This article was downloaded by: [University of Central Florida]On: 23 September 2013, At: 09:50Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Smith College Studies in Social WorkPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wscs20

Running Away: A Rite of Passage?Young Joon Hong a & George Jacinto ba Arkansas State University, State University, Arkansas, USAb Saint Leo University, Saint Leo, Florida, USAPublished online: 24 Oct 2011.

To cite this article: Young Joon Hong & George Jacinto (2011) Running Away: A Rite of Passage?,Smith College Studies in Social Work, 81:4, 297-313, DOI: 10.1080/00377317.2011.615640

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00377317.2011.615640

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Smith College Studies in Social Work, 81:297–313, 2011Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0037-7317 print/1553-0426 onlineDOI: 10.1080/00377317.2011.615640

Running Away: A Rite of Passage?

YOUNG JOON HONGArkansas State University, State University, Arkansas, USA

GEORGE JACINTOSaint Leo University, Saint Leo, Florida, USA

While on the street, youth encounter many circumstances thathave the potential to bring physical, psychological, and spiritualharm to them. Homelessness for youths seems to occur as a processor journey that appears to parallel a Rite of Passage Framework.This article develops a conceptual model called the Runaway Riteof Passage Framework, which may provide service providers witha way to categorize the stages through which homeless youth tran-sition. Also, this article explores the typologies of homeless youth.Assessment strategies at the different stages in the runaway rite ofpassage are discussed to assist in identifying possible interventionbuffers that may help the youth. The focus of this theoretical reflec-tion addresses how to reverse the transition toward homelessnesswith strategies that will lead to stable living situations for streetyouth.

KEYWORDS rites of passage, homeless, runaway youth, homelessyouth

Homeless runaway youth (HRY) have been at significant risk for harm sincethe founding of the United States. The National Survey on Drug Use reported1.6 million youth ranging from 12 to 17 years of age ran away from homethe previous year (as cited in National Runaway Switchboard, 2010). TheNational Runaway Switchboard (2010) defines a runaway episode as (1) anincident where a child leaves home without permission of a guardian andstays away overnight, (2) a child who is 14 or younger who stays awayfrom home overnight, or (3) a child who is 15 years or older chooses not

Received 14 April 2011; accepted 28 July 2011.Address correspondence to Young Joon Hong, PhD, Department of Social Work,

Arkansas State University, P. O. Box 2460, State University, AR 72467, USA. E-mail:yhong@astate.edu

297

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

entr

al F

lori

da]

at 0

9:50

23

Sept

embe

r 20

13

298 Y. J. Hong and G. Jacinto

to return home and stays away two nights. The OJJDP (2010) offered atwo-part definition of a throwaway episode that is defined as a child who is(1) asked to leave home or (2) barred from returning home by a parent orguardian with no provision for the child’s care and the child is away fromhome overnight.

Regarding HRYs, many efforts have been made to prevent and intervenewith this high-risk population at the federal government level. For example,the government has provided federal funding of the Basic Center Programs(BCP), Street Outreach Programs (SOP), and Transitional Living Programs(TLP) for runaway and homeless youth programs since 1974. The BCPs cre-ated by the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act of 1974 was reauthorizedin 2008 as the Runaway and Homeless Youth: Reauthorization Legislation.It provides assistance to “establish or strengthen community-based programsthat address the immediate needs of runaway and homeless youths andtheir families” (Family and Youth Services Bureau, 2003, p. 6). There were362 BCP grantees in fiscal year 2010 (Family and Youth Services Bureau,2010) and the SOPs were created by the Reconnecting Homeless Youth Actof 2008 (P. L. 110-378). In fiscal year 2010, there were 157 SOP street out-reach program grantees (Family and Youth Services Bureau, 2010) designedto prevent the sexual abuse and exploitation of young people who are sur-viving on the streets, and to provide stable housing that enables them tolive independently. The TLPs were created by the Runaway and HomelessYouth Act of 1974 and provide selective services for youth age 16 to 22,and support for up to 18 months (Family and Youth Services Bureau, 2010).The purpose of the program is to assist older homeless youth to becomeself-sufficient and prevent long-term dependency on social services (pleasesee Table 1).

In spite of the governmental effort, it appears that homeless youth arestill at high risk for involvement in dangerous and delinquent behaviors.For example, according to Federal Register (1999), one fourth of the youthserved by various programs cannot return home or live with a relative.More than two thirds of youth served by programs report drug and alcoholuse/abuse; and many are involved in survival sex and prostitution to meettheir basic survival needs. This article starts with one assumption that, inspite of many programs, the current approach to HRY still lacks the bigpicture of HRY. Therefore, development of a conceptual framework thatoffers a continuum of services is necessary to provide beneficial servicesto HRY.

