Chi l d a nd Adol es cent Soci al Wor k

Vol ume 5, Nu mb e r 1, Spr i ng 1988

A Typol ogy of Adol e s c e nt
Runa wa y s
Lori ng P. Jones, M.S.W.
ABSTRACT: No single program seems adequate to serve a highly complex ad-
olescent runaway and homeless youth population. A service program must
have many components with each part addressing the needs of a specific and
different population. This paper presents a typology of runaway behavior
which has three categories. These categories distinguish among runaway and
homeless youth by reference to their family situation, psychological character-
istics, and length of time out of home. The implications for intervention that
follow from these categories are discussed.
A successful i nt ervent i on st rat egy for teenage runaways would recog-
nize t hat r unni ng away is a complex phenomenon wi t h many different
causes. Therefore no single program seems adequate to serve a hi ghl y
complex adolescent population. A service program must have many
components, each addressing t he problem of specific and different pop-
ulations. Such a recognition calls for a means of di st i ngui shi ng among
differing types of r unaway and homeless youth. This paper presents a
comprehensive typology of these youths, because it is understood t hat
r unni ng away is not caused by a single motive. Young people who en-
gage in t hi s behavior do so for a wide vari et y of reasons. Successful in-
t ervent i on would follow from an assessment t hat successfully identi-
fies what those circumstances are.
The i nt ent i on of this paper was to develop a set of generalizations
based upon t he di st i ngui shi ng characteristics t hat can be found among
r unaway and homeless youth. These generalizations were based upon
a systematic search and i nt egrat i on of the existing research on this
population. A number of problems were encountered in t hi s effort. The
Mr. J one s i s a l e c t ur e r a t t he J a n e Addams Col l ege of Soci al Wor k of t he Uni ve r s i t y
of I l l i noi s a nd a Doct or al Ca ndi da t e i n Soci al Wel f ar e a nd f or mer Bus h fel l ow a t t he
Uni ve r s i t y of Cal i f or ni a, Los Angel es. For cor r espondence a nd r e pr i nt s addr ess, J a n e
Adda ms Col l ege of Soci al Wor k, 1040 Wes t Ha r r i s on St r eet , Box 4348, Chi cago, IL
60680.
16 9 1988 Hu ma n Sci ences Pr e s s
L ORING P. JONES 17
most ser i ous di ffi cul t y is t he smal l numbe r of empi ri cal st udi es on t hi s
topic, whi ch demons t r at es t he need for mor e s ubs t ant i ve wor k on run-
a wa y and homel ess yout h. The st udi es t ha t wer e avai l abl e had t he fol-
l owi ng char act er i st i cs:
1. Most of t he st udi es wer e qual i t at i ve case st udi es whi ch wer e
bas ed l ar gel y on subj ect i ve compar i son of cases r at her t ha n an
obj ect i ve empi r i cal approach.
2. Most of t he sampl es wer e smal l and gat her ed from a si ngl e
pl ace whi ch r ai ses i ssues about r epr es ent at i venes s .
3. Ther e was no agr eed upon t ypol ogy or means of cl assi fi cat i on.
Ther ef or e each focused on some nar r ow descr i pt i ve domai n.
These domai ns cover a smal l s pect r um of behavi or s, i nt en-
t i ons, psychol ogi cal t r ai t s, f ami l y dynami cs, e t c . . .
4. These var i ous cl assi fi cat i on schemes have not been t es t ed for
val i di t y and r el i abi l i t y. Ther ef or e t he concl usi ons st at ed i n
t hi s paper shoul d be r egar ded as t ent at i ve and suggest i ve.
It shoul d be not ed t ha t wi t hi n t he t ypol ogy t her e ar e t hr ee cat ego-
ries, and each cat egor y is made up of sever al subset s. It is possi bl e to
l ocat e a r una wa y i n mor e t ha n one cat egory. For exampl e one can lo-
cat e a r una wa y t ype bot h i n t he f ami l y dynami cs model , and cer t ai nl y
al so wi t hi n t he t empor al model .
The r el evant r es ear ch was r evi ewed for commonal i t i es i n or der to
i dent i f y si mi l ar i t i es i n t he wa y t he y di st i ngui shed di fferences among
r unaways . These commonal i t i es wer e t hen s t at ed as t ypes. Thi s paper
s t at es t he t ypol ogi es wi t hi n t he r eal ms wher e t he most commonal i t i es
wer e found (family, i ndi vi dual psychol ogy, school, peer i nfl uences, and
a mount of t i me on t he st reet ).
A Ty po l o g y o f Ad o l e s c e n t Ru n a wa y s
A. A Fami l y Dynami cs Expl anat i ons
1. " Runni ng from" f ami l i es
a. escapi ng a dest r uct i ve s i t uat i on
b. escapi ng from f ami l y conflict
c. escapi ng from f ami l y cri si s
d. l eavi ng wi t h an uns har abl e pr obl em
e. r unni ng as a cry for hel p
18 CHILD AND ADOLESCENT SOCIAL WORK
B.
C.
