Results

The number of U.S. youth estimated to have had a runaway/thrownaway episode in 1999 is 1,682,900 (see table 1). Of these, an estimated 628,900, or 37 percent, were “caretaker missing” youth. Only an estimated 357,600 youth, or 21 percent of all runaways/ thrownaways, were reported missing to police or to a missing children’s agency for purposes of locating them. (See Runaway/Thrownaway Children.) Based on 17 indicators of harm or potential risk, 1,190,900 of the runaway/thrownaway youth (71 percent) were estimated to be endangered.

Table 1: Estimates of Runaway/Thrownaway Children

The NIS–3 data were used to get a sense of the number of permanently abandoned children, who probably were not well counted in the NISMART–2 surveys. An estimated 56,900 children were permanently abandoned in 1993, the last year that the NIS was conducted. These children are not included in subsequent tables and discussions in this Bulletin. Had the analyses included these children, the study findings would not have been substantively altered, since abandoned children would have comprised an extremely small portion (3 percent) of all runaways/thrownaways.⁶

Most runaway/thrownaway youth (68 percent) were older teens, ages 15–17 (table 2). At these ages, youth are often more independent, tend to resist parental authority, are more likely to become involved in activities that bring them into conflict with their caretakers, and are often viewed by their caretakers as being capable of living on their own. All these things may increase the likelihood of runaway/thrownaway episodes. Nonetheless, a small group of children younger than age 12 did experience such episodes. Runaway/thrownaway youth were equally divided between boys and girls and did not come disproportionately from any of the major racial and ethnic groups.

Table 2: Characteristics of Runaways/Thrownaways

A somewhat larger number of runaway/thrownaway episodes occurred during summer, a time when young people are more mobile and less constrained by weather and school activities (table 3). Approximately 23 percent of runaways/thrownaways traveled a distance of 50 miles or more from home, and 9 percent left the State in the course of an episode. Most runaway/ thrownaway youth were gone less than 1 week (77 percent), and only 7 percent were away more than 1 month.

Table 3: Characteristics of Runaway/Thrownaway Episodes

Nearly all of the runaway/thrownaway children (1,676,200 or 99.6 percent) had returned home by the time the study data were collected. Only a fraction of a percent (6,300, or less than 0.4 percent) had not returned home.⁷

Table 4 lists the 17 features of runaway/ thrownaway episodes deemed to be indicators of endangerment. Any youth who qualified under any one of these conditions was classified as an endangered runaway/thrownaway. The most common endangerment component was physical or sexual abuse at home or fear of abuse upon return. The second most common endangerment component was substance dependency. Substantial numbers of children were also endangered by virtue of their young age (13 years old or younger), being in the company of someone known to be abusing drugs, or use of hard drugs by the children themselves. An estimated 38,600 runaways/ thrownaways⁸ were at risk of sexual endangerment or exploitation by one or more of the following characteristics or behaviors during the episode: the youth was sexually assaulted, there was an attempted sexual assault of the youth, the youth was in the company of someone known to be sexually abusive, or the youth engaged in sexual activity in exchange for money, drugs, food, or shelter during the episode.

Table 4: Estimates of Potentially Endangered Runaways/Thrownaways

Police were contacted in regard to a little less than one-third of the runaway/thrownaway youth (table 5). The most common reason for police contact was to help locate missing youth. However, police were also involved for other reasons, such as the youth being picked up for suspicious or criminal activity.⁹ When police were not contacted, two prominent reasons given were that the caretakers knew the child’s location or simply did not think the police were needed.

Table 5: Police Contact for Runaways/Thrownaways

To look for historical trends, a special analysis of NISMART–2 data was conducted using the closest possible approximation of NISMART–1 definitions and methodology.¹⁰ The estimates for the more serious category of runaways ( runaways, not thrownaways, who lacked a secure and familiar place to stay) were lower in 1999 than in 1988. The difference approached significance at p = .06 (two-tailed test), which is probably, but not conclusively, a large enough margin of error to believe that an actual decline had occurred.