By MARTHA IRVINE, AP National Writer
1 hour, 4 minutes ago
CHICAGO - The young caller's voice is high-pitched and trembling.
Her mother's been drinking, she says. They got into a fistfight, so the girl grabbed her backpack and a cell phone and bolted, with little thought about where a 13-year-old could go on a cold night.
Hiding in an alley off her rural hometown's deserted main street, she calls the only phone number she can think of: 1-800-RUNAWAY.
"I just don't feel like I'm taken care of like a daughter should be," the girl tells the volunteer who answers the phone at the National Runaway Switchboard. She stutters between sobs and shivers.
Her story is a common one at the Chicago-based hot line, which handles well over 100,000 calls each year, many from troubled young people who are dealing with increasingly difficult issues.
National Runaway Switchboard data provided exclusively to The Associated Press shows that the overall number of young callers facing crises that jeopardized their safety rose from 13,650 in 2000 to 15,857 last year. About two-thirds of the latter figure were young people who were thinking of running away, had already done so or had been thrown out of the house.
Federally funded since the 1970s, the National Runaway Switchboard is regarded by people who work with troubled youth as an organization that provides one of the best overviews of the shadowy world of teenage runaways, which is difficult to track.
The group's statistics showed that callers are getting younger and that 6,884 crisis callers last year said they had been abused or neglected, compared with 3,860 in 2000. That is a 78 percent increase.
Some callers just want someone to talk to, about problems at home or with friends. Others who have already run away use the hot line to exchange messages with their families — to let them know they're OK, or to arrange a free bus ticket home.
Some are desperate for a place to stay, for safety, for options.
"I'm scared of my parents, and I don't want to go back there. Please don't make me!" pleaded the 13-year-old girl who called this particular night.
The information she gave the hot line checked out. However, her name and other identifying details could not be included for this story because the National Runaway Switchboard guarantees callers confidentiality.
It also quickly became apparent to volunteer Megan McCormick — who has been trained to spot the occasional crank call — that this girl's fear was real.
"I know it must be really scary," said McCormick, a graduate student in social work at the University of Chicago. As they spoke, she checked the call center's extensive computer database for shelters in the girl's hometown.
The closest was in a larger city, 40 minutes away. But when McCormick called, she was told they didn't take anyone younger than 14.
Such scenarios are common in many regions of the country, particularly rural areas where resources for runaways are scarce. Further complicating the matter, the Runaway Switchboard has found that more crisis callers than ever are 14 and younger — 1,255 in that age group in 2000, compared with 1,844 last year.
"The reality is, there are not always services available for kids who are calling," says Maureen Blaha, executive director of the National Runaway Switchboard, which began as a Chicago area crisis hot line in 1971 and went national three years later. "We try to be as creative as we can be to find solutions. But there isn't always a simple answer."
Others in the youth services field concur.
They note that while the number of shelters and other organizations that help runaways have slowly increased over the decades, they have been unable to keep pace with the demand.Many ins utions also lack the resources to deal with the severity of issues young people face today.
"The population is much more disturbed than the runaways who were being seen 20 or 30 years ago," says Victoria Wagner, chief executive of the National Network for Youth, a coalition of agencies that serve troubled young people. "There are more mental health issues, more substance abuse, more coming from violent home situations."
Long-standing government support for the Runaway Switchboard has been a vital component in addressing the problem, Wagner says. But, she adds, federal dollars for shelters and other services, also through the Runaway Youth Act, have remained largely stagnant since it first passed in the 1970s. So she and others are pressing Congress for more.
It's a tough sell in trying economic times. But the irony, Wagner says, is that when people are unemployed and families are struggling, young people are even more likely to have reason to run.
The 13-year-old girl who has called the Runaway Switchboard sounds even more anguished when McCormick tells there are no shelters in her area that will take her.
"So there's nowhere I can go?" she says in disbelief.
Several times McCormick asks about other options, but the girl says she has none.
She says her friends' parents would only take her back home. Relatives, whom she rarely sees, live out of state. And she seems even more afraid of her father than her mom, claiming that her parents divorced because he was abusive.
Even so, she has little doubt that one or both of her parents will soon be out looking for her.
That's not the case for many other runaways, who are thrown out of home for anything from being gay to exhibiting aggressive behavior.