2. Abandoned Youth
a. abused and neglected throw-aways
b. incorrigible pushouts
Personal Types
1. Psychiatrically disabled runaways
2. Alternate value model--"fleeing to"
3. Adventurous well adjusted youth
4. Casual behavioral disordered youth
5. Negatively peer influenced
A Temporal Model of Runaways
1. Abortive runaways
2. Floaters and crisis runaways
3. Multiple runaways
4. Homeless/hard-core
Di s c u s s i o n o f t he Ty pol ogy
The major consensus finding in the literature is t hat family dynamics
are major explanatory variables of runaway behavior. A dichotomous
explanation for the cause of running away might look at whether the
adolescent is runni ng from his family or is abandoned by his parents.
The "running from" type are leaving home of their own accord. How-
ever there is a wide variety of circumstances t hat leads individuals in
this category to run. The second type of runaway is the abandoned
group which is alternatively called throw-aways (Gullotta, 1979,
1978), pushouts (Brennan, 1980), or castaways (Gullotta, 1978). The
major differences between these dichotomous types show up in the
prognosis of their returning home. A runaway who leaves home volun-
tarily suggests a circumstance where one can expect to find family dys-
function, but also there are still family ties which can be mended or
strengthened through intervention. Those in the abandoned type
might have their family ties so severely strained that they may be se-
vered. These youth may~wind up in the category of homeless (U.S. De-
part ment of Health and Human Services, 1983) simply because they
have no home to which they can return. This group which may make
up 25% of the runaway population group (Gullotta, 1979), presents the
most complex problem in regards to intervention.
S u b t y p e s U n d e r t h e " R u n n i n g Fr o m" Mo d e
1. " Es c api ng" a des t r uct i ve s i t uat i on. (Homer, 1973; English, 1977;
Brennan, 1980.) This type of runaway is "fleeing from" unresolved
LORI NG P. J ONE S 19
f ami l y probl ems. These pr obl ems ma y be root ed i n escapi ng alcoholic
par ent s, i ncest , par ent al vi ol ence, or negl ect . Dependi ng upon f ami l y
ci r cumst ances r unni ng a wa y ma y be a r at i onal deci si on for chi l dr en
becaus e of t he pot ent i al danger t hey ar e exposed t o i n t he home. The
prognosi s for r e t ur n home ma y be poor as wi t h abandoned t ype, but at
l east one can as s ume t her e ar e still some par ent - chi l d l i nks wi t hi n
t hes e f ami l i es whi ch di f f er ent i at e t hi s group from t he abandoned t ype.
2. Escaping family conflict. A maj or consensus fi ndi ng i n t he l i t era-
t ur e is t ha t r unni ng a wa y is oft en t he r es ul t of conflict bet ween par ent
and child. ( Cur r y et. al., 1980; Gul l ot t a, 1979, 1978; Br ennan, 1976,
1980; J enki ns , 1971; Munr oe, 1979; Adams & Monroe 1979; Blood &
DeAngel o, 1972; Morgan, 1982; Rei l l y, 1978.) Runni ng a wa y behavi or
oft en occurs as a conflict bet ween par ent and chi l d over such i ssues as
curfew, eat i ng di nner , l engt h of hai r, hygi ene, dat i ng habi t s, school is-
sues, chur ch at t endance, not bei ng home enough, or not havi ng i n t he
eyes of t he par ent a l egi t i mat e r eason for bei ng out of t he home. Cur r y
suggest s t ha t t he par ent s nor mal means of exer ci si ng behavi or al con-
t rol is br eaki ng down. Gul l ot t a says t he under l yi ng i ssue is t ha t com-
muni cat i on bet ween par ent and chi l d has become dysfunct i onal . The
chi l d per cei ves t he par ent as uncar i ng and not l i st eni ng. Whi l e t he
par ent s vi ew t he chi l d as di sobedi ent .
Br e nna n suggest s t ha t r unni ng occurs when t he child percei ves pa-
r ent al cont rol as excessi ve. Munr o says f emal es ar e mor e l i kel y to r un
i n t hi s cat egor y possi bl y because t hey ar e subj ect t o mor e sanct i ons
and s t r i ct er cont r ol s t ha n mal es. These yout hs l eave home as a rejec-
t i on of wha t t he y feel is an envi r onment whi ch exer ci ses t oo much con-
t rol over t hei r behavi or . Of t en t hey as s ume t hey wi l l fi nd an envi ron-
me nt wher e t hei r deci si on- maki ng wi l l be mor e aut onomous. Br ennan
says a char act er i st i c of t hi s t ype of r una wa y is t hey per cei ve t hem-
sel ves as power l ess i n i nf l uenci ng par ent al decisions. Runni ng away,
i t woul d follow, is seen by t he chi l d as one of a ver y l i mi t ed set of op-
t i ons t o cont rol t hei r envi r onment . I nt er vent i on wi t h t hese f ami l i es
shoul d be ai med at i mpr ovi ng par ent - chi l d communi cat i ons, and possi-
bl y hel pi ng t he par ent s est abl i sh new means of l i mi t set t i ng by par-
ent s. The pr ospect s for f ami l y r euni f i cat i on for t hes e chi l dren ar e good
si nce f ami l y t i es have not been compl et el y severed.
