BY LEWIS ROBERTSON, SAFEGUARDING CONSULTANT

What are we missing with ‘missing children’? 

According to the UK Missing Persons Bureau, an estimated 112,853 children are reported missing every year, many of whom will go missing regularly; much to the concern of parents, carers and professionals.

But are we doing enough to listen to the child involved and effectively safeguard them by reducing the risk of future missing episodes?

Statutory guidance published by the Department for Education states that upon their return, Local Authorities should offer all missing children an independent return interview (RHI). Best practice states that the return interview should be with professionals who are not directly known or working with the child, but each Local Authority will interpret that support differently; meaning that return interviews are generally completed by a commissioned service, a social worker, a teacher or youth worker.

Although it is the child’s decision as to whether they wish to engage in an independent return interview, this very much depends on the effectiveness of how professionals are promoting the benefits of an interview to the child. The return home interview provides the child with a voice, an opportunity for the child to share the circumstances of what their motivation was for the missing episode; including any possible ‘push factors’ (what was happening in the child’s home environment which contributed to them leaving) or ‘pull factors’ (what or who has applied pressure on the child to go missing).

The ’push’ and ‘pull’ factors behind each missing episode will vary; from ‘Looked After Children’ unhappy with their care placement, children who have lost track of time or deliberately missed a curfew or who have gone missing following a disagreement with another family member, through to those who have experienced abuse or who are being exploited.

Following the completion of the return interview, a report should be produced by the professional completing the interview, with details of what the child has shared and recommendations of how to support the child, in the hope that this will prevent or reduce future missing episodes.

But how effectively are these reports being produced, shared and used to form the basis of a support plan? Unfortunately, I believe that in some cases the answer is; ‘Not effectively enough’…

It is my view that all too often professionals, parents, carers and even the child themselves start to tire of the process when children are regularly going missing. This will range from parents and carers adopting the approach of ‘What is the point of reporting them missing again as they always return’ to the child being frustrated and losing faith in the return home interview process, especially when they have given their reasons previously for going missing, yet have seen no change or follow up to help support them.

The usual process if a child has a social worker is for the social worker to receive the RHI and meet with the child and their parents and carers to follow up on what has been shared and where appropriate, co-ordinate what additional support has been identified for that child.

If a child does not have a social worker, then the report is often shared with the Local Authorities ‘front door’ assessment team, who will liaise with professionals already involved with the child (often education) to co-ordinate the support.

It is easy to become complacent however, with regular missing children and believe that nothing will change. Patience and clear communication with the child is vital to ensuring that a plan to prevent future missing episodes is effective; it also requires a collaborative approach with all (including parents and carers) working together.

Parents and carers need to be encouraged to always report where they have concerns that a child is vulnerable and their whereabouts is unknown and appropriate steps have been taken to locate them such as contacting close friends or other family members or checking places where the child regularly frequents.

The professionals contacting the child to offer the RHI, following their return, need to treat the missing episode no different to the way they responded to the first one, because every missing episode is unique. If a child has declined an RHI on 99 previous occasions, they may agree to it on 100th, our approach needs to be consistent and we need to reflect on how effectively we promote the opportunity for the child to have a voice.

The quality of the RHI and subsequent reports also needs to be considered. An RHI should, as minimum, cover the following areas;
- What happened which lead to the missing episode?
- What happened during the missing episode, including;
- Where did you go?
- Who did you see?
- What did you take with you?
- Where did you stay (if overnight)?
- What did you do for food?
- What did you do for money?
- How did you get there?
- How did you feel (throughout)?
- What did you do?
- What were the circumstances that lead to you returning?
- What has happened since the missing episode?
- Relationships
- Education
- Positive Activities
- Family/Home life
- How likely are you to go missing again?
- What do you think needs to change to reduce/prevent missing episodes in future?

But when a child declines the offer of an RHI, there is nothing to stop other professional’s or even family members from having a conversation with the child and informally covering some or even all of these areas. The whole point of the RHI is to support the child and guide professionals in formulating a support plan or risk assessment.

Statistics tell us that Children who are exploited are almost always involved in missing episodes and so by gathering even a minor piece of information about where the child went, who they saw or what they did, may not only safeguard that child, but other children as well. Police will welcome any intelligence about individuals, properties or vehicles and the child at the centre of the missing episode may share more information than they meant to.

So no matter how frustrating it may be if a child is regularly going missing or declining the offer of an RHI, we cannot ever afford to be complacent with our approach to reporting the child and starting the process, listening to the child through the RHI and subsequently actioning anything that may reduce or prevent missing episodes.

By failing to adopt this approach, there is so much we could be missing!

By Safeguarding Consultant; Lewis Robertson