Order Code RL31655
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Missing and Exploited Children:
Overview and Policy Concerns
Updated April 29, 2005
Edith Fairman Cooper
Analyst in Social Legislation
Domestic Social Policy Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

Missing and Exploited Children:
Overview and Policy Concerns
Summary
Concern about missing and exploited children gained national prominence over
20 years ago when six-year-old Adam Walsh was abducted and killed.
Consequently, several parents of missing children and other interested persons
worked for the passage of the Missing Children’s Act of 1982, and later for the
Missing Children’s Assistance Act of 1984 (MCAA) to assist in recovering such
children and to bring the perpetrators to justice. MCAA created the National Center
for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) and required periodic incidence
studies to determine the number of children reported missing and recovered in the
nation in a given year.
In 1990, the first incidence study was released entitled, National Incidence Study
on Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children in America (NISMART-
1). In October 2002, a second incidence study referred to as NISMART-2 was
released. Both studies found that the concept of missing children was complex and
that children can be considered missing because of a wide range of circumstances.
NISMART-1 estimated that in 1988, 200 to 300 children were kidnapped by
strangers. NISMART-2 found that in 1999, 115 children were kidnapped by
strangers. Although such kidnappings appear to have declined, the Department of
Justice concluded that trends could not be established because of design differences
in the studies. NISMART-2 found that family abductions (203,900) outnumbered
stranger abductions (58,200), which included stereotypical kidnapping among many
other types of situations.
In 1996, a local AMBER Alert plan (a system to help recover abducted children)
was created in the Dallas/Ft. Worth, Texas area and named for nine-year-old Amber
Hagerman who was abducted and killed.
The Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of
Children Today (PROTECT) Act (P. L. 108-21) was intended to develop and/or
enhance AMBER Alert plans nationwide, reauthorize NCMEC for FY2004 through
FY2005, and strengthen law enforcement and federal criminal code provisions
related to missing and exploited children. The Runaway, Homeless, and Missing
Children Protection Act (P.L. 108-96) reauthorized and amended MCAA and the
Runaway and Homeless Youth Act, and extended NCMEC funding and other MCAA
program activities for FY2004 through FY2008.
In the 109th Congress, several bills have been introduced related to missing
children — H.R. 96/S.133, “Tory Jo’s Loophole AMBER Response Act;” H.R. 252,
the “Infant Protection and Baby Switching Prevention Act;” H.R. 528, the “Audrey
Nerenberg Act;” and H.R. 1223, the “Protecting Our Children from Violence Act.”
This report presents an overview of NISMART-1 and NISMART-2, discusses the
AMBER Alert System created to help recover reported missing children, and
legislative activities that address the missing children issue.

---

Contents
Introduction and Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
National Incidence Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
NISMART-2 Definitions and Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Caretaker Missing Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Family Abductions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Nonfamily Abductions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
The AMBER Alert System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Guidelines and Criteria for Issuing an AMBER Alert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
America On Line’s AMBER Alert Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
AMBER Alert Results Questioned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
White House Conference and Other Actions by the Administration . . . . . . . . . . 16
Legislation for a Nationwide AMBER Alert System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
P.L. 108-21, Title III — Public Outreach, Subtitle A — AMBER Alert . . . 18
Subtitle B — National Center for Missing and Exploited Children . . . . . . 21
Subtitle D — Missing Children Procedures in Public Buildings . . . . . . . . . 22
Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Procedures in Public Buildings Regarding a Missing or Lost Child . . 22
Legislative Actions in the 109th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Concluding Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
List of Tables
Table 1. Missing Children, by Reason, Totals and Percentages: Caretaker
Missing Children Findings, 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Table 2. Missing Children, by Reason, Totals and Percentages: Reported
Missing Children Findings, 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