"Ninety-eight percent of the time, it's the parents saying, `No, take them.' They're the throwaway kids," says Bill Hogan, program manager at the Haven W. Poe Runaway Shelter in Tampa, Fla. He recently reunited a 10-year-old boy with his grandmother, who had told police to keep him.
Neglect also has changed the face of the runaway, says Kathleen Boutin, executive director of the Nevada Partnership for Homeless Youth, which is getting more requests for help from children of methamphetamine addicts.
For those 12 to 18, Nevada now has a "Right to Shelter" law, which allows organizations to provide emergency housing, food and clothing without parental consent.
Indiana is another state that recently passed a comprehensive law for homeless youth with a similar provision, but limited the age to 16 and older.
"It's a beginning," says Cynthia Smith, executive director of the Youth Service Bureau in Evansville, Ind. Right now, her area has no youth shelter — but she hopes the new law will help change that.
In New York, however, a bill requiring safe-houses and other services for sexually exploited youth stalled in January. And in Wyoming, runaways often still spend the night in jail.
It's a mind-set that Rusty Booker, an 18-year-old former runaway from Louisville, Ky., hopes will change.
Last year, he told members of Congress how, at age 12, he ran away from an abusive home. He got help at a library affiliated with National Safe Place, an organization with more than 16,000 locations nationally where young people are put in touch with local crisis workers.
Still, many communities that want to establish Safe Places are turned down because they have few or no services to offer runaways.
Nine states have no Safe Places at all. That includes the home of the 13-year-old girl who was on the line with the Runaway Switchboard for more than an hour.
Several times, she adamantly refused to call the local sheriff or to get child protective services involved.
"All this stuff that's going on, it's just really overwhelming," she told McCormick, the call center volunteer. "I don't want my mom to go to jail. I can't do that to my family."
Eventually, though, she changed her mind. She asked McCormick to stay on the line while she spoke with a county social worker and then the sheriff.
"I've kind of run away from home," the girl told the sheriff's dispatch operator. "I need somewhere to stay."
McCormick waited on the line until a sheriff's deputy found her and picked her up. Finally, the girl was safe and members of the Runaway Switchboard staff looked relieved.
"You get used to some aspects of this," says Cori Ballew, a Runaway Switchboard supervisor who oversaw the call. "But you never get used to some of it, especially when it ends with no resolution."
Some runaways, like this one, find help of some kind, she says.
Others, faced with few choices, hang up
But hey, the poor. They made bad decisions, and it isn't MY problem, is it?
I mean, my money is my money, and the government shouldn't take it from me to do wasteful things like help abused children, that would be an en lement, and we can't have that.
If they really were worthwhile as human beings, they would have decent paying jobs and could take care of their kids.
Those kids won't ever grow up and be MY problem at all, so I can just ignore them.
The worlds done. We got bad, white-trash parents breeding through the nose. I swear to god parents should have to take a test to go through with a pregancy. Or just outright ban breeding in red states.
Heartrending. Yes, it's a bad situation for these kids, and we should try to get some help for them.
You have also managed to caricature the conservative perspective on the issue. I assure you that while orthodox (non-nutty) conservative are generally not in favor of welfare or more en lement programs, this does not extend to helping poor and abused children. I would imagine that conservatives would generally favor some sort of federal (or state) funding for such emergency programs.
Also, the church has a vital role to play in charity. While we can safely say that, in America at least, poverty for the adult is generally the result of poor decisions or the lack of education, this does not apply to the children. And it's not for the church to judge anyway -- the church's role is to dispense God's grace.
A good book on the issue: Keller, Timothy J., Ministries of Mercy. This is an object of discussion in the evangelical community.
"this does not extend to helping poor and abused children"
gotta link to a conservative manifesto with any humanitarian concerns?
The govt. helped create the problem.
The illegitimacy rate is through the roof since the war on poverty and its associated programs began in the 60's. "You get what you pay for" is a truism, and in this country we pay for single women out of work to have children. We get that. In spades. The cost in dollars for the welfare system is not the biggest problem; it's what that system has done to society that IS the problem.
Start another program; the children need it. Throw money at it, and you'll be able to sleep better at night knowing you did something.
I'm sure there won't be unintended cosequences.
