least one night. These youth typically originate from family households or supervised placements where they hold dependent status, distinguishing them from independently homeless individuals who lack such ties. Empirical research identifies primary drivers as escapes from familial maltreatment, rejection, low parental warmth, and conflict, with longitudinal data showing associations to depressive symptoms, school disengagement, and early substance use. Runaway episodes confer substantial risks, including heightened vulnerability to sexual exploitation, physical victimization, chronic substance dependence, suicide attempts, and progression to delinquent or criminal behavior, effects persisting into adulthood for many. In the U.S., such behavior is classified as a status offense under juvenile law, prompting interventions via child welfare systems focused on retrieval, family mediation, and addressing underlying causal factors like parental incapacity rather than punitive measures. Studies reveal that repeat episodes—averaging around three per affected youth—are predicted by prior runs, impaired family dynamics, and comorbid issues, underscoring the need for targeted prevention grounded in verifiable family-level breakdowns over broader societal attributions.

Definition and Scope

In United States federal law, a runaway youth is defined as an individual who is less than 18 years of age and who absents themself from home or a place of legal residence without the permission of a parent or legal guardian. This statutory definition, codified in the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act (RHYA) as amended, underpins federal programs providing shelter, counseling, and reunification services to such youth, emphasizing the unauthorized and self-initiated nature of the departure. State laws may align closely but often incorporate the jurisdictional age of majority or juvenile court limits, such as treating runaways as persons within the home state's juvenile age who voluntarily leave residence without intent to return promptly. Conceptually, a dependent runaway refers to under parental or guardian custody who flees their due to perceived intolerable conditions, distinguishing the act from mere or temporary absence by the element of overnight departure and lack of guardian . This framework, drawn from social service and legal analyses, highlights the dependency status—where the youth lacks independent legal capacity—and frames running away as a status offense rather than a , though it triggers reporting obligations and potential intervention by authorities like the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, which classifies endangered runaways as under 18 whose whereabouts are unknown to custodians. Variations exist in application; for example, emancipated minors, married youth, or those with court-ordered independence are typically excluded from runaway classifications. Internationally, definitions diverge, often tying to national age-of-majority thresholds (e.g., under 16 in some European contexts) but retaining the core of unauthorized flight from caregivers.

Distinctions from Homelessness and Abduction

Runaways differ from primarily in the voluntary and often temporary nature of their departure from home. Under federal definitions, a runaway is a youth under 18 who absents themselves from home or a place of legal residence without parental or guardian permission and without intent to return promptly. In contrast, encompass lacking a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence, which may arise from , parental ejection ("thrownaway" status), discharge, or economic displacement rather than self-initiated flight. This distinction highlights that many runaways maintain a viable base and frequently return within days or weeks, rendering their situation episodic rather than chronic. , however, often involves sustained disconnection from or stable , with runaways forming a subset that may transition into broader if unresolved family conflicts persist. Federal programs under the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act address both categories but prioritize for runaways, recognizing their potential for reconnection absent in many homeless cases. Runaways are also distinct from abducted youth, as the former entail self-directed departure without external coercion, whereas abduction involves forcible or deceptive removal by a parent, relative, or stranger against the minor's will. Literature on missing children classifies runaways as "voluntary missing" to separate them from involuntary cases like parental kidnappings or nonfamilial stranger abductions. Initial law enforcement assessments often categorize reported missing minors as runaways based on evidence of voluntary exit, such as notes or patterns of prior episodes, which influences resource allocation and urgency compared to presumed abduction scenarios. Misclassification risks exist if grooming or subtle precedes departure, potentially blurring lines, but core legal and operational distinctions hinge on volition and custody status. Abductions, especially by nonfamily strangers, remain rare relative to , with the latter dominating missing youth reports and prompting differentiated responses like over AMBER Alert activation.

Epidemiology and Demographics

Prevalence Statistics

Estimates of annual runaway episodes among dependent (typically minors under 18) in the United States range from 1.6 million to 2.8 million, according to data compiled by the National Runaway Safeline and referenced in U.S. Department of Justice analyses. A 2023 report from the , drawing on surveys, indicates that 7% of children and adolescents run away each year, equating to approximately 1.5 million incidents. These figures primarily reflect self-reported or family-reported episodes, with many runaways returning home within days, though repeat episodes are common among chronic cases. Peer-reviewed analysis of survey data from 2005 to 2017 reveals a declining annual prevalence of running away among adolescents aged 12-17, dropping from 8.3% to 6.1%, a statistically significant trend potentially attributable to improved interventions or reporting changes. The estimates that 1 in 20 youth experience a runaway episode annually, corresponding to about 2.3 million children nationwide, highlighting the scale even as official reports capture only a subset. The FBI's (NCIC) receives around 360,000 reports of missing children each year, a substantial portion of which involve , though underreporting remains prevalent as families may resolve episodes informally without police involvement. In 2023, the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC) processed nearly 29,000 missing child reports, with 93% classified as endangered , underscoring the vulnerability of this subgroup but representing only reported cases assisted by the organization. Global data is limited and inconsistent, with U.S. statistics dominating due to better tracking systems; international estimates, where available, suggest similar patterns in developed nations but lack standardized metrics.