---

Missing and Exploited Children:
Overview and Policy Concerns
Introduction and Background
Concern about missing and exploited children gained national prominence in
1981 when Adam Walsh, the six-year-old son of John and Revé Walsh was abducted
and subsequently found murdered. The Walshes, along with other parents of
abducted children,1 worked for the passage of the Missing Children’s Act of 1982
(P.L. 97-292) and later for the Missing Children’s Assistance Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-
473, MCAA) to assist in recovering such children and bringing the perpetrators to
justice.2
Congress amended the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974
(JJDPA, P.L. 93-415) by creating Title IV, the Missing Children’s Assistance Act,
which established a Missing and Exploited Children’s Program administered by the
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) of the Department
of Justice (DOJ) to coordinate federal activities related to missing and exploited
children. Also, the Act authorized the use of federal funding to create and operate
a national 24-hour toll-free emergency telephone line for persons reporting
information about missing children, and to establish and support a national resource
center and clearinghouse, which became known as the National Center for Missing
and Exploited Children (NCMEC/the Center). In honor of their son’s memory, the
Walshes founded the Adam Walsh Child Resource Center, which comprised four
separate centers in different parts of the nation dedicated to legislative reform. In
1990, the Walsh centers merged with NCMEC,3 which is a private nonprofit
corporation.
NCMEC initiated the AMBER Plan (that is, America’s Missing: Broadcast
Emergency Response system) to help recover abducted children nationwide. The
Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today
(PROTECT) Act (P.L. 108-21) was enacted to develop and/or enhance AMBER.
1 Several groups working to recover missing children existed at the time of Adam Walsh’s
abduction and lobbied Congress in 1982 for the passage of the Missing Children’s Act. For
example, Child Find, Inc. in New Paltz, NY, founded in 1980, operates a national hotline,
800-I-AM-LOST, and the Vanished Children’s Alliance (VCA) was founded in 1981 by
Georgia Hilgeman, whose infant daughter was abducted in 1976 by her father.
2 “About John Walsh,” [http://www.americasmostwanted.com/about_amw/john_walsh.cfm].
3 U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (Washington:
1991), p. 1.

---

CRS-2
Alert plans, to reauthorize and increase funding for NCMEC (from $10 million to
$20 million annually) for FY2004 and FY2005, respectively, and for other purposes.
On October 10, 2003, the Runaway, Homeless, and Missing Children Protection
Act was signed into law (P.L. 108-96) to reauthorize and amend the Runaway and
Homeless Youth Act and the Missing Children’s Assistance Act (MCAA). P.L. 108-
96 extends NCMEC’s annual funding and other MCAA program activities through
FY2008 (that is, from FY2004 through FY2008). For FY2004, Congress
appropriated $35.621 million for MECP and $3.958 million for the AMBER Alert
plan. For FY2005, Congress appropriated $46.9 million for MECP, of which $5
million would support AMBER Alert.4 For a detailed description of MCAA, its
funding history, and reauthorization, see CRS Report RS21365, The Missing
Children’s Assistance Act (MCAA): Appropriations and Reauthorization.
This report presents an overview of two national incidence studies prepared by
OJJDP to determine annually the number of reported missing and recovered children
in the nation. It also discusses the AMBER Alert System created to help recover
reported missing children, and legislative activities to address the missing children
issue. In particular, the Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the
Exploitation of Children Today (PROTECT) Act, (P.L. 108-21) is discussed, which
contains provisions related to missing and exploited children, and related to law
enforcement in cases involving missing or exploited children. The law enforcement
provisions are beyond the scope of this report.
National Incidence Studies
The Missing Children’s Assistance Act of 1984 required OJJDP to conduct
periodic incidence studies to ascertain the number of children reported missing in the
nation and the number recovered in a given year. The National Incidence Study on
Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children in America (NISMART-1),
the first study to fulfill the mandate, was released in May 1990 and focused on 1988
data. The second study, referred to as NISMART-2, was released in October 2002
and focuses on 1999 data.
NISMART-1 found that determining the incidence of missing children was very
complex. The term “missing children” was discovered to have distinct multilevel
definitions. Those definitions not only included children who were literally missing
because they got lost, injured, or did not adequately communicate with their
caretakers about their whereabouts or when they would return home, but also
included runaways who had left home without the permission of their parents,
thrownaways who were asked to leave the home by their parents, children abducted
by a non-custodial parent, as well as children abducted by non-family members or
strangers. Furthermore, it was determined that many of the children in at least four
of the above categories were not really missing because caretakers knew their
whereabouts, but had difficulty in recovering them. Apparently, this uncertainty led
4 These figures are subject to the required 0.80% across-the-board rescission mandated by
the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 (P.L. 108-447).