3. Running from family crisis. Chi l dr en i n t hi s cat egor y r un because
of t he st r ess br ought on by f ami l y cri si s such as divorce, separ at i on, pa-
r ent al discord, fi nanci al loss, etc. (Michaels, 1980; St eri l i n, 1973). Cri-
sis r una wa ys ma y r egar d t hei r r unni ng a wa y as t empor ar y, and t hey
20 CHILD AND ADOLESCENT SOCIAL WORK
ar e l i kel y t o r e t ur n home af t er a few days or weeks. These yout hs have
st r ong t i es to t hei r fami l i es. Whi l e out of t he home t hey ma y feel
deepl y confl i ct ed and gui l t y about t hei r act i ons because t hei r r unni ng
causes a cri si s i n t hei r fami l i es' lives. These r una wa ys ma y have l eft
home si mpl y t o escape st r ess or to pur s ue t hei r own ends i n an envi ron-
me nt free of st ress. The prognosi s is excel l ent for f ami l y r euni f i cat i on
as s umi ng t he f ami l y is nor mal l y st abl e, but t empor ar i l y dysf unct i onal ~
due to crisis. Such f ami l i es r espond wel l t o shor t t er m f ami l y t r eat -
ment .
4. Ru n n i n g as a cry f or help. Engl i sh (1980) calls t hese t ype of run-
a wa ys al t r ui st i c r unaways . Ha u p t and Offord (1972) calls t he m ges-
t ur e r unaways . Engl i sh' s r una wa ys hope to call at t ent i on t o unhappy
f ami l y si t uat i ons by r unni ng. Whi l e Ha upt and Offord' s r una wa ys
hope t o call at t ent i on to t hemsel ves. These r una wa ys r et ur n home, of-
t en vol unt ar i l y, af t er a shor t t i me. I f t hei r effort s fail t o i mpr ove t he
s i t uat i on t hey ma y r un a wa y agai n.
5. Ru n n i n g wi t h an unsharabl e probl em. Engl i sh (1980) descri bes
t hi s t ype of r una wa y who l eaves home for f ear of par ent al r eact i on to a
s i t uat i ons i n t hei r life. The most common of such pr obl ems ar e preg-
nancy, homosexual i t y, and school fai l ure. Engl i sh cl ai ms t ha t t hi s
t ype of r u n a wa y is des per at e for hel p, and is nai ve and t hus easi l y open
t o expl oi t at i on by me mbe r s of t he s t r eet cul t ure. Thi s s ubt ype wi l l of-
t e n r e t ur n home af t er onl y a br i ef t i me on t he st r eet .
T h e A b a n d o n e d Mo d e
The l abel r u n a wa y suggest s t he vol i t i on t o l eave home lies wi t h t he
child. However t her e ar e si t uat i ons wher e t he r esponsi bi l i t y for t he
chi l d bei ng out of t he home, for wha t e ve r r eason, is t he r esponsi bi l i t y
of t he par ent . I n t hi s i nst ance t he chi l d can be as s umed to be aban-
doned. The U. S. De pa r t me nt of Heal t h and Hu ma n Servi ces (1983) de-
scr i bes t wo cat egor i es of abandoned yout h. These ar e pushout s, who
ar e ur ged t o l eave by par ent s, and t hr ow- aways, who l eft home wi t h
par ent al knowl edge, but wi t hout an al t er nat i ve pl ace to st ay. Wha t
abandoned chi l dr en have i n common is an exper i ence of an excessi ve
l evel of par ent al rej ect i on, and t hey i n t ur n have ver y st r ong feel i ngs
of r ej ect i on for t hei r par ent s. (Gul l ot t a, 1979 & Br ennan, 1980.) Gul-
l ot t a s ays gi rl s out numbe r boys by appr oxi mat el y one t hi rd. Aban-
LORING P. JONES 21
doned t ypes ar e t he gr oup wi t h t he poor est prognosi s. Thei r abandon-
me nt was pr eceded by year s of fai l ures, not onl y at home, but al so i n
t he school and communi t y. They ar e emot i onal l y di sorgani zed, and t he
pr e ma t ur e di ssol vi ng of f ami l y bonds ma ke s achi evi ng t he cri t i cal
t a s ks of adol escent devel opment , or effect i ng successful i nt er vent i on
ext r emel y difficult.
Br e nna n sees t hei r onl y br i ght spot as t hei r peer si t uat i on. These
yout h have qui t e a few fri ends, and t hey have a hi gh degr ee of commi t -
me nt to t hose fri ends. However he war ns t hat t hese f r i ends ar e oft en
ext r emel y del i nquent and exer t st r ong pr es s ur e t owar d devi ant behav-
ior and at t i t udes.