Based on this assumption, this article (1) provides an overview oftypologies of HRY, (2) explains the Rites of Passage Framework developedby Van Gennep (1909/1960), (3) discusses a Rite of Passage Frameworkrelated to HRY, (4) describes assessment strategies of HRY, (5) exam-ines prevention buffers to homelessness, and (f) suggests implications forpractice.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

entr

al F

lori

da]

at 0

9:50

23

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Running Away: A Rite of Passage? 299

TABLE 1 Federal Homeless Runaway Youth Programs

Program Basic Center Program

Transitional LivingProgram 16- to

18-year-olds up to18 months

Street OutreachProgram

Act The Runaway andHomeless Youth:ReauthorizationLegislation (2008)

The Runaway andHomeless YouthAct (1974)

The Violent CrimeControl and LawEnforcement Act(1994)

Safe LivingSituation

• Housing:emergency shelter

• Social services• Food, clothing

• Safe and stablehousing

• Crisis intervention• Local emergency

shelter• Survival assistance

Medical &PsychiatricTreatment

• Medical treatment• Provides individual,

group, and familycounseling

• Medical treatment• Mental health

interventions• Substance abuse

education,information, andcounseling

• Interpersonal skillbuilding

• Individualassessment

• Medical treatment• Provides

individual andgroup therapy

Educational,Vocational, &EmploymentServices

• Assisting youth inmaking good lifedecisions

• Basic life-skilleducation

• Assistance in jobpreparation andplacement

• Educationaltraining, includingvocational training

• Street-basededucation andoutreach

Others • Referral services• Recreation

programs• Outreach to youth

in need of services,and serviceproviders that assisthomeless youth

• Referral services• Outreach to youth

in need of services,and serviceproviders that assisthomeless youth

• Preventionservices

• Referral services• Follow-up services

OVERVIEW OF TYPOLOGIES

Typologies represent a classification system designed to identify hypotheses,concepts, and constructs, which attempt to explain a phenomenon by group-ing similar characteristics that form discrete categories (Barker, 1999). Thetheoretical base used to describe HRY consists primarily of typologies ofstreet youth. A literature review of HRY reveals 19 typologies dating back tothe year 1939. Of the 19 typologies, 14 were empirically validated. In addi-tion to the 19 typologies, Coward-Bucher (2008) developed a needs-basedtypology that focused on selection of appropriate community interven-tion services to address the youths’ situations. Although typologies may

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

entr

al F

lori

da]

at 0

9:50

23

Sept

embe

r 20

13

300 Y. J. Hong and G. Jacinto

be organized on many dimensions, they should be unidimensional withcategories as mutually exclusive and exhaustive as possible. For the mostpart, in the area of HRY, the criterion related to mutual exclusivity of cat-egories is not sufficiently concrete and causes confusion in the assignmentof some individuals to one type instead of another type. Typologies of HRYhave been developed by a number of researchers. The diverse demograph-ics of youth in the studies on which typologies have been based includemales and females, sexual minority youth, youth from various racial andethnic backgrounds, youth from different socioeconomic backgrounds, andyouth timing out of foster care. Scholars who developed typologies in thisarea have found many shared characteristics. In the development of thetypologies over time several methods of research including qualitative andquantitative methods have been used in the development of the typologies.All typologies are consistent in identifying a set of precipitants that promptyouth to run away from home.

The runaway behavior, as described in the typologies and other liter-ature about HRY, appears to follow a predictable pattern for many youth(English, 1973; Lowrey, 1941; Miller, Miller, Hoffman, & Duggan, 1980;Shellow, Schamp, Liebow, & Unger, 1967). Although there were a number oftypologies developed during the 20th century, it appears that many typolo-gies have categories that can be grouped into five general types. For thepurpose of discussion the following categories in the literature from 1930 tothe present were chosen: running from; running to; disabled; throwaway,abandoned, and evicted; and hardcore. The first two categories, runningfrom and running to, were selected because they were the most commonthemes discussed in the typologies over time. Thirteen of the empiricallybased studies described types that fit within these categories (see Table 2).The third category, disabled youth, was first discussed by Balser (1939) inwhat he called physical and mental illness. Seven of the empirically basedtypologies support the category of disabled youth (see Table 2). The fourthcategory, throwaway, abandoned, and evicted youth, describes the waysyouth are ejected from their families of origin. Five of the empirically basedtypologies support this combination of this type (see Table 2). Finally, thecategory of hardcore youth was selected to include youth who were chron-ically homeless and permanently living on the street (see Table 2). Five ofthe empirically based typologies support this category. These five types werechosen to represent the framework in which the categories of youth are dis-cussed because they are broad enough to include the range of possiblereasons why youth run away.

Running From

Youth in this category want to escape from family pressures or conflict(Brennan, 1980; Homer, 1973; Jones, 1988; Zide & Cherry, 1992). Reasons

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

entr

al F

lori

da]

at 0

9:50

23

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Running Away: A Rite of Passage? 301

