Understanding Runaway Behaviour in Group Homes: What Are Runaways Trying to Tell Us?

Abstract

Abstract. This paper explores runaway behaviour in foster care through the lens of Lazarus and Folkman's (1984) transactional model of stress and coping. To better understand the context and meaning of this behaviour in these troubled youth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 10 runaway adolescents in foster can. Thematic and conceptual analyses were used. The foster can system's response to runaway behaviour was also examined by constructing foster trajectories for evey youth in the study. The results show that running away can be understood as a coping mechanism that displays adolescents'1 need for connection, enpowerment, and emotion regulation, factors not addressed in foster placement. The trajectories suggest that foster can system intervention plays a role in placement disruption and runaway behaviour. In light of these findings, changes in foster care structure and polities seem essential in order to provide stability and continuity of care, as well as an environment where connections, enpowerment, and emotion expression and regulation are possible to achieve.Keywords: Rjinaway Behaviour, Coping Conduct Disorder, Child Protection Services, Youth Intervention, Qualitative ResearchIntroductionA large number of studies have shown the many risks associated with runaway behaviour in adolescents, such as the development of mental health problems and the risk of exploitation, abuse, prostitution, and gang affiliation (c.f. Hoyt, Ryan, & Cauce, 1999; Kaufman & Widom, 1999; Molnar, Shade, Krai, Booth, & Watters, 1998; Whitbeck, Hoyt, & Bao, 2000). Over the long run, running away seems to be one of the main risk factors for homelessness as an adult (Biehal & Wade, 1999; Poirier, 2006; Simons & Whitbeck, 1991). While researchers across the board agree on the negative effects, few studies have examined this risky behaviour in adolescents placed in an alternative living situation (e.g. foster care residential units or group homesj. An estimated 24% to 42% of these adolescents run away at one time or another during their stay (Biehal & Wade, 2000; Fasulo, Cross, Mosley & Leavy, 2002; Robert, Therien & Jette, 2009). Runaway behaviour is not new; it is acknowledged by specialized institutions working with troubled youth (in the U.S., Canada, England, etc.) and by researchers working on the problems affecting these adolescents. From a scientific point of view, runaway behaviour is part of a large spectrum of behavioural problems that manifest in these adolescents (other problems include substance use, impulsive or aggressive behaviour, delinquency, etc.) and that generally lead to diagnosis of a conduct disorder (CD). Based on this perspective, runaway behaviour can be a symptom or indicator of a more complex psychological problem. Researchers and clinicians are therefore more interested in the nosological category that this behaviour is associated with (i.e. CD) than they are in the behaviour itself. Because runaway behaviour is a recurring and lasting behaviour in residential units for teens in every state and country, institution staff have become accustomed to dealing with this type of behavioural problem. Researchers and intervention centres alike tend to associate running away with the other characteristics of the client (relationship problems, authority defiance, substance abuse, etc.) and this association is how they explain runaway behaviour.We consulted a modest number of studies that have, over the past two decades, focus sed on runaway behaviour in adolescents housed by Child Protection Services (CPS). Given the long- and short-term harmful consequences of running away, these studies have attempted to shed light on the explanations for these behaviours. There are two predominant types of explanations presented by the researchers: the first focuses on the structural characteristics of the institutional living situations, whereas the second focuses on the unique clinical challenges involved in working with these youth. …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 15 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.