The fol l owi ng r epr es ent s t he t wo s ubt ypes of t hi s group:
1. Abus e d and negl ect edpushout s. A number of r easons mi ght l ead a
pa r e nt to abandon t hei r child. These include: par ent s who i n t hei r new
f ound awar enes s fol l owi ng a divorce, deci de t hat nei t her one wi shes to
car e for t hei r offspring; or t he chi l d ma y feel scapegoat ed, and t hen os-
t r aci zed from t he home by one par ent for an i ncest uous r el at i onshi p
wi t h t he ot her par ent , or ot her f ami l y member . It ma y ar i se i n any is-
sue of f ami l y dynami cs wher e a scapegoat mi ght be needed. It mi ght
al so ar i se i n t he case of an adopt ed chi l d i n t he f ami l y of a pr evi ousl y
chi l dl ess couple, who have si nce had a chi l d of t hei r own. Fi nanci al dis-
t r es s mi ght cause par ent s to pus hout ol der chi l dren.
2. Incorri gi bl e t hrowaways. (Robin, 1982 & Gul l ot t a, 1979.) A sub-
cat egor y of t hi s gr oup ar e t hose who fail to r espond to r epeat ed at-
t empt s to st op some par ent al l y per cei ved undes i r abl e behavi or r egar d-
i ng s omet hi ng such as dr ug abus e or sexual pr omi scui t y. The "Tough
Love" model mi ght fit i n here. I nt er vent i on mi ght need to focus on pro-
vi di ng consi st ent care and nur t ur a nc e as wel l as l i mi t set t i ng i f a chi l d
is t r ul y ungover nabl e r a t he r t ha n abus ed or negl ect ed.
Personal Types
The fol l owi ng s ubt ypes ar e a l i st i ng of causes for r unni ng whi ch ma y
be i ndependent of f ami l y dynami cs:
1. Psychi at ri cal l y di sabl ed runaways. (St ei rl i n, 1973.) These di ffer
from most ot her r una wa ys i n t he fact t ha t t hei r r el at i onshi p t o t he
r u n a wa y cul t ur al is mar gi nal . They have no peer s t o r un t o when t hey
r unaway. Some psychi at r i cal l y di sabl ed r unner s act so bi zar r el y or
22 CHILD AND ADOLESCENT SOCIAL WORK
sel f - dest r uct i vl y t hey ar e soon i dent i fi ed and i nst i t ut i onal i zed. St ei r l i n
says t hei r numbe r s ar e qui t e smal l . The exi st ence of t hi s cat egor y sug-
gest s a rol e for t he ment al heal t h s ys t em as wel l as child wel f ar e and
correct i ons s ys t ems i n i nt er vent i on wi t h r unaways .
2. Alternate value model. (Homer, 1973; Adams & Monroe, 1979;
St ei rl i n, 1973.) In t hi s s ubt ype t hes e yout h r una wa y as a r eact i on to
par ent al cont rol or agai ns t ot her s who exerci se social cont rol i n order
"to fi nd t hems el ves " or t o fi nd peer s l i ke t hemsel ves. They as s ume
t he y wi l l fi nd a mor e accept i ng envi r onment . St ei r l i n sees ma ny r un-
a wa ys as r espondi ng to an "over bonded" si t uat i on wi t h t hei r par ent s,
and r unni ng a wr y becomes a means of "dei ndi vi duat i on. " Adams and
Monr oe pr edi ct t hi s group of youngs t er s wi l l r et ur n home because t hey
us ual l y fi nd pr obl ems wi t h t hei r new si t uat i on. St ei r l i n suggest s t hese
yout hs wi l l al so r e t ur n home because of t hei r basi c l oyal t y to t hei r
f ami l y. He s ugges t s i n "over bonded" si t uat i ons t hey ma y act self-de-
s t r uct i vel y to effect t hei r i mmedi at e r et r i eval or to at one for t he "hei-
nous cr i me of l eavi ng t hei r fami l i es. "
3. Advent urous well adj ust ed youth. ( Br ennan, 1980, 1976; Homer ,
1973; Tsunt s; 1966; Adams and Monroe, 1979.) Whi l e r una wa ys ar e
per cei ved as r unni ng from an undes i r abl e si t uat i on, t her e is a cl ass of
r una wa ys t ha t have been i dent i f i ed t hat is r el at i vel y free from f ami l y
dysf unct i on, i ndi vi dual pat hol ogy, or devi ant behavi or . These run-
a wa ys ar e mot i vat ed by advent ur e, fun, and pl easur e. These r una wa ys
ma y be seen as moder n day Huc k Fi nns. Adams and Monroe cl ai m t hat
t hei r da t a i ndi cat es t ha t ma ny r una wa ys do not di ffer from t hei r non-
r u n a wa y peers. The concl usi on t ha t t hi s t ype of r una wa y is not free of
pr obl ems shoul d not be dr awn. I f on t he s t r eet for any appr eci abl e
l engt h of t i me t hey wi l l be exposed to all sort s of pat hol ogy.