Profile of Typical Runaways

Runaway youth are predominantly adolescents, with the majority of first episodes occurring between ages 12 and 17, though over 50% experience their initial runaway before age 14 according to analysis of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997 (NLSY97). Males tend to initiate running away at younger ages than females, with a notable spike for females around age 13. A demographic profile derived from national surveys indicates that running away is predicted by older age within adolescence, female gender, residence in urban areas, location in the western United States, and living in non-intact family structures. Females exhibit a slightly higher lifetime prevalence of running away before age 18 (20.6%) compared to males (18.3%), and they are more prone to multiple episodes, averaging 3.7 incidents versus 2.7 for males. Racial and ethnic variations show elevated rates among Black youth (21.9%) and those of other races (27.6%), followed by whites (19.1%), with Hispanics at the lowest (14.7%); Hispanic males report the lowest overall rate at 12.6%. These patterns hold across longitudinal data from cohorts entering adolescence in the 1990s, with similar correlates observed in studies tracking youth from grade 9 to age 21. Antecedent characteristics of typical runaways include diminished parental support, school disengagement, elevated depressive symptoms, and increased substance use in early , as identified in a study of 4,329 where 13.7% reported running away during high school years. Such often display adjustment difficulties, with running away correlating positively with age and behavioral challenges in settings. While overall prevalence estimates range from 5-8% of U.S. adolescents experiencing at least one episode, these profiles underscore vulnerabilities tied to family instability and individual risk factors rather than broad socioeconomic uniformity.

Etiology and Risk Factors

Familial Contributors

Familial dysfunction, including high levels of conflict and poor overall family functioning, is a strong predictor of runaway behavior among dependent . In a study of at-risk adolescents, 10% ran away over a 12-week period, with poorer youth- and parent-rated family functioning emerging as a significant bivariate predictor after controlling for demographics and prior behaviors. Youth frequently cite escaping family conflict or abusive environments as the primary motive for leaving home, often linked to chaos, lack of parental , and inconsistent . Parental abuse, particularly physical and sexual maltreatment, substantially elevates runaway risk. Longitudinal data indicate high prevalence of family physical or among runaway and homeless youth, with early independently increasing the odds of running away even after adjusting for behavioral confounders. and emotional further compound this, as youth from such homes report heightened emotional distress and family instability driving their departure. Systematic reviews link various familial risk factors, including , to subsequent deviance and street victimization, underscoring a causal pathway from intra-family to flight. Parental substance abuse and addiction disrupt family stability, correlating with increased runaway episodes through indirect effects like neglect and modeling of maladaptive behaviors. Family structure changes, such as or integration into blended families, often exacerbate tensions, with youth experiencing conflicts with step-parents or adjustment difficulties in restructured households. These elements collectively form a pattern where inadequate attachment, unresolved trauma, and unmet propel dependents to seek outside the home, though empirical models emphasize family-level variables as more proximal than individual traits alone.

Individual and Psychological Factors

Individual psychological factors contributing to runaway behavior among dependent youth include pre-existing mental health conditions, particularly depressive symptoms, which have been empirically linked to increased risk. A longitudinal study tracking 4,329 adolescents from grade 9 to age 21 identified greater depressive affect in early adolescence as a significant predictor of subsequent running away, with a standardized coefficient of 0.116 (p < .0001), independent of other variables. Similarly, youth exhibiting conduct disorder, attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), major depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) prior to episodes show heightened propensity for departure from home, as these conditions impair emotional regulation and coping mechanisms. Behavioral tendencies, such as early-onset substance use, further elevate individual risk. The same longitudinal analysis revealed that heavier substance involvement in grade 9 strongly forecasted runaway episodes, with coefficients of 0.116 for low-frequency and 0.736 for high-frequency running away (both p < .0001), suggesting or escapist patterns rooted in personal vulnerabilities. Frequent alcohol or use has also been associated with doubled odds of runaway in at-risk (OR = 2.07, p = .03), often mediating other personal stressors like unmet basic needs. Impulsivity emerges as a core trait amplifying these risks, particularly during when development lags behind reward-seeking drives. Studies indicate that impulsive , rather than deliberate planning, underlies many runaway incidents in the absence of severe , with youth perceiving flight as an immediate self-protective response to acute distress. This aligns with broader evidence that sensation-seeking and poor —hallmarks of adolescent —correlate with high-risk actions like absconding, exacerbating exposure to harm. While these factors do not universally cause running away, their presence in empirical profiles underscores the need for targeted psychological screening in at-risk minors.

Societal and Cultural Influences

Association with deviant peers constitutes a significant societal influence on runaway behavior among adolescents, as peer deviance predicts the likelihood of running away independently of dynamics or individual network positions. Empirical analysis from a of adolescents revealed that exposure to peers engaging in antisocial activities heightens the risk, reflecting broader processes where youth prioritize group norms over familial authority. This dynamic underscores how peer groups, often shaped by neighborhood or school environments, can normalize defiance and provide logistical support for leaving home. School disengagement emerges as another key societal factor, intertwined with cultural emphases on academic and institutional oversight. Adolescents exhibiting poor school attachment at age 15 face elevated risks of running away by age 17, as disengagement fosters alienation from structured societal roles. and within educational settings exacerbate this, with youth struggling to form positive friendships or enduring online harassment showing higher propensity to flee perceived intolerable environments. Cultural stress in immigrant or minority contributes to conflicts that precipitate runaways, particularly through clashes between traditional parental expectations and host society norms. Studies indicate that acculturative pressures correlate with declines, including depressive symptoms that align with runaway precursors, as navigate identity conflicts and reduced cohesion. In diverse societies, such tensions are amplified when generational gaps widen, with adolescents adopting individualistic values that undermine obedience to collectivist structures. Media and digital platforms indirectly influence runaway decisions by amplifying peer pressures and offering virtual escapes that romanticize independence, though direct causal links remain understudied. facilitates connections to risky networks, potentially encouraging to seek alternatives to home amid idealized portrayals of . However, post-runaway usage patterns suggest these tools serve more for survival networking than initiation, highlighting a societal shift toward digital over familial bonds.

