A recently released state audit of the Department of Children and Families (DCF) found a number of concerns, chief among them being a 94% increase in missing children episodes from 2020 to 2023. State auditors found 606 children to have gone missing a total of 3,736 times.
”We found that between fiscal years 2021 through 2023 there were increases in the number and frequency of missing from care episodes,” read the audit. “Running away from foster care placements exposes children to risks such as human trafficking, health issues, substance use, academic struggles, and involvement with the criminal justice system.”
The most significant problems outlined in the audit, aside from the sheer number of missing children episodes, was the failure of DCF to assess these incidents and adjust accordingly, the failure of DCF to report high-risk incidents to the authorities, and a systemic lack of care facilities for children with the most acute behavioral issues.
The auditors found that 97% runaway incidents over the period involved teenagers, with the average age of runaways being 16. Runaways were most commonly female (53%), and Black or Latino children were more likely to run away than white ones, accounting for 32% and 37% of incidents, respectively. While the number of runaway incidents increased over the period, the average number of days children went unaccounted for was halved. 70% of children were found in a day or less.
The auditors found congregate care settings to be the most commonly run away from places, accounting for 61% of all incidents. Auditors found that some children ran away repeatedly, with one child accounting for 100 incidents alone.
The audit found that of the 606 children who ran away, each averaged six incidents. 56 of these children ran away at least 16 times, accounting for 51% of all incidents, while 248 of them ran away only once, accounting for only 7% of incidents. Two children were marked as still missing at the time DCF provided its data to state auditors, with one child being marked accounted for a few days later, and the other still missing as of April 4, 2025.
“DCF does not know where the child is,” reads the audit. “The LINK narrative shows DCF continues to search for this child and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) published a missing child poster.”
The auditors said that DCF did not perform any formal evaluations of these incidents and did not work to revise any policies or procedures to prevent them from occurring again.
“DCF did not perform formal assessments of common risk factors or plans to address children who go missing from care,” read the audit. “The DCF service array did not appear adequate to address the needs of children who habitually went missing from care.”
Furthermore, auditors found DCF to have improperly recorded its efforts relocate children in 4% of the cases they reviewed, that DCF did not document efforts to determine why children went missing in 36% of the cases reviewed, and did not document sex trafficking screenings upon relocating children in 94% of the cases reviewed.
Ultimately, the auditors said that the agency’s failure to study the circumstances surrounding these incidents only makes them more likely to occur in the future.
“By not fully understanding and assessing missing from care cases, the department squanders an opportunity to implement strategies to prevent children from going missing from care,” read the audit.
In the agency response section of the audit, DCF disagreed with this assertion.
“The Department has implemented several policies and procedures to respond to children who are missing from care,” read DCF’s response. “Given that over 50% of the youth who are missing from care are older youth being served in congregate care settings, many with high acuity and complex needs, the Department has implemented several enhancements to its continuum of care for this population.”
DCF noted that some of these teens fall into DCF care for the first time following arrests, noting that “DCF does not (and should not) operate or contract for locked placement settings for children.” The agency said it has worked to meet these children’s needs by enhancing and revising its foster care services to include more clinical support. Lastly, DCF said that researchers “intend to conduct a thorough literature review” on the issue and “develop an analytical strategy for understanding and better monitoring children that run away.”
The auditors also criticized DCF for failing to properly document high-risk runaway incidents and routinely failing to notify both authorities and the NCMEC, in cases in which it should have contacted both. The auditors noted that in 96% of the runaway incidents they reviewed, DCF failed to file paperwork crucial to determining whether or not police should be contacted. The auditors also found that DCF reported only 33% of the missing children incidents to NCMEC that it should have, and that 61% of these reports were filed late.
“DCF management cannot ensure or demonstrate staff appropriately assessed a child’s risk level or determined compliance with police notification requirements based on the child’s risk level,” read the audit. “DCF cannot verify it notified key required stakeholders identified in policy and procedure documents.”
While the auditors made several findings critical of DCF policy or response, it also noted the existence of service gaps in the state’s behavioral health system. The auditors found DCF incapable of meeting the needs of six female teens in particular. These teens ran away a total of 341 times, and all were involved in either sex trafficking or the juvenile justice system. The auditors note that DCF simply had no settings to place these children that would adequately meet their needs.
“Case records showed a strong commitment and effort by DCF line staff and other service providers to support these children,” read the audit. “These concerns relate to the children’s behavioral health system and not individual social work staff or providers.”
The audit found that these teens were unable to find adequate placements either to long waitlists, lack of foster home availability, or because they had behavior deemed too acute for residential psychiatric facilities, but not acute enough to be hospitalized.
“It’s evident that community resources are currently insufficient when youth present with these complex issues,” responded DCF. “Our provider network is finding that with the increasingly complex and challenging behavior of youth, they are challenged and sometimes hesitant to assume the risk and liability associated with providing these youth care.”
Was this article helpful?
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