4. Casual behavioral disordered runaways. (St ei rl i n, 1973; Engl i sh,
1973; Br ennan, 1976; Shel l ow et. al., 1967.) Thi s group is al so r unni ng
t owar d s omet hi ng r a t he r t ha n from somet hi ng. Whi l e t her e ma y be
conflict i n t he home, mor e l i kel y t he par ent s have made onl y mar gi nal
effort s i n exer ci si ng control, and t he par ent s have not put much effort
i nt o f ost er i ng nur t ur i ng r el at i onshi ps wi t h t hei r chi l dren. As a r es ul t
of t he f ami l y s i t uat i on t her e is l i t t l e in t he wa y of par ent - chi l d rel a-
t i onshi ps t o bl ock t he move i nt o t he r una wa y cul t ur e of peers. They
fi nd home life bori ng, and life on t he s t r eet to be exci t i ng, whi ch is t he
pul l t o r un. They ar e equi pped t o sur vi ve on t he s t r eet wi t hout much
LORI NG P. J ON E S 23
per sonal t r auma. However t hei r social r el at i onshi ps ar e oft en based on
t he expl oi t at i on of ot hers. They ma y have l ear ned to sur vi ve on t he
s t r eet t he har d wa y by bei ng expl oi t ed t hemsel ves. They are in ma ny
cases del i nquent and engage i n ma ny s t r eet hus t l es such as deal i ng
i n dr ugs, pi mpi ng, pr ost i t ut i on, pet t y t hef t , and con games. In ma ny
cases t he y expl oi t t hei r younger count er par t s on t he st reet . The most
common bei ng mal e sexual expl oi t at i on of younger femal es. Engl i sh,
Br ennan, and St ei r l i n descr i be t hi s t ype as an uncont r ol l abl e hi ghl y
i ndependent del i nquent . They agr ee t hi s t ype of r una wa y is pr i mar i l y
older, wor ki ng cl ass adol escent s, and most l y mal e. Engl i sh f ur t her de-
scri bes t he m as physi cal l y aggr essi ve and possi bl y vi ol ent . St ei r l i n
i dent i f i es an anal ogous t ype of young f emal e r una wa y who he de-
scri bes under t he t i t l e of "Sweet bad girl." I mpul si vi t y, pl easur e seek-
ing, and depr essi on ar e at t r i but ed to t hi s subt ype.
5. Negatively peer influenced youth. ( Dr uckman, ].979; Br ennan,
1978, 1980; Engl i sh, 1973.) Ther e is a ver y smal l amount of r esear ch
whi ch i ndi cat es t ha t r unni ng a wa y is not al ways caused by f ami l y dy-
nami cs. I f t hi s r es ear ch is correct t hen f ami l y or i ent ed i nt er vent i on
ma y not be war r ant ed. In t hi s t ype of r una wa y t he f ami l y si t uat i on
does not appear to be di r ect l y cul pabl e. Whi l e t her e is no negl ect or
abus e or over t conflict wi t hi n t hes e f ami l i es nur t ur a nc e l evel s fal l be-
l ow t hose of nonr una wa y fami l i es. The school and peer si t uat i ons ap-
pear to be t he cause of r unni ng wi t h t hes e chi l dren. Ther e is school
f ai l ur e, and oft en t hes e chi l dr en fi nd no expect at i on of academi c
success from t hei r par ent s. Peer r el at i onshi ps t ake up most of t hese
yout hs t i me, and r unni ng is oft en an at t empt to avoi d school and maxi -
mi ze t i me spent wi t h peers. They di ffer from casual behavi or al disor-
der ed yout h i n t ha t t hey ar e not del i nquent or expl oi t at i ve wi t h ot her
r unaways . Whi l e f ami l y si t uat i ons do not i nvol ve abuse, negl ect , or
rej ect i on, t her e st i l l ma y be some di ffi cul t y i n r et ur ni ng t hes e yout h
home si nce t he t i es t hey do feel to t hei r f ami l i es ma y appear t enuous.
A Temporal Model of Runni ng Away
A Tempor al Model of Runa wa y Yout h at t empt s t o descr i be r una wa y
yout h wi t hi n t he cont ext of how much t i me is s pent out of t he home by
a r unaway. Thi s t i me di mensi on is a cri t i cal cl assi fi cat i on var i abl e be-
cause i t t el l s us t hr ee i mpor t ant t hi ngs about t he r unaway. These are:
1. t i me spent out of t he home is an i ndi cat i on of t he adol escent s i nt en-
24 CHILD AND ADOLESCENT SOCIAL WORK
tion in regards to their running. Long-term runaways are likely to be
those who are seeking solutions to severe problems while short-term
runaways may be more likely to be running from a crisis. 2. Duration
of a runaway episode indicates how strong the family ties are. 3. Fi-
nally duration reveals something about the amount of street pathology
a runaway has been exposed to while out of the home. Runaways who
have been on the streets for long periods of time may engage in delin-
quent behavior to survive, and/or engage in deviant behavior such as
substance abuse to cope with the stress of their new found situation. A
number of researchers have stressed this time element. (Shellow et.
al., 1967; Steirlin, 1973; Brennan, 1976, 1980; English, 1973; Haupt &
Offord, 1973, Report to the Children' s Commission, 1983). The follow-
ing is a description of a Temporal Model.