Immediate Risks and Consequences

Survival and Exploitation Hazards

Runaway dependents face acute survival challenges due to lack of stable , , and medical access, elevating risks of , , and infectious diseases. Without adequate housing, these are exposed to environmental hazards, with homeless adolescents experiencing at rates nearly five times higher than housed peers, often obtaining fewer than four hours nightly, which impairs cognitive function and decision-making. Nutritional deficits compound these issues, as homeless teens report going to school hungry more than twice as frequently as others, leading to weakened immune responses and chronic deterioration. Mortality rates among homeless youth exceed those of the general adolescent population, driven by untreated injuries, substance overdoses, and suicides, as documented in longitudinal studies of unsheltered minors. Exploitation hazards intensify as runaways trade sex or labor for basic needs, a phenomenon termed "survival sex," which exposes them to predators seeking vulnerable targets. Approximately one in five runaway and homeless encounters human trafficking, encompassing both commercial sexual exploitation and labor , with traffickers exploiting their isolation and desperation. Among with foster care runaway episodes, 7% face allegations of trafficking during absences, often involving into or forced labor. Sexual assault and rates among these are two to three times higher than among non-runaways, frequently perpetrated by acquaintances or strangers encountered on streets or in temporary dwellings. Drug dealing affects about 20% of homeless as a means of income, further entangling them in criminal networks and elevating overdose risks. These perils interconnect causally: initial survival needs propel toward exploitative situations, where physical , including assaults and robberies, becomes commonplace as both perpetration and victimization. Studies of urban homeless adolescents reveal patterns of reactive for self-protection, yet this escalates overall endangerment without resolving underlying vulnerabilities. Federal analyses confirm that unaccompanied runaways' lack of guardianship amplifies predation, with commercial sexual exploitation affecting over 162,000 such annually in the U.S.

Encounters with Authorities and Systems

Runaway minors often first encounter when reported missing by parents or guardians, with police initiating welfare checks, searches via systems like the (NCIC), and assessments for immediate safety upon location. Officers typically prioritize returning the youth home unless resistance, signs of abuse, or ongoing risk are evident, in which case referral to shelters or child welfare agencies occurs. In 2017, among approximately 27,000 missing child reports resolved by the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, a significant portion involved runaways located through police efforts. Child Protective Services (CPS) or equivalent agencies become involved when runaways disclose family maltreatment or when repeat episodes suggest neglect, triggering investigations into home environments and potential removal to or emergency shelters. For youth already in who run away, CPS mandates reporting to and the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children within specified timelines, such as 24 hours in many jurisdictions, followed by coordinated location and risk assessments. Such interventions aim to address underlying familial contributors but can escalate if the youth reports upon return, complicating reunification and sometimes leading to dependency proceedings. Encounters with the juvenile justice system arise primarily for repeat classified as status offenders under state laws, where running away constitutes a non-criminal infraction applicable only to minors; federal policy via the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) of 1974, as reauthorized, restricts secure detention for such cases to narrow exceptions like imminent danger. Despite these prohibitions, historical data from 1995 to 2013 show petitioned runaway status offense cases declined by 38%, yet residual detentions persist in some areas, correlating with poorer long-term outcomes including . Runaways demonstrate elevated juvenile justice involvement—up to several times higher than peers—often stemming from secondary survival offenses like or rather than the runaway act itself. Youth fleeing foster placements face amplified risks of formal justice system entry, with studies indicating that such absences independently predict subsequent convictions in 42% of cases analyzed. Critics attribute persistent jailing of to local non-compliance with JJDPA valid exceptions, which exacerbate trauma and delinquency rather than resolving root causes like family conflict. In contrast, diversion to community-based programs or family mediation via entities like the National Runaway Safeline occurs in many initial encounters, aiming to avert deeper system entanglement.

Long-Term Outcomes

Health and Mental Health Effects

Former runaway youth exhibit elevated rates of depressive symptoms in young adulthood compared to non-runaways, persisting even after accounting for pre-runaway risk factors such as conflict and prior issues. Longitudinal data from a study tracking adolescents into age 21 found that runaways scored higher on drug dependence measures, linking early runaway episodes to sustained substance use disorders. These patterns align with broader evidence of co-occurring psychiatric conditions, where multiple victimizations—both pre- and post-runaway—correlate with increased odds of (PTSD), major depression, and diagnoses among formerly homeless or runaway adolescents. PTSD symptoms are particularly prevalent, with one analysis of runaway and homeless reporting that 98% displayed elevated scores, often tied to trauma exposure during episodes of instability, though and use showed associations independent of other factors. , attempts, and self-injury remain heightened long-term, as evidenced by comparisons of with or runaway histories against stably housed peers, where the former group reported significantly more severe emotional distress into late . , common precursors to running away, further compound these risks by raising the likelihood of chronic impairments, including anxiety and conduct disorders that disrupt adult functioning. On physical health fronts, former runaways self-report poorer overall status, with multinomial regression models indicating a 0.20-level decrement on standardized health scales relative to non-runaways, attributable in part to untreated acute risks during episodes like exposure and . Long-term sequelae include heightened to chronic conditions from sustained substance misuse and delayed medical access, as runaway histories predict broader that indirectly erodes physical resilience through behaviors like . Empirical reviews underscore that these youth face compounded risks for infectious diseases and injuries unresolved from street survival tactics, contributing to premature health decline absent intervention. Former runaway youth experience substantial socioeconomic disadvantages in adulthood, primarily stemming from disrupted educational trajectories and limited skill development. A nationally representative using data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health found that former runaways are 50% less likely to obtain a or GED compared to non-runaways, with average limited to vocational or technical training rather than postsecondary . This educational shortfall contributes to lower stability and , as evidenced by former runaways earning an average of $28,686 annually versus $35,215 for non-runaways—a difference of $8,823 per year. Additionally, the odds of relying on household public assistance are 76% higher among former runaways, perpetuating cycles of economic insecurity. These outcomes are causally linked to the immediate disruptions of runaway episodes, such as increased high school dropout risk. Analysis of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997 showed that even a single runaway-homeless episode raises the probability of not graduating high school by approximately 10%, with repeated episodes elevating it to 13-18%, independent of prior risk factors like family . Such interruptions hinder accumulation, leading to in low-wage sectors or informal economies, and heighten vulnerability to adult —a pathway supported by evidence that adolescent running away precedes chronic instability in housing and livelihood. Legally, runaway experiences correlate with elevated involvement in the system, compounding socioeconomic barriers through records that restrict job prospects and licensing. The same longitudinal analysis revealed that former runaways face 2.72 times higher odds of post-18 compared to peers, alongside 99% greater likelihood of drug selling—behaviors often rooted in needs during episodes but persisting as barriers to legal . While initial runaway acts are status offenses without criminal penalties in most jurisdictions, they frequently initiate juvenile detentions or , fostering ; studies indicate over half of runaway-homeless youth encounter , with family conflicts exacerbating justice system entanglements. These records impose lifelong collateral consequences, including ineligibility for certain occupations and heightened scrutiny in hiring, thus reinforcing traps.