---

CRS-3
to controversy and confusion about the concept of missing children. Report analysts
concluded that because of the lack of a single broad definition for missing children,
public policy needed to clarify the missing children’s issue by establishing “which
children and which situations should be included, what do they have in common, and
what are they to be called.”5
According to OJJDP, such problems were resolved in NISMART-2. Although
the missing child concept remained complex, substantial improvements were made
in the report’s design regarding definitions, methodology, and terminology. For
example, OJJDP indicates that considerable refinements were made to definitions for
what it terms missing children “episodes” (types of episodes studied were family
abductions, nonfamily abductions, runaway/thrownaway episodes, and various
missing child episodes discussed below) and in methods used to collect data.6 Data
for NISMART-2 were collected from several sources — a National Household Survey
of Adult Caretakers, a National Household Survey of Youth (both Household surveys
covered various episodes for children living in households), a Law Enforcement
Study (providing accurate estimates and case characteristics for stereotypical
kidnappings), and a Juvenile Facilities Study (obtaining information about children
who ran away from institutional facilities where they lived).
NISMART-1 concluded that an unknown number of the estimated 354,100
reported “broad scope family abductions”7 were relatively minor situations involving
interferences with custodial or non-custodial visitation privileges and did not justify
being designated as an “abduction.”8 NISMART-2 clarified the meaning of “family
abduction” and reported that about 203,900 such cases occurred in 1999. Therefore,
NISMART-2 family abduction data do not correspond with those reported in
NISMART-1.
The same is true regarding data reported by NISMART-1 and NISMART-2 on
stereotypical kidnappings by strangers (see definition below). NISMART-1 reported
that 200 to 300 children were victims of stereotypical kidnappings in 1988
5 Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children in America, First Report,
Executive Summary, p. 4.
6 U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, NISMART Questions and Answers, by J. Robert Flores, OJJDP
Administrator, NISMART Fact Sheet, Oct. 2002.
7 In NISMART-1 “broad scope family abductions” were defined as situations where a family
member either (1) violated a custody agreement and took a child, or (2) violated such an
agreement by failing to return a child at the end of an authorized visit and extending the visit
to at least overnight. Additionally, a “family member” included anyone romantically or
sexually involved with a parent, and an “abduction” could be perpetrated by custodial (that
is, a caretaker in charge of the immediate care of a child) as well as non-custodial caretakers.
8 NISMART Questions and Answers.

---

CRS-4
(discussed in more detail below).9 NISMART-2 reported about 115 stereotypical
kidnappings occurred in 1999 out of a total 58,200 nonfamily abductions.10 Although
these data might appear to reflect a decline in stereotypical kidnappings, because of
the differences in the methodologies11 used in the two reports and the rarity of such
cases, OJJDP stated that “no scientific basis exists to conclude that there has been a
true decline — although it is possible. On the other hand,” the report continued,
“NISMART-2 results do not indicate an increase in abductions by strangers.”12
In the first report, there was difficulty distinguishing between runaway and
thrownaway youth. NISMART-2 combined the two types of episodes into one
category. Also, unlike NISMART-1, researchers for the second report interviewed
youth directly who provided information that was either unknown or not reported by
caretakers. Because of such differences in the two studies, report findings cannot be
compared.13
NISMART-2 Definitions and Findings
Not all abductions result in “missing children” as defined by NISMART
researchers. NISMART-2 defines missing children in two different categories — the
broadest category is “caretaker missing”: children were missing from their primary
caretaker; and the second category is a subset of the first — “reported missing”:
children missing from their primary caretaker were reported missing to an agency for
help in locating them. Researchers counted a child as missing from the primary
caretaker’s perspective when the child experienced an episode that qualified the child
as missing (see below), and when the caretaker did not know the child’s whereabouts,
resulting in the caretaker becoming alarmed for at least one hour while trying to
locate the child. In order for an episode to qualify for a child to be counted as
missing, the child had to be less than 18 years of age, and the situation had to meet
one of the following definitions of a specific type of episode:14
9 U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children in
America, by David Finkelhor, Gerald Hotaling, and Andrea Sedlak, First Report: Numbers
and Characteristics National Incidence Studies, Executive Summary (Washington: May
1990), p. 10.
10 U.S. Dept of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, NISMART: Nonfamily Abducted Children: National Estimates and
Characteristics, by David Finkelhor, Heather Hammer, and Andrea J. Sedlak, NISMART
Bulletin Series, NCJ 196467 (Washington: Oct. 2002), p. 2.
11 NISMART-1 researchers examined police records from a sample of 83 law enforcement
agencies, while NISMART-2 analysts expanded the sample group to 4,000 law enforcement
agencies and collected data from police personnel who actually investigated the abductions.
12 NISMART Questions and Answers.
13 Ibid.
14 U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, NISMART: National Estimates of Missing Children: An Overview,
by Andrea J. Sedlak, David Finkelhor, Heather Hammer, and Dana J. Schultz, NISMART
Bulletin Series, NCJ 196465 (Washington: Oct. 2002), p. 4.

