Coverage

PARTIAL. Youth Era's rule for personal social media exists as a proposed operating rule, pending chief approval (per "Policy 2 - Personal Social Media and Digital Contact", proposed). What's documented: our boundary curriculum, which says a boundary is where one thing ends and another begins, and that a "no" doesn't need a long justification (per "Boundaries"); and SAMHSA's peer boundaries, which put personal accounts and personal numbers off the table for peer contact (SAMHSA TIP 64, Exhibit 3.2). No field insight is loaded for a DM handled well, so nothing below is "what worked for a colleague." I'm answering as if the proposed rule were approved, and I'll mark where I reason past it.

The move for the next 10 minutes

Don't reply in the DM. Not a boundary paragraph, not a "let's talk at the Drop," not a heart on the message. The moment you answer there, you've confirmed that the private channel works, and for a 16-year-old who just told you they want a place staff can't see, that's the whole lesson. Leave it. Don't delete it. Tonight, message your supervisor (words below). The boundary conversation happens in person, the next time they're at the Drop, in the first ten minutes, before they've had a whole afternoon to read your silence as a verdict. The hinge I don't have: whether Youth Era has an approved program channel for a one-line "saw your message, let's talk at the Drop." If your supervisor says one exists, that's the only place a bridge note goes. From your personal account, nothing.

Why in person: a DM rejection reads as personal. In the room, it reads as the job.

The words

Likely failure point

They read your silence as a slap and either skip the Drop or send "wow ok" or "forget it" into the thread. Don't answer the second message either; it's the same channel. The repair happens in the room: find them for something unrelated in the first two minutes they're back, then the lines above when there's a quiet moment. If they don't come back inside the window your program would normally notice, that's a supervisor call for outreach through a program channel, not through your account.

Supervisor, and what not to do before that

Tell your supervisor tonight. A current youth initiating personal-account contact and asking for a staff-free channel is exactly the case the proposed rule sends up. Words:

Until you've talked: no reply thread, no "one last time" banter, no blocking unless you're told to or the content is harassment, no screenshots passed around beyond who needs to see them, and no promise to the youth that the message stays between the two of you.

Safety facts

If the DM says anything about being hurt, hurting themselves, someone at home, sexual content, threats, or "don't tell anyone" about something specific, this stops being a channel question. Crisis and mandatory reporting override the boundary. Supervisor now, not tonight-ish. 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline: call or text 988. Crisis Text Line: text HOME to 741741. Reasonable suspicion of abuse or neglect: Oregon Child Abuse Hotline 855-503-SAFE (7233); 911 if there's immediate danger. The boundary conversation comes after.

One question back

What was in the message beyond the ask to move channels? That's the fact that decides whether tonight is a boundary conversation or a protocol.