Rare Instances of Positive Adaptation

In longitudinal research tracking 183 newly homeless adolescents in over two years, 73% successfully exited , with 48% achieving stable housing by maintaining engagement in (odds ratio 2.87 for exiting, 4.74 for stability) and cultivating pro-social peer networks (odds ratio 1.98). These outcomes, though infrequent without such levers, reflect adaptive trajectories where abated risks through structured routines and supportive relationships outside the family. Psychological capital—encompassing , , and future orientation—has been shown to mediate resilience in aged 18-24, explaining up to 55% of variance in within a sample of 283 individuals, correlating with enhanced and healthier behaviors despite prior adversities like . In cases where parental death rather than prompted flight, this capital sometimes fostered coping mechanisms enabling independent resource acquisition, such as access and part-time work, though consistently undermined such adaptation (t = -2.12). Qualitative evidence from shelter-based programs indicates that a small of runaway youth, post-crisis intervention, report sustained gains in , , and family reconciliation, with follow-up data from emergency services showing reduced runaway episodes and improved vocational status in 6-12 months for participants leveraging innate like street navigation and relational . These instances underscore causal pathways rooted in pre-existing traits and timely abutments, yet remain exceptional amid predominant trajectories of .

United States Framework

The primary federal framework addressing dependent runaways—minors who leave their legal guardians without permission—is the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act (RHYA), originally enacted in 1974 under Public Law 93-415 and codified in Title 34 of the following its 2022 recodification from Title 42. This legislation authorizes the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), through its Family and Youth Services Bureau, to award grants to states, localities, and nonprofit organizations for programs providing short-term shelter, , counseling, and services to youth under age 18 who are runaways or otherwise homeless, with an emphasis on preventing exploitation and trafficking. In fiscal year 2023, RHYA-funded programs served over 100,000 youth, including Basic Center grants that limit shelter stays to 21 days and prohibit coercive returns to unsafe homes, prioritizing voluntary participation and aftercare planning. Complementing RHYA, the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC), established by the Missing Children's Assistance Act of 1984 and reauthorized under the Missing, Exploited, and Runaway Children Protection Act of 2003, serves as a clearinghouse for reports of missing minors, categorizing many as "endangered runaways" when their circumstances indicate heightened vulnerability to harm, such as repeated episodes or involvement in high-risk behaviors. agencies must enter verified runaway reports into the FBI's (NCIC) database, with NCMEC receiving daily feeds to facilitate recovery efforts; as of 2023, NCMEC assisted in the recovery of over 29,000 missing children annually, a significant portion of whom were . Federal policy mandates immediate reporting for children missing from or institutions, but voluntary from parental homes often face delayed entries if deemed low-risk, reflecting a balance between parental custody rights and child safety assessments. At the state level, running away is classified as a status offense under juvenile justice systems in all 50 states, meaning it incurs civil rather than criminal penalties for the minor, typically resulting in temporary , court-ordered return to guardians, or placement in shelter care unless evidence of abuse or neglect triggers child welfare intervention under laws like the Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA). Harboring or contributing to the delinquency of a runaway minor can lead to or charges in most states, with penalties varying by —such as up to one year imprisonment in under Penal Code Section 272 for adults aiding minors under 18 to leave home without consent. Interstate pursuits and returns are coordinated through the on Juveniles, administered by the Interstate Commission for Juveniles, which facilitated over 3,000 runaway returns in 2022 by standardizing apprehension and transport procedures while accommodating cases involving dependent children of the runaway youth. Recent federal enhancements, including the Runaway and Homeless Youth and Trafficking Prevention Act provisions in bills like H.R. 3856 (introduced June 2025), expand RHYA to mandate trauma-informed services and anti-trafficking training, recognizing that comprise up to 40% of child victims according to HHS data, while prohibiting federal funds for programs that involuntarily commit youth without . These policies underscore a non-punitive approach focused on risk , with evaluations showing RHYA programs reduce by 20-30% through family , though critics note underfunding—$140 million in FY2024 against an estimated 1.6-2.8 million annual —limits coverage to less than 10% of at-risk youth.