TABLE 2 Synthesis of Typologies of Homeless Youth

Running From Running To Disabled

Throwaway,Abandoned, &

Evicted Hardcore

• Balser, 1939• Brennan, 1980• Cherry, 1993• Dunford &

Brennan, 1976• English, 1973• Homer, 1973• Lowrey, 1941• Miller, Miller,

Hoffman, &Unger, 1980

• Roberts, 1982• Shellow,

Schamp,Liebow, &Unger, 1967

• Stierlin, 1973• Zide & Cherry,

1992

• Adlaf &Zdanowicz,1999

• Balser, 1939• Dunford &

Brennan, 1976• English, 1973• Homer, 1973• Lowrey, 1941• Roberts, 1982

• Balser, 1939• Brennan, 1980• Dunford &

Brennan, 1976• Lowrey, 1941• Roberts, 1982• Rosenwald &

Mayer, 1967• Stierlin, 1973

• Brennan, 1980• Farrow,

Deisher,Brown, Kulig,& Kipke, 1992

• Miller, Miller,Hoffman, &Duggan, 1980

• Roberts, 1982• Zide & Cherry,

1992

• Adlaf &Zdanowicz,1999

• Dunford &Brennan, 1976

• English, 1973• Miller, Miller,

Hoffman, &Unger, 1980

• Stierlin, 1973

this group of youth ran away include (1) dissatisfaction with family whenthey anticipated trouble at home (Brennan, 1980; Homer, 1973; Nye, 1980;Orten & Soll, 1980); (2) avoidance of tensions from an argument, familydysfunction, parental separation, divorce, or financial crisis (Balser, 1939;Cherry, 1993; Dunford & Brennan, 1976; Farrow, Deisher, Brown, Kulig,& Kipke, 1992; Jones, 1988; Miller et al., 1980; Nye, 1980; Roberts, 1982;Stierlin, 1973); (3) desire to live at home by their own rules (Jones, 1988;Miller et al., 1980); (4) stress related to parental addiction and unpredictableviolent behavior when the parent was under the influence of mind-alteringsubstances (Jones, 1988); (5) refrainment from performing unpleasant tasks(e.g., dirty, boring, or exhausting work) (Greene & Esselstyn, 1972; Nye,1980); and (6) searching for a temporary place to live until a stressful situa-tion passed and they could return home (Stierlin, 1973). A number of youthare running from institutional placements including foster homes and hos-pitals, group homes, and correctional settings. For many youth, institutionalsettings are places where youth do not feel safe, or where they do not wantlive within the structure provided for them.

Another group in the running from category are those who runfrom school problems including academic difficulty and/or peer problems(Brennan, 1980; Dunford & Brennan, 1976; Jones, 1988; Lowrey, 1941;Roberts, 1982; Shellow et al., 1967; Zide & Cherry, 1992). The primaryreasons cited by these youth included poor grades, ridicule by peers and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

entr

al F

lori

da]

at 0

9:50

23

Sept

embe

r 20

13

302 Y. J. Hong and G. Jacinto

teachers, and school demands and responsibilities (Brennan, 1980; Dunford& Brennan, 1976; Lowrey, 1941; Roberts, 1982; Shellow et al., 1967).

A number of youth were running from punishment for wrongdoing,embarrassment about their behaviors, and other consequences for theirbehaviors (Brennan, 1980; English, 1973; Jones, 1988; Lowrey, 1941; Milleret al., 1980). Some youth ran because of fear of parents’ reaction to aproblem such as pregnancy, homosexuality, or school failure (Balser, 1939;English, 1973; Homer, 1973; Jones 1998; Lowrey, 1941; Stierlin, 1973). Thenext major category is running to with which many characteristics of therunning from category are closely associated.

Running To

The scholarship that described the running to category identified three broadtypes of youth: (1) those who were seeking pleasure, freedom, or who ranfor the sake of adventure; (2) those who were seeking to perform forbiddenbehaviors; and (3) those that were influenced by peers or gangs. The runningto pleasure, freedom, and adventure subcategory included those youth whoran from home but did not report a history of delinquent behavior (Adlaf& Zdanowicz, 1999; Balser, 1939; English, 1973; Greene & Esselstyn, 1972;Homer, 1973; Jones, 1988; Lowrey, 1941; Roberts, 1982). This group wasmore psychologically stable; ran to increase personal rewards; valued inde-pendence; viewed peer relationships, school, and home life positively; andheld an idealized view of the world away from home (Adlaf & Zdanowicz,1999; Dunford & Brennan, 1976; Jones, 1988; Nye, 1980; Orten & Soll, 1980;Roberts, 1982). Another subgroup describes their behavior as running to thestreet to engage in behaviors that were strongly opposed by their parentsor guardians (Orten & Soll, 1980). The last subgroup ran away because theywere often associated with negative peer groups or gang influences.

Disabled

The disabled category described youth with a variety of physical, psychi-atric, learning, and substance abuse disabilities. A number of HRY reportphysical disabilities; and several manifested physical deformities (Balser,1939). Youth with psychiatric disabilities include youth who (1) were men-tally ill and not complying with or receiving treatment, (2) were diagnosedwith schizophrenia or other psychotic disorder, and (3) were diagnosedwith other clinical diagnoses and personality disorders (Adlaf & Zdanowicz,1999; Balser, 1939; Jones, 1988; Lowrey, 1941; Roberts, 1972; Rosenwald &Mayer, 1967; Stierlin, 1973). Learning disabilities were precursors to runningaway (Balser, 1939; Brennan, 1980; Dunford & Brennan, 1976; Jones, 1988;Roberts, 1982). Due to physical and mental conditions, youth in this groupare especially vulnerable to exploitation when they are on the street.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

entr

al F

lori

da]

at 0

9:50

23

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Running Away: A Rite of Passage? 303

The last groups in the disabled category are youth who abuse alcohol,and glue, and injected illicit substances on a regular basis (often exhibitingdaily use). This group remained at high risk for developing an addictionto these various substances (Roberts, 1982; Rosenwald & Mayer, 1967).Disabled youth are more likely to engage in prostitution and crimes againstpersons and property. The influence of substances left them vulnerable tophysical harm and impaired judgment that may have caused harm to others.