---

CRS-5
! Nonfamily Abduction: A nonfamily member takes a child (without
lawful authority or parental permission) by physical force or threat
of bodily harm or keeps a child by force in an isolated location for
at least an hour; or when a child 14 years or younger (or who is
mentally incompetent) is taken (without lawful authority or parental
permission), detained, or voluntarily accompanies a nonfamily
perpetrator who conceals the child’s whereabouts, asks for ransom,
or plans to keep the child permanently;
! Stereotypical Kidnapping: A child is detained overnight, transported
at least 50 miles, or held for ransom by a stranger or slight
acquaintance in a nonfamily abduction episode with the intent of
keeping the child permanently or of killing the child;
! Family Abduction: A member of a child’s family or someone acting
on behalf of a family member, violates a custody order, decree, or
other legal custodial rights, by taking or failing to return the child
and conceals or transports the child out of state with the intent of
preventing contact or depriving the caretaker of custodial rights
indefinitely or permanently. There must be evidence that a child 15
years or older (unless mentally incompetent) was taken or detained
by physical force or was threatened with bodily harm.
! Runaway/Thrownaway: A runaway is a child who either leaves
home and stays away overnight without parental permission; is 14
years or younger (or older if mentally incompetent) who leaves
home, chooses not to return and stays away overnight; or is 15 years
or older who leaves home, chooses not to return and stays away two
nights. A thrownaway child is one who is asked or told to leave the
home by a parent or other adult in the household who has not made
adequate alternative care arrangements for the child, and the child is
away from home overnight; or a child who leaves home, but is
prevented from returning by a parent or other household adult who
has not arranged adequate alternative care for the child who is away
from home overnight.
! Missing Involuntary, Lost, or Injured: A child’s whereabouts are
unknown to the caretaker, which causes the caretaker to become
alarmed for at least one hour while trying to locate the child under
one of two conditions: (1) the child is trying to get home and
contacts the caretaker, but is unable to do so because the child is
either lost, stranded, or injured; or (2) the child is too young to know
how to return home or contact the caretaker; and
! Missing Benign Explanation: A child’s whereabouts are unknown
to the caretaker, which causes the caretaker to (1) be alarmed, (2) try
to find the child, and (3) call the police about the situation for any
reason, as long as the child was not lost, injured, abducted,
victimized, or considered to be a runaway or thrownaway.