International Approaches

International approaches to runaway dependents emphasize through multilateral conventions, regional initiatives, and national policies that prioritize , where safe, and prevention of exploitation. The 1996 Hague Convention on , Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children facilitates cross-border cooperation, enabling countries to recognize and enforce protective measures for minors, including those who have run away internationally, by coordinating returns or alternative placements when is disrupted. This framework, ratified by over 40 states as of 2023, addresses jurisdictional conflicts but requires national implementation to handle cases involving potential or trafficking. In the , runaway children are treated as a subset of missing children cases, with policies focusing on adversity indicators like family conflict or driving departures. The EU-funded project, active through 2020, analyzed data showing that 53.1% of reported missing children in 2020 were runaways, with 83% citing home problems and over 81% of violence-exposed missing children falling into this category; it advocates reframing runaways as signals for improved care systems rather than mere , recommending tailored interventions to reduce rates exceeding 56%. Member states implement these via national agencies, emphasizing rapid location, vulnerability screening for trafficking or , and support services, though enforcement varies by country. The United Kingdom's statutory guidance, updated in 2014, mandates local authorities to develop prevention plans, conduct risk assessments upon return, and coordinate with police for children missing from home or care, recognizing that 25% face immediate harm risks, particularly looked-after children. Protocols require strategy meetings for absences over 28 days and prioritize against repeat episodes linked to underlying issues like . In , no prohibits minors from leaving home, but states encourage parental reporting to police, with most runaways located within 48 hours; the Reconnect program targets 12- to 18-year-olds at risk of through early intervention, family mediation, and accommodation support to avert long-term disconnection. Canada classifies runaway status as non-criminal for youth, but provincial laws authorize police to apprehend minors without warrants and return them to guardians if deemed at risk, focusing on immediate safety from exploitation or substance issues rather than . Central authorities like MissingKids.ca advise prompt police reporting for high-risk cases, integrating responses with welfare services to address root causes such as . Across these jurisdictions, policies balance parental authority with welfare evaluations, often prioritizing empirical risk data over claims, though implementation gaps persist in resource-limited areas.

Prevention and Intervention

Family-Centered Strategies

Family-centered strategies emphasize resolving underlying familial conflicts and strengthening relational bonds to prevent from running away or to facilitate reunification after episodes of absence. These approaches recognize that family dysfunction, including poor communication, , and inadequate supervision, often precipitates runaway behavior among dependents. Evidence from randomized controlled trials indicates that targeted therapies can reduce and improve outcomes by addressing these root causes directly within the home environment. Functional Family Therapy (FFT), a structured, short-term intervention for adolescents aged 11-18 with behavioral issues including running away, focuses on reframing negative family interactions and building skills for conflict resolution. In studies of alcohol-abusing runaway youth, FFT delivered in office or home settings significantly reduced substance use at 15-month follow-up compared to standard services, with home-based delivery enhancing engagement due to accessibility for transient youth. FFT has demonstrated a 35% reduction in felony convictions and 30% in violent crimes among treated youth, alongside improvements in family functioning and decreased delinquency. Multisystemic Therapy (MST), an intensive home-based model targeting youth with serious antisocial behaviors such as repeated running away, integrates with interventions in peer, , and systems to promote behavioral change. Meta-analyses confirm MST's effectiveness in reducing out-of-home placements by up to 64% and arrests among justice-involved youth, including , by empowering families to manage risks through skill-building and crisis response. For substance-abusing , ecologically based variants of MST-like have shown sustained reductions in drug use and family conflict post-treatment. Reunification programs, often embedded in shelter services like those under the U.S. Runaway and Homeless Youth Act's Basic Center Programs, prioritize mediated family conferences and follow-up counseling to restore safe home environments, achieving reunification in the majority of cases when paired with therapy. Evaluations of family intervention models for at-risk youth report modest improvements in and substance outcomes, though success depends on addressing barriers like parental substance issues or histories through mandatory participation incentives. These strategies outperform individual youth-focused interventions by leveraging familial leverage points, but require rigorous adherence to evidence-based protocols to yield verifiable reductions in future runaway incidents.

Institutional and Community Programs

Institutional programs for runaway dependents primarily operate through federally funded initiatives under the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Family and Youth Services Bureau (FYSB), which administers the Runaway and Homeless Youth (RHY) Program. This program allocates grants to community-based organizations for emergency shelters via the Basic Center Program (BCP), providing short-term residential care, counseling, and family reunification services for youth under 18 who have run away or are at risk of homelessness. In fiscal year 2023, BCP funded over 300 grantees serving approximately 60,000 youth annually with immediate crisis intervention to stabilize situations and prevent prolonged street exposure. The Transitional Living Program (TLP) extends support for older youth aged 16-22, offering longer-term housing, life skills training, and employment assistance to foster independence while addressing underlying family conflicts that precipitate running away. Street Outreach Program (SOP) components target youth already on the streets, delivering education on risks like exploitation, substance abuse, and survival strategies, alongside referrals to shelters and treatment; in 2022, SOP grantees reached over 15,000 youth with these preventive outreach efforts. Additionally, the Prevention Demonstration Program (PDP) funds innovative community pilots to avert initial runaway episodes, such as family mediation and early intervention counseling, emphasizing causal factors like parental discord or abuse over permissive narratives of youth autonomy. These institutional frameworks prioritize empirical risk reduction, with data indicating that BCP participants experience a 70% family reunification rate within 21 days, though long-term recidivism remains a challenge due to unresolved home dynamics. Community programs complement these efforts through nonprofit operations like the National Runaway Safeline (NRS), a 24/7 funded partly by FYSB, which handled over 150,000 contacts in 2023 for listening, resource referrals, and the Home Free initiative that facilitates safe transport home or to vetted alternatives for roughly 3,000 youth yearly. NRS emphasizes non-judgmental to restore family ties where viable, reporting that 45% of mediated calls result in voluntary returns without involvement. Organizations such as operate shelters and transitional housing in multiple cities, serving over 1,800 youth in 2023 with immediate bedding, meals, and case management focused on exiting ; their model integrates vocational training to address socioeconomic drivers of repeated runaways. Local community initiatives, including Salvation Army youth shelters, provide temporary refuge and counseling for runaways aged 12-17, often integrating with state child welfare systems to assess dependency status and prevent institutionalization. Programs like Florida's Haven W. Poe Runaway Shelter offer up to 21 days of shelter and counseling for troubled youth, prioritizing family counseling to mitigate truancy and ungovernability as precursors to flight. Effectiveness varies, with community programs showing higher engagement rates among voluntary participants but limited scalability; federal evaluations note that integrated institutional-community models reduce street time by 50% compared to standalone efforts, underscoring the need for data-driven coordination over ideologically driven expansions.