Throwaway, Abandoned, and Evicted Youth

In this category, youth included were those who (1) were disowned or toldto leave home (Brennan, 1980; Farrow et al., 1992; Jones, 1988; Miller et al.,1980; Zide & Cherry, 1992), (2) have experienced parental disappearance orabandonment (Farrow et al., 1992; Jones, 1988; Nye, 1980), (3) left becausethe family was in a financial crisis and someone had to leave (Jones, 1998;Zide & Cherry, 1992), (4) were adopted and abandoned when the adoptivecouple had their own biological child (Jones, 1988), or (5) were evicted fromtheir homes (Brennan, 1980; Farrow et al., 1992; Miller et al., 1980; Nye,1980). These youth were abandoned by families and left with no means forfurther contact. The distinctive feature of youth in this category is that theydid not have control over leaving their family. For example, those leavinghome due to parental rejection were seen as banished outcasts (Brennan,1980; Miller et al., 1980). One of the reasons these youth were asked to leaveincluded avoidance on the part of a relative to exposure as a perpetratorwho committed physical abuse, sexual abuse, and neglect. This group hadthe poorest prognosis and included youth who became family scapegoatsdue to an incestuous relationship with a family member and ran away toescape ridicule (Brennan, 1980; Farrow et al., 1992; Jones, 1988; Nye, 1980;Roberts, 1982). For them, the street was a safer place to live (Nye, 1980).

Hardcore Youth

This category of youth is chronically homeless and tends to demonstratemore antisocial behavior than youth who fit into the other categories (Adlaf& Zdanowicz, 1999; English, 1973; Jones, 1988; Miller et al., 1980; Stierlin,1973). Youth in this group had been aggregated as permanent residents ofthe street; and many had become hardcore as the authors describe them(Brennan, 1980; English, 1973; Orten & Soll, 1980; Roberts, 1982; Stierlin,1973). The hardcore group of runaway youth, unlike youth in other runawaycategories, experiences more conflicted relationships within their families oforigin. This group’s experience includes the (1) highest levels of rejectionof youth by parents (Brennan, 1980; Dunford & Brennan, 1976; Roberts,1982), (2) high levels of marital conflict among the youth’s parents (Dunford& Brennan, 1976), (3) high levels of incorrigible and other noncompliant

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

entr

al F

lori

da]

at 0

9:50

23

Sept

embe

r 20

13

304 Y. J. Hong and G. Jacinto

behaviors (Brennan, 1980; Jones, 1988; Stierlin, 1973), (4) abandonment ofyouth by their families leading to permanent homelessness (Jones, 1988;Stierlin, 1973), (5) neglect for youth demonstrated by their parents (Jones,1988; Roberts, 1982; Stierlin, 1973), and (6) severance of all ties with theirfamily of origin (Jones, 1988). Youth experience living on the streets wherethey develop skills, confidence, and a comfort level with street life; and theyaccept the idea of living permanently on the street. After recognizing theycould live on the street, many permanently severed ties with their familiesor the institutions in which they were living (Brennan, 1980; Dunford &Brennan, 1976; Jones, 1988; Orten & Soll, 1980; Roberts, 1982). Researchershave found that the more times youth run away, the more familiar theybecome with the street culture. With these repeated separations, this groupof youth often becomes chronically homeless.

Although categorizing runaway youth based on typologies is help-ful for practitioners, understanding the progression of their initiation intohomelessness requires a different perspective. The runaway experience ofyouth appears to parallel a rites of passage process. The following sectionarticulates a Rites of Passage Framework that is common across cultures andspecifically applies the framework to HRY.

RITES OF PASSAGE FRAMEWORK

The framework discussed here was developed by Van Gennep (1909/1960),an anthropologist, studying rites of passage from several cultures. The Ritesof Passage Framework consists of three distinct interlocking stages: separa-tion, limen, and reaggregation (Van Gennep). During the Separation Stagethe person experiences a time of separation from the preceding periodof life; and the individual’s current status in the community is about toencounter a transition. For instance, one may graduate from high schooland enter college. The Limen Stage is a time in which the initiate changesfrom one status to another status. The term Limen is a Latin term that means“a threshold.” During Limen Stage, an individual experiences a feeling ofbeing betwixt and between. Often the person experiences “ambiguity, open-ness, and indeterminacy.” One’s sense of identity dissolves “to some extent,bringing about disorientation” (New World Encyclopedia, 2008, ¶3). Forexample, some people enter college after high school and must adjust toa new environment. Making new friends, learning the new territory of thecollege campus, and finding out the procedures to register for classes canall provide disorientation and confusion about the structure of life. Duringthe Limen Stage, one recognizes that she or he is no longer in the stageof life experienced before the Separation Stage; and the individual has notmoved into the new identity recognized by the community upon complet-ing the rite of passage. The third stage is referred to as the ReaggregationStage and is the completion of the rite resulting in the individual returning

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

entr

al F

lori

da]

at 0

9:50

23

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Running Away: A Rite of Passage? 305

to the community and recognized as possessing a new identity or status(Van Gennep). The reaggregation into the community is often signaled bya ceremony such as graduation from college and finding one’s first profes-sional position (Van Gennep). The Rites of Passage Framework with someadaptation can be applied to the experience of runaway youth. In the nextsection Van Gennep’s work is extrapolated to fit the 21st-century experienceof HRY.