You liberals self-righteousness is truly disgusting. You talk and act so high and mighty, when you never actually DO anything except feel bad, and vote left. Do you care if any problem is fixed, or what havoc the programs you espouse actually bring - no, you don't. You NEVER question the results; as long as the motives are pure. Then when there are more problems, you blame conservatives and start the process over again. You all suck.
Either government policies can affect human behavior or they can't. You can't have it both ways.
You conservative self-righteousness is truly disgusting. You talk and act so high and mighty, when you never actually DO anything except about the wretched plebes, cut taxes and vote right. Do you care if any problem is fixed, or what havoc the ideologies you espouse actually bring - no, you don't. You NEVER question the results; as long as the motives are pure. Then when there are more problems, you blame liberals and start the process over again. You all suck.
look idiot, no one says govt doesnt affect peoples behavior. 101a never said such thing.
why don't you actually read peoples post for once rather than being a defensive liberal who has the need to always harp when no one gives a f7&c*.
you're right conservatives are guilty of such things too. but the subject right now is govt social funding, and you have nothing to offer or defend. You think throwing money is the solution.
So you want to give welfare to single mothers, yet not help with eliminating the root cause of the problem.
Throwing money, taking from the rich and spoiling the poor is your solution. YEt you don't want to offer away out of the ghettos, because you wont have such dependance.
Seriously, do you form oppinions based on silly emotions?
So if stealing too rich peoples' money is not the solution, what is? Abortion? Education? The wild hope that people wise up?
I still fail to understand why people think government is the
answer to all our problems. Charity is not the governments job.
It is our job. And those of you who think it isn't and the government
should take care of all these poor people ought to reach down and
take a few of those bucks you spend on pot and other drugs and
give it to a charity that helps these folks. , most of the
government money is spent on administration, at some fine
salaries I might add, instead of those who need it. So quit
whining and give a little money. Or do like SA210, at least
she puts her money and effort where her mouth is, on the
homeless. Although she still wants government money to
help her......
Darwinism.
Bird Flu.
Who in the says a kid has to come from a "poor" home, to have a reason to run away?
See, anytime you want another en lement, you pull out the "poor" card, which is very similar to the "race" card. Something to be used to arouse emotions in people. And if you can use "both cards", all the better.
Why do liberals always think the only answer is to "toss more money at it"?
"caricature the conservative perspective"
Guilty as charged, and quite intentional, obviously.
The sad part is that it is less of a caricature than one might think. All sorts of conservatives and Ron Paul nuts seem to think that getting rid of all government programs would somehow be a panacea for all of society's ills, but when you ask them how much money they give to charity, they give you a blank stare, and say "its MY money".
To be sure, conservatives have valid concerns about en lement programs, (abuse, dependency) but would throw out the baby with the bathwater. Any system will be abused, just as any system will have someone who will get dependent on it.
The point is that there is a genuine need for such social safety nets for a variety of moral and economic reasons, much similar to the reasons we have for life vests on ships.
Not many who consider themselves "conservatives" would actually admit this. People, sadly, don't like to give "the other side" any credit for valid points.
Like it or not, poverty is a predictor for all sorts of negative things.
Why do conservatives think the only answer is to ignore problems?
If that is the case, then we should let all the prisoners out of jail immediately.
I have yet to see one poster here on Spurstalk mention that govt is the cure/answer for all problems.. maybe if I keep looking I will find it..
Look up the John Stossel expose on who gives in this country; Christian Conservatives give BY FAR more of their income to charity than other people. (Also the U.S. is far and away the largest provider of private international aid in the world). The least charitable big city in the nation by %? San Francisco.
Could it be that liberals vote and support the programs they do out of personal guilt of not doing enough THEMSELVES?
I sure read many posts from people who don't ever believe the government should have LESS of a role in social programs and wealth redistribution.
If there are programs they don't support, they certainly don't make it apparent.
Who the wants to ignore problems here?
Also, who is ignoring the FACT that despite MUCH attention given to the problem of poverty by the government, the problem continues unabated - and begets other problems?
I would say YOU are ignoring the problem, I'd like to have a dialogue how best to actually SOVLVE it. However, whenever a conservative attempts to begin that dialogue, they are shouted down as being uncaring - simply because we mention that what we are currently doing doesn't really seem to be working, and doing more of the same MIGHT not be a good idea!
I agree 100 percent.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