1. Abortive runaways. This group is made up of occasional runaways
with strong family ties. Their running is usually impulsive rather
t han part of a well thought out plan. Either they returned home within
hours, or they engineered their quick retrieval through the interven-
tion of police, neighbors, or peers. The abortiveness of these adoles-
cents runaway experience highlighted their, strong psychological ties
to parents. These may not be "real" runaways in the sense they are not
fleeing to something or from something, but the behavior is a call for
help.
2. Floaters and crisis runaways. These runaways may be more "real"
t han abortive runaways, because they are away from home for longer
periods of time. They are out of the home from anywhere from a few
days to a few weeks. During this period they have an opportunity to
test whether running away is a solution to family problems, or indeed
find out whether they can make it on the street. If children have been
on the street for any appreciable length of time they become very diffi-
cult for social agencies to deal with effectively because the runaways
have begun to develop some survival skills. Running for these children
is an attempt to avoid family tensions. However, these children remain
deeply involved with their families so they should respond to early in-
tervention. If the family situation deteriorates these youngsters may
increase the frequency and duration of runaway episodes which may
make t hem more permanent types of runaways. English (1973) says
this group may be the largest group of runaways.
3. Mul t i pl e runaways. (Olsen et. al. 1980; Shellow et. al. 1967; Eng-
lish 1973) identify a multiple runaway type, who exhibit high levels of
LORING P. JONES 25
personal and family pathology, as well as high levels of delinquent be-
havior. English calls this group splitters. This group likes the excite-
ment of the street, and has found some success in developing survival
skills in the runaway subculture. English suggests they are floaters,
who have escalated their runaway behavior because family tensions
have not abated, and the adolescent loses some tolerance for coping
with the tensions at home between running episodes. The multiple
runaway might also develop simply because the home environment
cannot cope with the excitement of the street. If there is no interven-
tion with this type of runaway then the amount of time spent in a run
is likely to increase, and the duration of an interval of time spent in
the home between runs is likely to shrink. The duration of time spent
out of the home for this group can be a couple of months. Eventually
family ties which are strained become completely severed.
4. Homel ess~hard core r unaway. The prime characteristic of this
group is t hat ties to their families have been severed. Therefore the
prognosis for a ret urn home is extremely poor. The stay on the street
for this group can be measured in months and years. In many in-
stances this is a group t hat has been abandoned by their parents. In a
minority of circumstances they may be the earlier described splitters
who have escalated.
Impl i cati ons for Interventi on
A basic premise of typology building is t hat if there are different types
of runaways then these different types probably need different types of
intervention. The "running from" types generally can ret urn home if
there is some sort of intervention to modify the parent-child relation-
ship. The abandoned types need shelter and alternative living ar-
rangements since their likelihood of returning home is small. Adven-
turous well adjusted youth may need outlets for their needs which
allow them to find excitement within socially and legally acceptable
boundaries, and where they do not place themselves in situations
where they are at risk.
Generally speaking the most common recommendation for treat-
ment of the runaway is family treatment. (Michaels, 1979; Jenkins,
1971; Gough & Grilli, 1972; Ostensin & Wickett, 1981; Beal, 1977;
Bingham, et. al., 1979; Moore, et. al., 1979; Collingwood, 1976; Beal &
Drucko, 1977; Bohnstedt, 1978; Michaels & Green 1979; Peacock,
1979; Byles, 1980; James, 1977; Gruher, 1979.) Family centered inter-
26 CHILD AND ADOLESCENT SOCIAL WORK
vent i on is suppor t ed so heavi l y i n t he l i t er at ur e because of t he bel i ef
t ha t most of t he r easons t hat chi l dr en r un a wa y can be t r aced t o f ami l y
ci r cumst ances. Gough and Gri l l i even suggest a r el abel i ng of t he prob-
l em f r om t hi nki ng of s t at us offenses as i ndi vi dual offense i nt o one t ha t
under scor es t he need for f ami l y supervi si on. Fami l y i nt er vent i on is as-
s umed t o modi f y t he home envi r onment i n such a wa y t ha t t he individ-
ual does not r epeat t hei r s t at us offense, and t hus r educes t he need for
out of home pl acement .
The r es ear ch seems t o i ndi cat e t ha t shor t - t er m f ami l y t r e a t me nt
is an effect i ve t ool i n r educi ng r epeat r u n a wa y epi sodes. Shor t - t er m
t r e a t me nt wor ks best when t he f ami l y is basi cal l y st abl e, and when
t he cause for r unni ng can be t r aced to a f ami l y crisis. Thi s t ype of
t r e a t me nt mi ght wor k best for all t he "r unni ng from" cat egor i es save
escapi ng a dest r uct i ve si t uat i on. Wher e t he f ami l y is i n cri si s i nt er-
vent i on, i t shoul d not be focused on t he child' s behavi or , but r at her on
t he i ssues t ha t cause f ami l y st ress, i.e. pover t y, divorce, separ at i on, pa-
r ent al discord, and ot her cri si s si t uat i ons. Long- t er m f ami l y i nt er ven-
t i on is cal l ed for when t he f ami l y is mor e di s t ur bed and is so di sorga-
ni zed t ha t i t won' t r espond t o shor t - t er m t r eat ment .