RUNAWAY RITE OF PASSAGE MODEL

The experience of HRY appears to parallel the Rites of Passage Framework.The discussion applies the rite of passage stages to the journey of HRYs asthey progressively move toward permanently living on the street. The threestages of the runaway rite of passage are addressed.

Separation Stage

The youth may leave home two or three times. During the SeparationStage, the person is disconnected from familiar surroundings and enters aterritory that may be unfamiliar. Youth first test out separation from and thenreturn to the home. Once on the street, it is hypothesized that youths haveentered the Separation Stage. Here, runaway youths will have to decidewhether they will return home or move farther into homelessness. Often,this first stage is considered essential because it can be viewed as a stagethat could lead to permanent homelessness.

Limen Stage

As the runaway behavior escalates (four or more episodes), it is believed thatthe youth are in the Limen Stage. At this point, the youth assume the survivorrole and enter into a transitional time living on the street. During this stage,youth feel betwixt and between the environment from which they came andthe perilous environment of the street where they plan to move. Finally,youth start to take on new roles to survive on the street. At this stage theyouth view themselves as torn between desires to return to their previousliving situation or to continue living on the street. During this second stage,with each new episode of escape behavior, youth may increase their timeon the street.

Reaggregation

The youth in this stage are recognized differently by other street youth thanwhen they first ran away. Similar to the first stage related to separation, thisfinal stage is of critical importance as it is here that youth may complete a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

entr

al F

lori

da]

at 0

9:50

23

Sept

embe

r 20

13

306 Y. J. Hong and G. Jacinto

runaway rite of passage (i.e., chronic homeless). At this point, youth willbecome fully aggregated into the homeless milieu, choosing to live perma-nently on the street. They are identified by other street youth and homelessadults as part of their homeless communities.

Although an outline of the stages included in the runaway rite of pas-sage model (RRPM) is informative, one has to ask how this may apply to thedevelopment of interventions to reverse the runaway rite of passage. A cru-cial point of contact with HRY should include a comprehensive assessmentof the youths’ existential situation. The following discussion of assessmentstrategies assists in further discussion of the prevention buffers that mayreverse the youths’ runaway rite of passage.

ASSESSMENT STRATEGIES OF RRPM

When working with HRY, assessment is a critical step in effectively planningcommunity intervention services. Assessment that includes a comprehen-sive analysis of the youths’ situation requires consideration of the contextof the youths’ lives and should consider strategies to help the youth transi-tion from the street to a safe and nurturing environment. Understanding thediverse characteristics of HRY includes gender, abilities, sexual orientation,ethnic, cultural, physical and mental health, socioeconomic status, and reli-gious background. In other words, cultural differences need to be exploredwhen considering multifaceted diversity concerns of the youth. This willassist practitioners in developing an effective community intervention plan.For example, spirituality serves as a protective factor for African Americanyouth when exposed to higher levels of community violence, and alcohol ordrug use (Toro, Dworsky, & Fowler, 2007). Another example, gay, lesbian,bisexual, transgender (GLBT) individuals who leave home more frequentlythan other runaway groups tend to be exposed to increased victimizationon the street due to their sexual orientation (Toro et al., 2007). Screening forsuicide intent is also important (Walls, Potter, & Leeuwen, 2009). EspeciallyGLBT youth report higher rates of mental health issues including suicideideation and attempts than heterosexual youth (Walls et al., 2009).

Assessment must take into account the youths’ living situation prior tobecoming homeless, and the youth’s current living situation. The practitionershould be concerned first with providing the youth a safe environment.Safety needs must be assessed with regard to a place to live that is notdangerous to physical and psychological well-being. Included in the safeenvironment are physiological needs that incorporate access to clean air(oxygen), food, water, proper nutrition, and shelter. For instance, qualityair is important to individuals with asthma and respiratory complicationsbecause they may experience severe responses and death if breathing moldand toxic agents in the environment. Another concern is the youth’s sense

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

entr

al F

lori

da]

at 0

9:50

23

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Running Away: A Rite of Passage? 307

of belongingness that may be assessed with a focus on social support andits significance in supporting a prosocial lifestyle.

Assessment is a process that develops a picture of the runaway youthtaking into consideration the precursors, precipitants, and consequences ofrunning away. Like a puzzle, the assessment constructs a comprehensiveimage of the youth in their environment. When completing the assessment,attention must be given to potential prevention buffers that may block theyouth from further episodes of homelessness.