Notable Cases

Historical Examples

In colonial America, minors bound as apprentices to masters—often in lieu of parental oversight—frequently ran away, as documented in contemporaneous newspaper advertisements seeking their return. These ads, common in publications like the Virginia Gazette, described fugitives' appearances, clothing, and suspected destinations, with rewards offered for captures; for example, masters pursued teens aged 14 to 17 who absconded from trades such as blacksmithing or due to harsh conditions or desire for . Such runaways breached contracts, which typically lasted four to seven years, leading to legal efforts to reclaim them, though many evaded recapture and sought work elsewhere. A prominent individual case is that of , who in September 1723, at age 17, fled his under his brother James in a printing shop, traveling 100 miles on foot and by boat to amid familial and professional disputes. Franklin later reflected in his that the escape allowed him to establish himself independently, though it initially left him destitute; he secured employment as a printer shortly after arrival. This episode exemplifies how runaway apprentices, treated as dependents under legal guardianship, often initiated self-reliant paths despite risks of charges or recapture. In the early , Native American children placed in government-funded residential schools as dependents of federal policy frequently attempted escapes from institutional abuse and cultural erasure. For instance, in October 1903, two boys, Phillip Swain (aged about 10) and Roderick Taypaywaykejick (aged about 12), fled in , , trekking through wilderness in winter; while their bodies were later found frozen, the incident highlighted systemic failures in oversight and harsh conditions driving such flights. Records from U.S. and Canadian boarding schools indicate thousands of similar runaway attempts between 1880 and 1930, with many children enduring beatings, , or death upon recapture or during evasion. During the 1960s countercultural movement, surges in teenage runaways from middle-class homes reflected rebellion against perceived parental authoritarianism and societal norms, with an estimated one million U.S. youth leaving annually by mid-decade. In San Francisco's district during the 1967 , thousands of minors aged 15-17 converged, drawn by utopian ideals and music scenes, but faced exploitation, drug abuse, and disease; media reports and shelters documented cases where runaways, initially seeking freedom, returned or required intervention after encounters with predators. This era marked a shift from viewing runaways as adventurers to recognizing underlying family conflicts, prompting early federal responses like the 1974 Runaway Youth Act.

Contemporary Incidents

In 2025, a FOX10 Phoenix investigation highlighted systemic failures contributing to the deaths of three teens who ran away from state care placements. Zariah Dodd, aged 16, fled a and was later found stabbed to death in Phoenix. Emily Pike, 17, left her placement and died from a overdose days later. The third teen, Anaiah, also perished under similar circumstances after going missing from supervision, with reports linking the cases to inadequate tracking and support by the Department of Child Safety. That same year in October, Hawaiian authorities rescued 10 runaway aged 13 to 18 during Operation Shine a Light, a multi-agency effort targeting at-risk missing children vulnerable to , exploitation, and . The operation, involving the , FBI, and others, located the runaways who had been reported missing and classified as voluntary departures from home or care, amid broader concerns that one in seven such nationwide faces trafficking risks. In another October 2025 incident, Shreveport police recovered a runaway minor from and arrested individuals linked to child trafficking and , underscoring the cross-state dangers encounter. The case involved allegations of exploitation after the youth left home, prompting an ongoing probe into procurers and abusers. Similar patterns appeared in , where a man received a 195-year sentence in 2023 for trafficking a runaway teen to multiple perpetrators, illustrating persistent predation on unsupervised dependents.

Controversies and Alternative Perspectives

Overemphasis on Victimization

Critics argue that prevailing narratives around dependent runaways excessively emphasize their status as victims of familial or neglect, potentially overshadowing other causal factors such as interpersonal conflicts, behavioral defiance, or quests for . While self-reported data from organizations like the National Runaway Safeline indicate that 34% of youth cite and 43% physical as preceding factors, a larger share—47%—attributes running away to general conflicts with parents or guardians, which often encompass disputes over household rules, curfews, or discipline rather than severe maltreatment. This framing risks conflating normative adolescent rebellion with , as evidenced by longitudinal studies identifying issues, delinquent peer associations, and family discord—distinct from outright —as key predictors. Such overemphasis may stem from institutional biases in child welfare systems, where self-reports are prioritized without rigorous corroboration, leading to inflated abuse attributions that undermine parental authority in cases of mutual family tension. Historically, runaway behavior was interpreted through lenses of youthful or resistance to mainstream values and parental oversight, a perspective that has largely yielded to victim-centric models since the late . This shift aligns with broader trends in juvenile , where policies increasingly pathologize dynamics, treating as presumptive wards of the state rather than individuals exercising agency amid disagreements. For instance, analyses of resolution tactics reveal that parents of often employ inconsistent or affective discipline rather than , yet these are retroactively scrutinized under victimhood paradigms that prioritize narratives. Empirical reviews highlight that not all exhibit trauma markers; many stem from "push-out" scenarios or voluntary departures driven by peer influence or perceived restrictions, complicating blanket victim labels. Overreliance on this view can exacerbate outcomes by diverting resources from reconciliation-focused interventions to adversarial separations, as seen in critiques of lenient pre-1990s policies that eroded parental leverage in states like Washington. The victim-overemphasis critique posits causal realism: running away frequently reflects bidirectional family breakdowns, including non-compliance or external lures like substance experimentation, rather than unidirectional parental culpability. Data from shelter-based surveys using tools like the Conflict Tactics Scale show elevated familial discord among runaways—78% report such issues—but attribute much to unresolved arguments over authority, not exclusively violence. This selective focus, amplified by advocacy groups and media, may discourage accountability, fostering ; studies link unaddressed behavioral factors to repeated episodes, with interventions emphasizing agency yielding better long-term stability than pure trauma models. Policymakers and researchers advocating balance urge distinguishing verifiable from normative strife to preserve integrity, warning that perpetual victimization rhetoric erodes incentives for to engage in principled dialogue or for parents to enforce boundaries without fear of reprisal.

