25/06/2013
Professor Carol Hayden
Risk and missing children Analysis of the scale of children going missing in one police force in England
Conceptions of ‘risk’ (home and care)
What are some of the key problems?
What are some of the key solutions? • Based on forthcoming publication (same title): Hayden and Goodship in the British Journal of Social Work
“ We are the blue light social services in the fact that we’re 24/7 and we are used heavily for that” [police officer in the study] About 14% of police time is said to be spent on missing persons
1. Missing or ‘absent’ during the day but not overnight, including reported missing from school 2. ‘Absent’ from care overnight - care staff know/believe they know where the young person is or ‘Staying Out’ without parents’ permission – parents know/believe they know where the young person is
In April 2009 a national performance indicator NI71 was introduced: to drive better information and recording between services, especially Social Care and the Police. This was the backdrop to the research in this presentation. This national indicator was abolished by the incoming Coalition government in May 2010
3 . Missing from home/care overnight, whereabouts unknown by parents/carers
Key research questions:
- Establish the pattern of children reported missing from home and care - Investigate the issues present in high risk cases
4. Thrown out or forced to leave home 5. ‘Young runaway’ implies longer periods away and running from something
AND SINCE THE RESEARCH WAS COMPLETED ………………..
6. Repeated running away, becoming a ‘detached young runaway’
How possible is it to ‘manage’ risk when children are reported absent or missing?
The Children’s Society (TCS, 2012) assessment of the state of play since the abolition of NI71 is as follows: ‘Since the national assessment which measured local areas’ performance in relation to runaway children was abolished, the responses to runaway and missing children and young people have been significantly downgraded’ (p.3)
The Munro (2011) Review highlights the inherent uncertainty in the assessment of risk in child protection work and the tendency to see poor ‘risk management’ as the reason why a fatality is not prevented, encouraging unrealistic expectations about safety and a blame culture (pp.1135-37).
Ofsted (2013) inspections of 10 local authorities concluded that: ‘There is little or no reliable data on missing children……….Most authorities were unable to evidence the impact of different interventions’ (p.5-6).
On the other hand:
Tarling and Burrows (2004) reach a similar conclusion in saying that individual and rare events (such as fatalities and disappearances) are notoriously difficult to predict and so police need to exercise a great deal of professional judgement in missing persons cases.
‘Inspectors saw evidence of some imaginative preventative work, mainly in schools, but the degree of attention paid to preven tion was variable’ (p.6).
ACPO/CoP (2013) Interim Guidance: New ACPO definition of a Missing person, Absent category (re)instated and redefined as: ‘A person not at a place where they are expected to be ’ (p.5) ‘Out of character behaviour is a strong indicator of risk…’ (p.6)
Kemshall (2010) argues that ‘risk assessments’ are not necessarily rational and may be ‘ framed by values and subjective perceptions ’ (p.1254); with extreme events leading either to an overestimate of risk because of anxiety, or an underestimation of the risks that are frequent. Tucker ‘ The length of time a child goes missing is irrelevant because they can fall into the hands of abusers very quickly ‘ Head of Policy, NSPCC, BBC News,March 20th 2013
Figure 1: All missing people reports (2010)
1200
-Nearly 10,000 reports a year (population of about 2 million) -Range in number of reports: 532 (December), 1,028 (July) -Range in % of reports that relate to children: 62% (August), 78% (October) - 93% of missing children were found in a day or less
1000 800 600
80%
71.30%
70% 60% 50%
55.10% 44.90%
Missing from CARE
40% 28.70%
30%
Children All mispers
200
10% 0%
160
Oct
Dec
Nov
July
Aug
Sept
May
June
April
Jan
Feb
March
Figure 2: All ‘high risk’ reports (2010)
-Total number of ‘high risk reports: 1,213 - Range in number of reports per month: 56 (December), 150 (July)
120
119
100 80 60 40
Incidents
150
140
0
Missing from HOME
20%
400
- Children missing from care, especially residential care, account for a large proportion of multiple records - Children missing from home account for the majority of individual children
97 79
72
Individuals
113
90% 78.00%
80%
130
70%
105 104 109
79 56
60.50%
60%
-Different pattern of risk assessment across home and care - Partly explained by young age of some children missing from home
50%
Missing from CARE
40% 30% 20%
20
10%
0
0%
Missing from HOME
26.00% 15.80%
13.50% 6.20%
Low
Medium
High
1
25/06/2013
Whether in care or Key aspects of circumstances at home Children missing from care (N=34)
-
Nearly all were teenagers Usually going to see friends or family 5 girls some evidence of ‘unsuitable males’ Some children went missing together
Children missing from home (N=48)
- On average younger, half were under 10, so automatically classed as ‘high risk’ - Half had evidence that a CAF had been completed; a third had an allocated social worker
Differences in police and social work assessments on children missing from home:
-Younger children missing from home – automatically high risk for the police; often not high risk in terms of social work assessments (ie difference between the event and the overall family circumstances) -Some teenagers missing from home assessed as ‘medium’ risk by police, later assessed by social services as ‘high risk’ (ie difference between what was known about the event and what became apparent about the yps behaviour after assessment by social services)
High volume of reports – potential for something to be missed Timing – many reports were later in the day or at night – fewer staff available, practical problems eg transport (especially in the areas outside cities, where many of the children’s homes were located) Understanding of issues involved in going missing by responding police officers very variable Availability of additional information to the police (especially out of hours) Very different situations: family home, foster care, residential care (as well as schools etc) -Children missing from care (particularly residential care) account for a lot of the volume repeat reports to the police [ some of this relates to issues built into the situation in
residential care, location of placements, lack of choice of placements, desire to be with family and friends, role and training of care staff ]
-Children missing from foster care were not monitored at local authority level at the time of the research, this was managed at case level [ issues here also related to lack of
choice and location of placements in relation to family and friends and foster carer role ] - Even less was known about children missing from home, although many of the high risk cases were known to social care
Police
“Most shifts can run with less than five officers and if they’ve got two ‘mispers’, that’s two of those officers down, ………..……they’re just wiping out shifts by doing this and it’s not helping, it’s not helping the children and it’s not helping us and it’s not helping them, so it is a self defeating view that they’ve [social care staff] got.” Residential Care Staff
“So it’s very, very tricky and once we get past ten thirty, we’ve only got two staff sleeping in here, so we haven’t got the capacity [to go and pick them up].” Foster Carers
“Police deal with foster carers differently [from birth parents] because we don’t have parental responsibility.” “If I go and look she’ll say ‘I’m not getting into the car’. I have no power to get her into the car.”
Different emphasis– types of care and children living with parents
Relationships and trust: professionals and children, between professionals, especially relevant to the care system, but also in relation to school staff Avoidance of blame shifting between professionals: problem solving approach where individual care homes (or special schools) have high rates of children going missing Pragmatic support and responses (where appropriate): eg ensuring young people in care have phone credit; use of a trusted and carefully vetted taxi service to reduce transport pressures
Better use of existing data: on repeat missing cases and absences - so better able to assess risk; and understand local patterns
Re(use) of absence with care homes should help foster the information exchange and problem solving approach needed
Better placement strategies for children in care (massive issue because of mixed economy of care and lack of foster placements in much of the country)
Primary prevention and the wider population
2