PREVENTION BUFFERS OF RRPM

In the Rites of Passage Framework described by Van Gennep (1909/1960),buffers are not discussed because culturally constructed rites of passage donot use buffers to disrupt the flow of the rites. For the purpose of this discus-sion, prevention buffers are defined as community-based agencies and otherservices for HRY assisting them in reunification with their families of originwhen appropriate, or providing them with alternative living accommoda-tions when returning home is not possible. Prevention buffers can be mosteffective when they are logically grouped to provide the optimum positiveresults.

The buffers have a different effect at each of the stages of the runawayrite of passage. Prevention buffers that can lead to reversing the runawayrite of passage cluster around four general categories: the youths’ livingsituation, social services, medical and psychiatric treatment, and vocationalservices (see Table 3).

The list of prevention buffers includes some areas of overlap betweenthe various runaway stages. During the reversal of the Separation Stage,return to family, previous living situation, or alternative housing is importantbecause it will provide a stable place for the youth to live. Social servicesthat include strengthening the youth’s social support network, provision ofcounseling, and family intervention may be beneficial. During this stage, theyouth would return to the educational setting that they attended prior torunning away. When reversing the Limen Stage, stable housing should besecured; and counseling, substance abuse treatment, and psychoeducationalgroups may be appropriate services to include in the community interven-tion plan. Medical and psychiatric services may include medication andindividual, family, and group therapy. The possibility of returning to an edu-cational setting should be considered. When reversing the ReaggregationStage placement, given the chronic nature of this group, a therapeuticmilieu may be the best choice of intervention. Inpatient treatment shouldbe considered as well as medical and psychiatric services provided in theprevious stages. Youth in this category must be assessed regarding employ-ability. Educational or vocational planning must be explored as part of the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

entr

al F

lori

da]

at 0

9:50

23

Sept

embe

r 20

13

308 Y. J. Hong and G. Jacinto

TABLE 3 Stages of Running Away and Buffers Associated with Reversing the Runaway Riteof Passage

Program Living Situation Social Services

Medical &PsychiatricServices

Educational,Vocational,

EmploymentServices

Separation • Return tofamily oforigin oralternativelivingsituation

• Crisishousing

• Familyintervention

• Medicaland/orpsychiatrictreatment

• Individual &grouptherapy

• Return toeducationalsetting

Limen • Familyreunification

• Crisisintervention

• Crisishousing

• Familyintervention

• Psychoeducationalgroups

• Medicaland/orpsychiatrictreatment

• Individual &grouptherapy

• Substanceabusetreatment

• Educationaltraining

• Employabilityskills

• GeneralEducationalDevelopment

• Collegedegreeprogram

Reaggregation • Crisishousing

• Stablehousing

• Substance abusetreatment

• Psychoeducationalgroups

• Medicaland/orpsychiatrictreatment

• Individual &grouptherapy

• Substanceabusetreatment

• Vocationalandeducationaltraining

• Life skillstraining

intervention plan. The effects of prevention buffers are discussed briefly ineach of the runaway rite of passage stages.

Effects of Buffers at the Separation Stage

For the practitioner, identification of the Separation Stage is importantbecause it is here that prevention buffers may have the most potentialfor success. The assignment of a community intervention specialist (CIS)would be most effective in linking the youth to services and verifying thatprogress is being made toward treatment goals. The youth in this groupoften require minimal treatment (Coward-Bucher, 2008) because they maybe running for the first or second time requiring personal adjustment ser-vices to remain in a stable environment. Services such as individual, family,and group therapy may be required for youth that will buffer them fromfurther runaway episodes.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

entr

al F

lori

da]

at 0

9:50

23

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Running Away: A Rite of Passage? 309

For example in the Separation Stage, there is a 14-year-old male whoran away from home because he was not allowed to spend the weekendwith friends, and this is his first or second runaway episode. The prioritytask of a CIS is to meet the family to assess the family situation. After theassessment, the CIS will decide what kinds of buffers are suited for theyouth’s situation. In this case, the CIS might recommend personal adjustmenttraining through individual therapy, and involvement in a community-basedafter-school program.

Effects of Buffers at the Limen Stage

The Limen Stage in the runaway rite of passage is the critical period whereyouths often decide between home and street permanence. This grouprequires more services than the first group. Youth in the second stage mayrequire a range of services including substance abuse treatment, behavioralmanagement, transitional housing, group counseling, life skills training, edu-cational programs, family therapy, and medical and psychiatric treatment(Coward-Bucher, 2008; Karabanow & Clement, 2004). Close monitoring ofthis group of youth is imperative because elopement from the varioushousing and treatment program options always remains a possibility.

For example, in the Limen Stage, there is an 18-year-old female witha history of sexual and physical abuse, and she is showing some typicalsigns of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The main concern of the CISshould be exploring the safety of the client in regard to housing needs. TheCIS would also assess for high-risk activities such as survival sex, assault,and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). As a final step, the CIS mightrecommend a treatment plan that includes group work, assessment for PTSD,medical and psychiatric treatment, and enrollment in a General EducationalDevelopment program.