Critiques of Permissive Narratives

Critics contend that permissive narratives, which frame runaway episodes primarily as responses to oppressive dynamics or societal failings while minimizing the consequences of autonomy and parental leniency, distort causal realities and hinder effective prevention. Empirical studies link permissive —marked by indulgence without firm boundaries—to heightened risks of adolescent deviant , including running away, as it fosters poor self-regulation and deviant peer associations that escalate conflicts into flight. For instance, a examination of found that low correlates with increased runaway incidents, as accustomed to unchecked rebel against any imposed limits, often citing routine disagreements over rules as triggers rather than severe . Such narratives are further critiqued for excusing youth agency, as data reveal that many runaways exhibit pre-existing problem behaviors like , substance involvement, or delinquency, which predict future episodes independently of . Bivariate analyses confirm that past runaway history and concurrent strongly forecast recurrence, underscoring how personal choices compound familial shortcomings rather than being mere reactions to them. This overlooks evidence that running away amplifies vulnerabilities, with facing elevated rates of academic dropout and exploitation, outcomes exacerbated by narratives that normalize departure as . Proponents of stricter argue that ideologically driven emphases in academia and media—prioritizing victimization over —stem from reluctance to confront permissive cultural shifts eroding family authority, yet longitudinal affirms that robust monitoring and control mitigate delinquency, including absconding, by instilling causal of consequences. Qualitative accounts from youth themselves, such as running "to make a point," highlight intentional agency in these acts, challenging one-sided victim portrayals that may inadvertently encourage repetition by downplaying inherent dangers. Effective critiques thus advocate reframing interventions around rebuilding boundaries, as empirical patterns show lax approaches perpetuate instability without addressing root behavioral drivers.

