Abstract
It is insufficient to believe that just because repeatedly missing children (RMC) did not experience harm in one episode, they will remain safe and unharmed in the following occurrences. Each episode must be explored to understand the child’s unique circumstances and needs.
However, the priority in policy, practice, and research has been looked-after children. This means that the needs of non-looked-after children, i.e. those who
live with parents, other relatives or in foster care, are overlooked and minimised. This can result in faulty interventions by services, incorrect understandings
of the child’s needs, and omitting relevant partners.
This research aimed to investigate how risks and harms vary by the child’s home type (e.g., with parents, in residential or foster care, or with other relatives) and how practitioners utilise this information to prevent harm and reduce missing
occurrences. Practitioners from different public bodies provided their experiences and perspectives on RMC and relevant interventions.
However, the priority in policy, practice, and research has been looked-after children. This means that the needs of non-looked-after children, i.e. those who
live with parents, other relatives or in foster care, are overlooked and minimised. This can result in faulty interventions by services, incorrect understandings
of the child’s needs, and omitting relevant partners.
This research aimed to investigate how risks and harms vary by the child’s home type (e.g., with parents, in residential or foster care, or with other relatives) and how practitioners utilise this information to prevent harm and reduce missing
occurrences. Practitioners from different public bodies provided their experiences and perspectives on RMC and relevant interventions.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Publisher | Vulnerability & Policing Futures Research Centre |
| Number of pages | 4 |
| Publication status | Published - Nov 2025 |