search

Running from Home in Young Age

Download

Please note! This essay has been submitted by a student.

Download PDF

Youth run away and have ran away from their own home or foster homes for many reasons. Running from home and the risk factors involved can be dangerous and are shown to be connected to all different social classes. This statistics paper will show the risk factors and how the factors are associated with youth who run away from home.

In the United States (US) each year youth that run away or thrown out by their parents or legal guardians total about 1.6 million to 2.8 million (Crosland, K., et.al, 2018). Children in the welfare system in the US are the most vulnerable, two times more likely to present behavior than other youth their age, and they encounter many risk factors associated with running away. According to the National foster care statistics as of September 30, 2015, more than 427,910 youth were in foster care and many have run away more than once. (Crosland, K., et.al, 2018).

Essay due? We'll write it for you!

Any subject

Min. 3-hour delivery

Pay if satisfied

Get your price

The youth when running away can face negative risk factors and outcomes that contribute to serious consequences. Some of the most common are being a sex victim, introduced to drugs and alcohol, criminal acts, sexual diseases, trafficking, and the risk of being arrested or put in jails. Youth in foster care who run away will not go to school, lose support from their family and friends and the ability to live and have a stable life. Studies have shown that youth in the general population and those in foster care ran away because either were asked to leave or simply thrown out of their homes (Crosland, K., et.al, 2018).

Studies revealed that boys run away for reasons of being poor, their families do not have the basic comforts of things needed to survive and for financial independence because of their family being poor. Young boys that felt they did not live up to their father’s expectations, those that had stepparents or lived with someone other than their parents are more likely to run away. Many boys ran away in addition to family dysfunction and poverty, but for reasons of being physically abused and sexually by their parents (Tiwari, et.al, 2002).

Children whose parents get divorced or that may have lost a parent, feel their life has been disrupted and will tend to run away from home and end up homeless. Child abuse, alcohol and drug abuse in dysfunctional families as mentioned above, not only happens in the lives of young boys but girls as well. One third of homeless youth reported to have been sexually abuse at home prior to running away and over one half reported neglect and physical abuse. Experience of violence, a history of being in the juvenile justice system and illicit drug use by youths are public health and communities concerns and also run away risk factors.( Tyler & Schmitz, 2013).

The research to explore and get reports on why youth run away from home can be found by using the two statistics data sets. The two data sets within SPSS are, The General Social Survey 2010 (GSS 2010), and The National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997 (NLSY97). Information is gathered from respondents of certain age groups in The National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997. The NLSY97 will be used to show whether the dependent variable correlates with the independent variables picked for my research paper.

The dependent variable is R05395 and the label for the variable is “has R ever run away from home?” The variable has two or more categories therefore level of measurement is nominal because it has no intrinsic value. The valid number of respondents was 2000. The mode is 2.00 for this variable. The valid percent that said “yes” was 10.1%, and the valid percent that said “no” was 89.9%. The variable was turned in a ration level variable to have scores because in the beginning it was a nominal variable. The name for the dummy variable name is Runaway_Dummy and the variable label is, Run Dummy Runaway.

The dummy variable had a mode and median of 0.00, and a mean tendency of .10, dispersion of range of 1.0 and the standard deviation of .30. This information shows the percentage of respondents ages 12-16 according to the NLSY97 that ran away from home. This is important information for parents, people in the community and law enforcement because it will show the need for education and can provide safe havens for youth that run away. It was good that according to the table more respondents said no they had not ran away from home.

The first independent variable used for research was CHARGEDP and the label is “# of drug possession charges?” There categories for this variable which makes the level of measurement a ratio. The valid number of cases was 2000. The mode, median, and mean of 0.00 for the central tendency of this variable. There was 0 number of drug possession charges which had a valid percent of 99.9%, and 1 had a valid percent of .4%. The variable was already a ratio variable there it did need to be turned into a dummy variable. The dispersion of range of 1.00 and standard deviation of .07. It was shocking that the frequency of the number of people was close to 100% that did not have any drug possession charges.

The second independent variable used for research was CONPDGS and the label is “# of guilty/plead guilty of drugs?” The variable has categories therefore level of measurement is ratio. The valid number of cases was 2000. The mode, median, and mean is 0.00 for the central tendency of this variable. There was 0 number of drug possession charges which had a valid percent of 100%, and 1 had a valid percent of .1%. The variable was already a ratio variable there it did need to be turned into a dummy variable. The dispersion of range of 1.00 and standard deviation of .02. It was shocking that the frequency of the number of people was 100% that had been not guilty or plead guilty of drugs.

The third independent variable used for research was R03614 and the label name is “has R ever sold illegal drugs?” The variable has two or more categories therefore level of measurement is nominal because it has no intrinsic value. The valid number of respondents was 2000. The mode is 2.00 for the central tendency of this variable. The valid percent that said “yes” was 7.8%, and the valid percent that said “no” was 92.2%. The variable was turned in a ration level variable to have scores because in the beginning it was a nominal variable.