Not al l chi l dr en can be r et ur ned home i mmedi at el y, and i ndeed
some chi l dr en can never r e t ur n home. Some chi l dr en ma y need a pe-
ri od out of t he home wher e t hey ar e i n an accept i ng envi r onment whi l e
t he home s i t uat i on is modi fi ed or st abi l i zes. A cont i nuum of pl ace-
me nt s f r om shor t - t er m f ost er car e t o group homes for t he behavi or al l y
di sor der ed need t o be consi dered. Abus ed and negl ect ed t hr owaways
and some chi l dr en who ar e escapi ng a dest r uct i ve si t uat i on need some
t ype of al t er nat i ve pe r ma ne nt pl acement .
Ser vi ces i dent i fi ed t ha t ar e needed t o suppor t f ami l y counsel i ng/
t he r a py i ncl ude cas ewor k servi ces t ha t st r ess advocacy and t he br oker
role. I n t he br oker rol e t he wor ker l i nks t he f ami l y to a wi de r ange of
communi t y resources. The specific servi ces t ha t ar e needed i ncl ude ed-
ucat i onal ser vi ces such as t ut or i ng and assessment , medi cal servi ces,
i ndi vi dual counsel i ng, f ami l y educat i on, group wor k servi ces, and psy-
chol ogi cal eval uat i on. Ser vi ces woul d need an out r each component be-
caus e one cannot as s ume t hes e chi l dr en wi l l come vol unt ar i l y for help.
A numbe r of st udi es have ur ged t ha t i nt er vent i on wi t h f i r st t i me
r una wa ys be l i mi t ed. Col l i ngwood, et. al., 1976 suggest a l ect ur e/
awar enes s pr ogr am wi t h f i r st t i me r una wa ys and t hey cl ai m signifi-
cant success i n r educi ng reci di vi sm. The mor e ext ensi ve servi ces ar e
s aved for r epeat offenders. Suppor t for t hi s vi ew can be f ound i n
Pa l me r (1979) and Smi t h (1979). Smi t h s ugges t s focusi ng on hi gh r i sk
LORI NGP. JONES 27
youth who are defined as likely to penetrate the juvenile justice system
further. These youths are the multiple runaways, homeless/hardcore,
casual behaviorally disordered youth, and negatively peer influenced
youths.
Conc l us i on
The severity of the problem cannot be ignored. These youth come from
families with a variety of problems, and some of these families are
highly dysfunctional. Many of these youth leave home because of
abuse, or because they have been pushed out or asked to leave by par-
ents. Once on the street these children are subject to exploitation and
pathology inducing experiences. Their psychosocial problems are se-
vere. These youth need an improved response to their need. Interven-
tion, as this paper demonstrates, should be based on the specific need
of these youth.
Re f e r e nc e s
Adams, G.R. & Monroe, G. (1979). Portrait of the North American runaway--A critical
review. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 8, 359-373.
Beal, D. & Druckro P. (1977). Family counseling as an alternative to legal action for the
juvenile status offender. Journal of Marriage and Fami l y Counseling. 3, 77-81.
Bingham, R.L., Merritt, S.R., Grant, L.J. Greard, A.J. (1979). Adolescent services plans
to incorporate social workers into the child welfare system. Child Welfare. 58, 531-
539.
Blood L. & D'Angelo R. (1974). A progress research report on value issues in conflict be-
tween runaways and their parents. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 36, 486-
491.
Bohnstedt, M. (1978). Answers to three questions about juvenile diversion. Journal on
Research on Crime and Delinquency, 15, 109-123.
Brennan, T. (1980). Mapping the diversity among runaways: A descriptive multivariate
analysis of selected social'psychological background conditions. Journal of Family
Issues. 1,189-209.
Byles, J.A. (1980). Adolescent girls in need of protection. Ameri can Journal of Orthopsy-
chiatry, 50, 264-278.
Collingwood, T.R., Williams, H., & Douds, A. (1976). A HRD (human resources develop-
ment) approach to police diversion for juvenile offenders. Personnel and Guidance
Journal. 54, 435-438.
Curry, J.F., Autry, B., & Harris (1980). Structural family assessment with status offend-
ers. Psychiatry and Journal of Behavioral Therapy. 26, 39-44.
Datesman, S.K., Scarpetti, F.B. (1975). Female delinquency and broken homes--A reas-
sessment with status offenders. Criminology. 13~, 33-45.
DeAngelo, R. (1972). Families of sand: A report concerning the flight of children from
their families. National directory of runaway centers: A national youth alternative.
28 CHILD AND ADOLESCENT SOCIAL WORK
Druckman, J.M. (1979). A family-oriented policy and treatment program for juvenile
status offenders. Journal of Marriage & the Family, 41,627-636.