Effects of Buffers at the Reaggregation Stage

At this stage, youths are socialized into the street culture and are capable ofliving permanently on the street. Due to the entrenchment that occurs fromliving on the street, youths often do not know how nor do they want to beunited with their families of origin. The youth in this group require com-prehensive treatment options that address more complex and multifacetedissues (Coward-Bucher, 2008). This group requires services that include crisisintervention, a safe living environment, medical and psychiatric treatment,substance abuse treatment, vocational or educational services, and life skillstraining.

For example in the Reaggregation Stage, there is an 18-year-old gayLatino male whose family kicked him out after they found out that he wasgay, and he has been living on the street for 5 years. The CIS should check

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

entr

al F

lori

da]

at 0

9:50

23

Sept

embe

r 20

13

310 Y. J. Hong and G. Jacinto

the history of his past 5 years’ street life. The CIS needs to arrange theassessment with a community mental health center to check if the client hasbeen victimized while on the street including having been beaten up, sex-ually exploited, attempted suicide, engaged in substance abuse and illegalactivities. In this hardcore case, the CIS might need to (1) put the client inthe transitional housing placement, (2) assign the client in an intensive treat-ment plan that includes substance abuse treatment and individual and groupcognitive behavioral therapy, and (3) encourage the client to participate invocational training. In addition, given his sexual orientation, collaborationwith a local GLBT community center might involve provision of the indi-vidual and group therapy mentioned above. However, youths in this groupof homeless runaways, due to the chronic nature of their life circumstances,can be exceedingly difficult to treat; and many of the youths in this groupbecome chronically homeless adults (Robins, 1958).

The discussion about the RRPM has implications for practice with HRY.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Implications of the RRPM could be interpreted in view of the core valuesof social work. First, this framework informs practitioners about the stagesthat youth progressively experience leading to permanent homelessness.By identifying the appropriate stage for the clients, the practitioners willprovide clients with possible buffers to reverse the rite of passage. Thisframework will allow the youth to determine their course of action (i.e.,self-determination). Empowerment will assist the youth to more responsiblymanage their life. The selection of prevention buffers provides the youthwith a clear pathway reintegrating them into the community in a productiveand prosocial role.

Second, even though three separate stages of the runaway rite of pas-sage were presented as a framework for practice, it should be noted thatthese stages are a continuum rather than disconnected stages. To reversethe rite of the passage after initial assessment, it is important for practi-tioners to understand that the intervention services should be continuouslyprovided without interruption. This continuum of uninterrupted care is crit-ical to ensure that youth do not repeat their runaway behavior, therebycontinuing to move farther into the runaway rite of passage.

Third, this framework values cultural competent services. As theassessment strategies emphasize an understanding of the clients’ culturalbackground, this emphasis is closely related to cultural competence andsocial diversity, which is one standard (1.15) of the NASW Code of Ethics(National Association of Social Workers, 1999). Some youth run away dueto their differences with their family. For example, some GLBT youth run

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

entr

al F

lori

da]

at 0

9:50

23

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Running Away: A Rite of Passage? 311

away because of negative responses by family members to their sexual ori-entation. In this case, the practitioners need to understand the nature ofthe difference related to sexual orientation. Respect for youths’ sexual ori-entation may result in referral to a separate GLBT facility, GLBT friendlypractitioners, or providing a private shower to prevent anti-GLBT violence.In a way, this client-centered framework has another implication, “dignityand worth of the person.” Practitioners, who are aware of this framework,will treat the clients with respect, value individual differences, and build col-laborative relationships focused on solutions and interventions that enhancethe life of the runaway youth.

Finally, this framework adopts a holistic approach utilizing a compre-hensive assessment focusing on social, emotional, physical, and spiritualaspects of the youth’s life: ecological factors that impinge upon the youth’schoices and behavior, medical and mental health issues, and previouseducational or vocational experiences.

CONCLUSION

The Runaway Rite of Passage Framework is a comprehensive model forservice providers to use in conceptualizing the runaway’s situation in life.Using the culturally competent assessment method, the youth are viewed inthe context of their lives. This framework offers practitioners the opportunityto organize the most likely configuration of services that will reverse therunaway rite of passage.

The limitation of this conceptual model is that it needs to be empiricallytested. A couple of questions to guide research include the following: Dothe stages of the rite accurately predict the appropriate buffers to reverse theyouth’s rite of passage? What is the long-term outcome of CIS interventionsbased on the Runaway Rite of Passage Framework?

Research that explores the Runaway Rite of Passage Framework andits association with prevention buffers will assist practitioners in develop-ing effective intervention plans for runaway youth. Longitudinal studies thatevaluate the effectiveness of CIS who follow runaway youth through theirentire treatment plan will reveal best practices to address the reversal of therunaway rite of passage.

REFERENCES

Adlaf, E., & Zdanowicz, Y. M. (1999). A cluster-analytic study of substance problemsand mental health among street youths. American Journal of Drug and AlcoholAbuse, 25(4), 639–660.

Balser, B. H. (1939). A behavior problem—Runaways. Psychiatric Quarterly, 13,539–557.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

entr

al F

lori

da]

at 0

9:50

23

Sept

embe

r 20

13

312 Y. J. Hong and G. Jacinto

Barker, R. L. (Ed.). (1999). The social work dictionary (4th ed.). Washington, DC:NASW Press.