The name for the dummy variable name is Drug_Dummy and the variable dummy label is, Drug Use Dummy. The dummy variable mode of 1.0, the median of 1.0 and a mean tendency of .92, dispersion of range of 1.00, and the standard deviation of .27. This information shows the percentage of respondents ages 12-16 according to the NLSY97 that sold illegal drugs. This is important information for parents, people in the community and law enforcement because it will show if more patrol and is needed in school districts. It was good that according to the table more respondents even though the age is 12-16, said no because some youth start to sell drugs at an early age.

The fourth independent variable used for research was R00711 and the label name is % Peers who cut classes or school? The variable has a scale of order therefore the level of measurement is ordinal. The valid number of cases was 2000. The mode for the variable was 1 and median of 2.00 for the central tendency of this variable. The scale for the variable was almost none to almost all. The almost none for peers who cut class or school variable was (less than 10%) of peers, the valid percent of 34.2%, about 25% of peers, the valid percent of 27.4%, about half (50%) of peers, the valid percent of 19.4%, about 75% of peers, the valid percent of 11.1%, and almost all (more than 90%) of peers, the valid percent of 7.9%. The variable was turned in a ration level variable to have scores because in the beginning it was an ordinal variable. The name for the dummy variable name is School_Dummy and the variable dummy label name is % Cut Class Dummy. The mode and median were 0.00 and the mean was .45 for the central tendency of this variable with a dispersion of range was 1.00 and standard deviation of .50. It was shocking that more youth in the middle percentage range skipped school or cut classes than those above 50% that were asked.

The fifth independent variable used for research was R00707 and the label name is % Peers who belong to a gang? The variable has a scale of order therefore the level of measurement is ordinal. The valid number of cases was 2000. The mode and median for the variable was 1 and for the central tendency of this variable. The scale for the variable was almost none to almost all. The almost none for peers who cut class or school variable was (less than 10%) of peers, the valid percent of 70.4%, about 25% of peers, the valid percent of 18.5%, about half (50%) of peers, the valid percent of 6.4%, about 75% of peers, the valid percent of 3.0%, and almost all (more than 90%) of peers, the valid percent of 1.7%.

The variable was turned in a ration level variable to have scores because in the beginning it was an ordinal variable. The name for the dummy variable name is Gang_Dummy and the variable dummy label name is Gang Dummy Child. The mode and median were 0.00 and the mean was .21 for the central tendency of this variable with a dispersion of range was 1.00 and standard deviation of .41. It was shocking that more youth in the middle percentage range belonged to a gang or than those above 50% that were asked.

The hypothesis for CHARGEDP (# of drug possession charges), CONPDGS (# of guilty/plead guilty of drugs), and has R ever ran away from home would be a positive correlation. Due to the overlap between CHARGEDP and CONPDGS, SPSS dropped CONPDGS. If R has been charged with the possession of drugs, R will run away from home because R does not want to face R’s parents because of embarrassment and getting into more trouble. The table show that there is an increase if CHARGEDP and CONPDGS, associated with -.79% (or -0%) decrease in the percent chance a respondent has ever run away from home. The relationship is weak, negative and is significant (p<.05).

The hypothesis for Drug Use Dummy and has R ever ran away from home would be a positive correlation. If R use drugs R will run away from home because R does not want R’s parents to find out because would cause problems between R and the parents. The table show that there is an increase Drug Use Dummy, associated with -.79% (or -0%) decrease in the percent chance a respondent has ever run away from home. The relationship is weak, negative, and is significant (p<.05).

The hypothesis for Cut Class Dummy and has R ever ran away from home would be a positive correlation. If R cut class R will run away from home because R does not want R’s parents to find out because R would not get good grades and that would cause more trouble with R’s parents. The table show that there is an increase if Cut Class Dummy, associated with -.79% (or -0%) decrease in the percent chance a respondent has ever run away from home. The relationship is weak, negative and is not significant (p<.05).

The hypothesis for Gang Dummy Child and has R ever ran away from home would be a positive correlation. If R is in a gang, R would want to be with the gang all the time, come home at late hours, and not want to abide by the parent’s rules. The table show that there is an increase Gang Dummy Child, associated with -.79% (or -0%) decrease in the percent chance a respondent has ever run away from home. The relationship is weak, negative and is significant (p<.05).

73
writers online
to help you with essay
banner clock
Clock is ticking and inspiration doesn't come?
We`ll do boring work for you. No plagiarism guarantee. Deadline from 3 hours.

We use cookies to offer you the best experience. By continuing, we’ll assume you agree with our Cookies policy.