Dunford, F.W. & Brennan T. (1976). Taxonomy of runaway youth. Social Service Review.
50, 457-470.
Englander, S.W. (1984). Some self-reported correlates of runaway behavior in adolescent
females. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 52, 484-485.
English, C.J. (1973). Leaving home: A typology of runaways. Trans-Action. 10, 22-24.
Gough, A.R. & Grilli (1972). The unruly child. Juvenile Justice. 23(3), 9-12.
Gottleib, D. & Chafetz, J.S. Dynamics of familial generational conflict and reconcilia-
tion: A research note. Youth and Society. 9, 283-324.
Goldmeir, J. & Dean R. (1973). The runaway: Person, problem, or situation. Crime and
Delinquency. 19, 539-544.
Gruher, M. (1979). Family counseling and the status offender. Juvenile and Fami l y
Court Journal. 30, 23-27.
Gullotta, T.P. (1978). Runaway reality or myth. Adolescence. 13, 543-549.
Haupt, D.N. & Offord, D.R. Runaways from a residential treatment center: A prelimi-
nary report. Journal of Social Therapy. I8(3), 14-21.
Hildebrand, S. (1968). Why runaways leave home. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminol-
ogy, and Police Science. 54, 211-216.
Homer, L.E. (1973). Community-based resource for runaway girls. Journal of Social
Casework. 54,473-479.
James, K.L. ((977). Incest-the teenagers. Psychotherapy Theory and Research and Prac-
tice. 14, 146-155.
Jenkins, R.L. (1971). The runaway reaction. American Journal of Psychiatry. 128, 168-
173.
Johnson, N.S. & Peck, R. (1978). Sibship composition and the adolescent runaway phe-
nomena. Journal of Yout h and Adolescence. 7, 301-305.
Justice, B. & Duncan, D.F. (1976). Running away: An epidemic problem of adolescence.
Adolescence. 11,365-372.
Kahn, K.L. The runaway from residential treatment: A synthesis of relevant data.
Smi t h College Studies in Social Work. 44, 21-22.
Kratcoski, P.C. (1974). Differential treatment of delinquency in boys and girls in juve-
nile court. Child Welfare. 53, 16-22.
Levanthal, T. (1963). Control problems in runaway children. Archives of General Psychi-
atry. 10, 122-128.
Levanthal, T. (1964). Inner control differences in runaways. Archives of General Psychi-
atry. 11(2), pp. 160-176.
Michaels, K.W. & Green, R.H. (1979). A child welfare agency project: Therapy for fami-
lies of status offenders. Child Welfare. 58, 216-220.
Olsen, L., Liebow, E., Mannino, F., Shore, M. (1980). Runaway children twelve years
later: A follow-up study. Journal of Fami l y Issues, 1,165-188.
Ostensin, K.W. (1981). The runaway crisis: Is family therapy the answer? American
Journal of Fami l y Therapy. 9(3), 3-12.
Palmer, T. (1979). Juvenile diversion when and for whom. California Youth Authority
Quarterly. 32(3) 14-20.
Peacock, C. (1979). Toward equal services for girls: The Massachusetts experiment. In-
ternational Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology. 23, 227-234.
Post, C.H. (1981). The link between learning disabilities and juvenile delinquency cause,
effect, and present solutions. Juvenile and Fami l y Court Journal. 32, 58-68.
Reilly, P.O. (1978). What makes adolescent girls flee their homes. Clinical Pediatrics. 17,
886-893.
Robin, M. (1982). The abuse of status offenders in private hospitals. Child and Youth
Services. 4, 79-87.
LORING P. JONES 29
Rothman, J. (1980). Social R & D: Research and development in the human services.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Rothman, J. & David, T. (1984). Status offenders in L.A. county focus on runaway and
homeless youth: A study and policy recommendations. UCLA Bush Program & De-
partment of Children's Services of Los Angeles County.
Rothman, J. (1974). Planning and organizing for social change. New York: Wiley.
Smith, C. (1983). Sanction and deviant outcomes: The social bond as qualifyer effects of
labeling and deterrence effects. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of
Washington.
Smith, C. Hohnstedt, M. & Tompkin, T. (1979). Juvenile diversion evaluation--report of
an experimental study. Pre-trial Services Annual Journal. 118-140.
Shellow, R. Schamp, J. Leibow, E. & Unger, E. (1960). Suburban runaways. Monograph,
Society Resources in Child Development. 32(11), 1-51.
Steirlin, H. (1973). Family perspective on adolescent runaways. Mental Health Digest.
5(10), 1-4.
Tsunts, M. (1966). Dropouts on the run. Atlas.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Region X Office of the Inspector Gen-
eral (1973). Runaway and homeless youth: National program inspection. Washing-
ton, D.C.
Williams, K.L. (1982). Attitudes toward violations and violative conduct among adoles-
cents. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, SUNY at Stoney Brook.
Zabczynska, E.A. (1977). A longitudinal study of the development of juvenile delin-
quency. Polish Psychological Bulletin. 8, 239-245.