On October 14, 2005, the Seattle Times published a news story about two boys with autism, ages 7 and 8, who were missing from Kokanee Elementary school for two hours before they were found walking near Interstate 405. They were picked up three miles from school by a school bus driver who had been alerted that the students were missing and a KIRO-TV reporter who was in the area reporting on the story. Washington State Patrol troopers were also out searching for the boys after several motorists called 911 to report seeing two young boys wandering the freeway.
Here is a book covering means of proactively addressing elopement . Although not written for schools it should offer some good insights.
According to Susan Stoltzfous, Northshore School District spokeswoman, the school notified the parents of the two boys, the police and school-bus drivers who were on streets in the area, after a search of the school grounds turned up no sign of them. The actions taken are part of the school-district’s plan to handle cases of missing children.
Mike Crain, the father of one of the boys, spent several frantic hours at home waiting for news about the boys while his wife, Shirley, and the other boy’s mother joined the search. He said he did not understand how to students with special needs could walk away from school. He intends to pull his son out of the school and he is considering suing the school.
Northshore School District spokeswoman, Susan Stoltzfous, credited the school for finding the boys quickly. She indicated that the school will examine how to learn from this incident, but she stressed that current system worked well for recovering the boys. Crain expressed a strong dissent to her statements.
Stoltzfous reported that the school has playground reporters who would have been responsible for watching the boys at the time of their disappearance.
As the above story demonstrates, elopement is one of the most significant and dangerous behaviors schools too often are totally unprepared to address and handle. In my practice, I have had several children who are at risk for elopement. The lessons that have I learned from these cases and from the above story are as follows:
Schools are reactive and not responsive to elopement. Schools rarely have fire drills to address elopement behaviors. Shock, panic and search are among the reactions that prevail. Unsurprisingly, parents mirror back the same emotions plus a healthy dose of blame and often very ugly litigation to assign legal fault. As will be discussed below, there are other more constructive and proactive ways to address elopement before it happens.
Even though allowing a child to elope appears to potentially constitute criminal endangerment, and charges have been leveled against parents (e.g. leaving a child momentarily in a hot car), criminal authorities typically refuse to bring charges. School personnel seem to enjoy a de facto immunity. This reluctance to enforce the law is unfortunate. Greater accountability would certainly follow if there were risk of criminal liability.
Elopement needs to be addressed in a proactive manner involving the entire school and especially the personnel who have a direct role with the child. The first thing to do is to create a written plan for addressing elopement behaviors. Roles need to be assigned. Visuals (e.g. yellow tape at the threshold of the classroom door), social stories, and directions in both verbal and nonverbal form need to be created well ahead of the crisis. Staff need to understand their roles and the plan literally needs to be rehearsed. Staff needs to be trained in crisis intervention techniques involving the finer points of proximics (how you communicate through body language), and ultimately as a fail safe, physical restraint with trained staff in accord with the law (23 Ill. Admin. Code § 1.285).
The child’s schedule needs to be analyzed for the times and places that pose the greatest risk for elopement. Field trips, gym, cafeteria and moving in the hall may need to be curtailed or eliminated. The child’s classroom, or even school placement, may need to be changed if the school is too inherently unsafe because of its proximity to traffic or other hazards. While I am always reluctant to move a child to a more restrictive placement, in the short term, such a placement change may be preferable compared to the risks involved in staying in a building where staff is ill trained and equipped and the building itself presents a risk.
The third primary element that needs to be address is equipment. Walkie talkies are critical. Communication within the classroom and the building is essential.
Perhaps the most important proactive step is the implementation of a good quality Functional Behavior Assessment and Behavior Intervention Plan. The premise is that if we understand why the child is seeking to elope and what are the antecedents are to the elopement, then we can address the underlying behavioral process that is leading to this dangerous act. It should be possible to recognize the patterns and events that precede the desire to elope and to manipulate those events to at least lessen the risk of elopement. Positive reinforcement for not eloping are key parts of comprehensively addressing this risky behavior.
Elopement is more common than most schools are willing to acknowledge. After the fact, excuses and justifications are just too little and certainly too late. Tragedies can be headed off and the risk of harm lessened with good quality planning and recognizing the risks involved.