References

  1. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-45/subtitle-B/chapter-XIII/subchapter-F/part-1351
  2. https://youth.gov/youth-topics/homelessness-and-housing-instability/federal-definitions
  3. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/RL33785
  4. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3021590/
  5. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10807229/
  6. https://youth.gov/youth-topics/homelessness-and-housing-instability/behavioral-health
  7. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5421563/
  8. https://www.juvenilecompact.org/legal/toolkit-for-judges/rules-for-runaways
  9. https://definitions.uslegal.com/r/runaway/
  10. https://www.missingkids.org/theissues/runaways
  11. https://www.lawhelpmn.org/self-help-library/fact-sheet/what-parents-should-know-about-runaways
  12. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31964756/
  13. https://acf.gov/fysb/law-regulation/runaway-and-homeless-youth-program-authorizing-legislation
  14. https://www.usich.gov/sites/default/files/document/Federal-Definitions-of-Youth-Homelessness.pdf
  15. https://nche.ed.gov/legislation/runaway-youth/
  16. https://oxfordre.com/socialwork/viewbydoi/10.1093/acrefore/9780199975839.013.1016
  17. https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/145/4/e20192674/36969/Mental-Health-Outcomes-Among-Homeless-Runaway-and
  18. https://acf.gov/fysb/programs/runaway-homeless-youth
  19. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/196469.pdf
  20. https://www.wsaw.com/2024/02/21/understanding-differences-between-runaway-cases-missing-kids/
  21. https://amberadvocate.org/amber-news/aa38-rethinking-runaways-and-missing-children/
  22. https://www.missingkids.org/theissues/othertypes
  23. https://www.ojp.gov/archives/ojp-blogs/2019/invisible-faces-runaway-and-homeless-youth
  24. https://youth.gov/youth-topics/homelessness-and-housing-instability/rates
  25. https://childidprogram.com/missing-and-minority-report/
  26. https://cdn.ymaws.com/fbileeda.org/resource/resmgr/docs/3.16.25_minority_and_missing.pdf
  27. https://globalmissingkids.org/awareness/missing-children-statistics/
  28. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED510506.pdf
  29. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6748250_Who_Runs_A_Demographic_Profile_of_Runaway_Youth_in_the_United_States
  30. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0190740912004082
  31. https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/soc4.12537
  32. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2020-20181-020
  33. https://www.modelsforchange.net/publications/674/Runaway_Youth_A_Research_Brief.pdf
  34. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0145213406002262
  35. https://popcenter.asu.edu/content/juvenile-runaways-0
  36. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3698723/
  37. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7163838/
  38. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S019074091930756X
  39. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3445337/
  40. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2012.00789.x
  41. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ976211
  42. https://missingkids.ca/en/how-can-we-help/runaway/risk-indicators/
  43. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11868275/
  44. https://capmh.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13034-020-00334-6
  45. https://youthmedicaljournal.com/2022/01/12/the-impact-of-social-media-on-peer-pressure-in-adolescents/
  46. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4200536/
  47. https://youth.gov/youth-topics/homelessness-and-housing-instability/health
  48. https://www.usich.gov/sites/default/files/document/Homelessness_in_America_Youth.pdf
  49. https://nn4youth.org/learn/human-trafficking/
  50. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S019074091830906X
  51. https://www.nn4youth.org/wp-content/uploads/Issue-Brief_Consequences-of-Youth-Homelessness.pdf
  52. https://www.nrcdv.org/rhydvtoolkit/each-field/homeless-youth/define.html
  53. https://acf.gov/fysb/fact-sheet/overlap-human-trafficking-and-runaway-and-homeless-youth
  54. https://ocfs.ny.gov/programs/youth/assets/docs/missing/Missing-Youth-Response.pdf
  55. https://www.reddit.com/r/CPS/comments/wiy9gq/what_does_dcf_do_if_a_child_runs_away/
  56. https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/model-programs-guide/literature-reviews/status_offenders.pdf
  57. https://youth.gov/youth-topics/homelessness-and-housing-instability/juvenile-justice-system
  58. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/runaway-children-and-juvenile-justice-and-delinquency-prevention
  59. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S019074091630189X
  60. https://www.rstreet.org/commentary/why-do-we-keep-jailing-runaway-kids/
  61. https://juvjustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/SOS-3-Talking-Points-on-Status-Offenses.pdf
  62. https://www.jaacapopen.org/article/S2949-7329%2823%2900001-7/fulltext
  63. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232891071_Factors_Associated_with_Trauma_Symptoms_Among_RunawayHomeless_Adolescents
  64. https://www.mdpi.com/2673-995X/4/4/107
  65. https://www.nationalrunawaysafeline.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/NRS-Longitudinal-study-full-report.pdf
  66. https://aspe.hhs.gov/reports/toward-understanding-homelessness-2007-national-symposium-homelessness-research-characteristics-help-0
  67. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4308975/
  68. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/603835
  69. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328158607_The_Consequences_of_Adolescent_Delinquent_Behavior_for_Adult_Employment_Outcomes
  70. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4110912/
  71. https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1018&context=socialworkfacpub
  72. https://nn4youth.org/policy/federal-policy-to-end-youth-homelessness/
  73. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/fs200128.pdf
  74. https://www.missingkids.org/theissues
  75. https://hillsidehorizon.com/blog/consequences-of-fleeing-legal-implications-of-running-away/
  76. https://www.shanephelpslaw.com/the-atticus-files/charged-with-kidnapping-for-helping-a-runaway/
  77. https://www.juvenilecompact.org/resources/best-practices/returning-runaways-with-dependents
  78. https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/3856/text
  79. https://www.ag.gov.au/families-and-marriage/families/international-family-law-and-children/international-child-protection
  80. https://norfolklscp.org.uk/about/policies-procedures/children-in-specific-circumstances/525-cross-border-child-protection-cases
  81. https://missingchildreneurope.eu/runaways/
  82. https://missingchildreneurope.eu/radar/
  83. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/children-who-run-away-or-go-missing-from-home-or-care
  84. https://www.wscp.org.uk/documents/children-missing-from-home-and-care-policy-and-protocol
  85. https://treasury.gov.au/policy-topics/housing/preventing-youth-homelessness
  86. https://www.streetchildren.org/legal-atlas/map/canada/status-offences/is-it-illegal-for-a-child-to-run-away/
  87. https://missingkids.ca/en/how-can-we-help/runaway/immediate-steps/
  88. https://learning.nspcc.org.uk/child-protection-system/children-the-law
  89. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2699020/
  90. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2697451/
  91. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4172308/
  92. https://www.countyhealthrankings.org/strategies-and-solutions/what-works-for-health/strategies/functional-family-therapy-fft
  93. https://www.jaacap.org/article/S0890-8567%2824%2901947-6/fulltext
  94. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2443721/
  95. https://www.chapinhall.org/wp-content/uploads/Chapin-Hall_MST-EA-Report_May-2024.pdf
  96. https://aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/private/pdf/205401/FamilyInterventions.pdf
  97. https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/2016/12/05/reviewing-the-evidence-on-family-interventions-for-youth-experiencing-or-at-risk-of-homelessness.pdf
  98. https://acf.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fysb/youth_homelessness.pdf
  99. https://acf.gov/fysb/programs/runaway-homeless-youth/programs
  100. https://youth.gov/youth-topics/homelessness-and-housing-instability/federal-programs
  101. https://grants.gov/search-results-detail/349731
  102. https://www.1800runaway.org/
  103. https://acf.gov/fysb/programs/runaway-homeless-youth/programs/nrs
  104. https://www.covenanthouse.org/
  105. https://www.salvationarmyusa.org/homelessness/youth-shelters/
  106. https://www.djj.state.fl.us/programs-facilities/prevention-programs/haven-w.-poe-runaway-shelter
  107. https://acf.gov/fysb/help
  108. https://allthingsliberty.com/2014/10/10-runaway-ads/
  109. https://www.finewoodworking.com/2019/04/24/the-bad-and-the-beautiful-of-period-apprenticeships
  110. https://web.mst.edu/~lib-circ/documents/RunawayAdvertisements.pdf
  111. https://hsp.org/sites/default/files/legacy_files/migrated/bfandapprenticeship.pdf
  112. https://macleans.ca/news/canada/the-other-residential-school-runaways/
  113. https://boardingschoolhealing.org/us-indian-boarding-school-history/
  114. https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20170615-when-all-the-children-ran-away
  115. https://interfaithsheltersf.org/runaway-and-homeless-youth-the-third-root-cause/
  116. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KP0_khrxYO8
  117. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Agz-C2nh1Zc
  118. https://www.khon2.com/hawaii-crime/10-at-risk-missing-children-youth-found-alive-on-oahu/
  119. https://www.ktalnews.com/news/crime/shreveport-child-trafficking-arrests/
  120. https://ground.news/article/abilene-man-gets-195-years-for-trafficking-teen-to-multiple-men
  121. https://familyresourcesinc.org/2019/11/why-youth-run-away/
  122. https://popcenter.asu.edu/sites/g/files/litvpz3631/files/juvenile_runaways.pdf
  123. https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc4814/m2/1/high_res_d/thesis.pdf
  124. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/46106NCJRS.pdf
  125. https://www.csmonitor.com/1995/0531/31013.html
  126. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6541081/
  127. https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3971&context=faculty_scholarship
  128. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4909613/
  129. https://theses.lib.polyu.edu.hk/handle/200/722
  130. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1154&context=sociologyfacpub
  131. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2708328/
  132. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10244860/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.