Brennan, T. (1980). Mapping the diversity among runaways: A descriptive multivari-ate analysis of selected social psychological background conditions. Journal ofFamily Issues, 1, 189–209.

Cherry, A. (1993). Combining cluster and discriminant analysis to develop a socialbond typology of runaway youth. Research on Social Work Practice, 3(2),175–191.

Coward-Bucher, C. E. (2008). Toward a needs-based typology of homeless youth.Journal of Adolescent Health, 42, 549–554.

Dunford, F., & Brennan, T. (1976). A taxonomy of runaway youth. Social ServicesReview, 50 (3), 457–470.

English, C. (1973, July/August). Leaving home: A typology of runaways. Society, 10,22–25.

Family and Youth Services Bureau. (2003). Report to Congress on the youth pro-grams of the Family and Youths Services Bureau for fiscal years 2002 and 2003.U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Adminstration for Childrenand Families Administration on Children. Retrieved from www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/fysb/content/docs/0203_report.pdf

Family and Youth Services Bureau. (2010). Runaway and homeless youth (RHY)programs. Retrieved from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/fysb/content/programs/rhy.htm

Farrow, J. A., Deisher, R. W., Brown, R., Kulig, J. W., & Kipke, M. D. (1992). Healthand health needs of homeless and runaway youth: A position paper of theSociety for Adolescent Medicine. Journal of Adolescent Health, 13(8), 717–728.

Federal Register. (1999). Administration on Children, Youth and Families;Runaway and Homeless Youth Program (RHYP): Fiscal Year (FY) 1999 FinalProgram Priorities, Availability of Financial Assistance for Fiscal Year 1999and Request for Applications for FY 1999. Retrieved from http://www.federalregister.gov/ articles/ 1990/ 04/ 30/ 99-10895/ administration-on-children-youth-and-families-runaway-and-homeless-youth-program-rhyp-fiscal-year-fy

Greene, N. B., & Esselstyn, T. C. (1972, November). The beyond control girl. JuvenileJustice, 23, 13–19.

Homer, L. E. (1973). Community-based resource for runaway girls. Social Casework,54(8), 473–479.

Jones, L. P. (1988). The typology of adolescent runaways. Child and AdolescentSocial Work Journal, 5(1), 16–29.

Karabanow, J., & Clement, P. (2004). Interventions with street youth commentary onthe practice-based research literature. Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention4(1), 93–108.

Lowrey, L. G. (1941). Runaways and nomads. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,11(4), 775–782.

Miller, D., Miller, D., Hoffman, F., & Duggan, R. (1980). Runaways, illegal aliens intheir own land: Implications for service. Brooklyn, NY: J. F. Bergin.

National Association of Social Workers. (1999). The NASW code of ethics.Washington, DC: NASW.

National Runaway Switchboard. (2010). Making the Connection. Retrieved fromhttp://www.1800runaway.org/media/sourcebook/

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

entr

al F

lori

da]

at 0

9:50

23

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Running Away: A Rite of Passage? 313

New World Encyclopedia. (2008). Rites of passage. Retrieved from http://wwwlnhewworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Arnold_van_Gennep

Nye, F. I. (1980). A theoretical perspective on running away. Journal of FamilyIssues, 1(2), 274–299.

Orten, J. D., & Soll, S. K. (1980). Runaway children and their families. Journal ofFamily Issues, 1(2), 249–261.

Roberts, A. (1982). Adolescent runaways in suburbia: A new typology. Adolescence,17 , 387–396.

Robins, L. N. (1958). Mental illness of the runaway: A 30-year follow-up study.Human Organization, 16 , 1–15.

Rosenwald, R. J., & Mayer, J. (1967). Runaway girls from suburbia. American Journalof Orthopsychiatry, 37(2), 402–403.

Shellow, R., Schamp, J., Liebow, E., & Unger, E. (1967). Suburban runaways of the1960s. Monograph of the Society for Research in Child Development, 32, 1–50.

Stierlin, H. (1973). A family perspective on adolescent runaways. Archives of GeneralPsychiatry, 29, 56–62.

Toro, P. A., Dworsky, A., & Fowler, P. J. (2007). Homeless youth in theUnited States: Recent research findings and intervention approaches. In D.Dennis, G. Locke, & J. Khadduri (Eds.), Toward understanding homelessness:The 2007 National Symposium on Homelessness Research. Retrieved fromhttp://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/homelessness/symposium07/toro/report.pdf

Van Gennep, A. V. (1960). The rites of passage (M. B. Vizedom & G. L. Caffe, Trans.).Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1909)

Walls, N. E., Potter, C., & Leeuwen, J. V. (2009). Where risks and protective factorsoperate differently: Homeless sexual minority youth and suicide attempts. Childand Adolescent Social Work Journal, 26 , 235–257.

Zide, M. R., & Cherry, A. L. (1992). A typology of runaway youths: An empiricallybased definition. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 9, 155–168.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

entr

al F

lori

da]

at 0

9:50

23

Sept

embe

r 20

13