---

CRS-6
Caretaker Missing Findings. NISMART-2 found that in 1999, an estimated
1,315,600 children15 were classified as caretaker missing (see Table 1 below), that
is, the caretaker did not know the child’s whereabouts and was alarmed for at least
one hour while trying to find the child. The total estimated number of such children
includes those who were reported missing and those who were not, e.g., children who
ran away from home. Of that number, an estimated 33,000 (3%) were nonfamily
abductions, including stereotypical kidnappings; 117,200 (9%) were family
abductions; nearly one-half or 628,900 (48%) were runaway/thrownaway children;
198,300 (15%) were lost or injured; and over one-fourth or 374,700 (28%) were
missing because of miscommunication or misunderstandings between the child and
caretaker about where the child should have been. Researchers discovered that
almost all of the caretaker missing children (that is, 1,312,800 or 99.8%, including
runaways) were recovered or returned home alive, or found by the time the study data
were collected. Only 0.2% or 2,500 of all caretaker children were not returned home
or located and the vast majority, NISMART-2 stresses, were runaways from
institutions that were identified in its Juvenile Facilities Study data collection.16
Table 1. Missing Children, by Reason, Totals and Percentages:
Caretaker Missing Children Findings, 1999
Number of caretaker
missing children
Percent of caretaker
Episode
(estimate)a
missing childrena
Caretaker missing
1,315,600
100
Family abduction
117,200
9
Nonfamily abduction
33,000b
3b
Missing involuntary, lost, or injured
198,300
15
Missing benign explanation
374,700
28
Runaway/Thrownaway
628,900
48
Source: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, NISMART, National Estimates of
Missing Children: An Overview, p. 6.
a OJJDP reports that “[e]stimates sum to more than the total of 1,315,600, and percents sum to more
than 100, because children who had multiple episodes are included in every row that applies to
them.”
b OJJDP states that “[e]stimate is based on an extremely small sample of cases; therefore, its precision
and confidence interval are unreliable.”
Reported Missing Findings. Reported missing is a subset of the caretaker
missing category. Although the caretaker sought help from authorities in locating a
15 Researchers stipulate that this number is based on samples. The report states that “The
95% confidence interval indicates that if the study were to be repeated with the same
methodology 100 times, 95 of the replications would produce an estimate between
1,131,100 and 1,500,100” (Ibid., p. 5.)
16 Ibid., p. 6.

---

CRS-7
missing child, NISMART-2 analysts indicated that this action did not necessarily
measure the seriousness of the situation. Instead, it conveyed the caretaker’s
judgment regarding the need for law enforcement assistance.17 An estimated total of
797,500 of the caretaker missing cases were reported as missing children, that is, the
caretaker called the police or a missing children’s agency to assist in locating the
child (see Table 2 below). Of that number, 12,100 (2%) were nonfamily abductions,
including stereotypical kidnappings reported to law enforcement for assistance in
locating the children. Researchers reported that stereotypical kidnappings, a type of
nonfamily abduction (discussed further below), were very rare instances and only a
small percentage of children were missing because of such cases. Family abductions
totaled 56,500 (7%) a slightly larger percentage than reported missing nonfamily
abduction cases. A larger percentage of reported missing children, 357,600 (45%)
were runaway/thrownaway, and 340,500 (43%) were missing because of
miscommunications or misunderstandings with the caretaker, while 61,900 (8%)
were missing because they were lost or injured.18
Three-fourths of missing children were 12 years and older. Researchers
concluded that this meant that “children age 12 and older had a risk of becoming
caretaker missing (and of being reported missing) that was significantly higher than
would be expected on the basis of their representation in the U.S. child population,
whereas the risk for younger children was significantly lower than would be
expected.”19 Furthermore, the study revealed that all but a very small percentage (a
fraction of 1%) of reported missing children had been recovered by the time they
were entered into the report’s study data.20
17 Ibid., p. 3.
18 Ibid., p. 6.
19 Ibid., p. 8.
20 Ibid., pp. 6, 9.

---

CRS-8
Table 2. Missing Children, by Reason, Totals and Percentages:
Reported Missing Children Findings, 1999
Number of reported missing
Percent of children
Episode
children (estimate)a
reported missinga
Reported missing children
797,500
100
Family abduction
56,500
7
Nonfamily abduction
12,100b
2b
Missing involuntary, lost, or injured
61,900
8
Missing benign explanation
340,500
43
Runaway/thrownaway
357,600
45
Source: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, NISMART, National Estimates of
Missing Children: An Overview, p. 6.
a OJJDP reports that “[e]stimates sum to more than the total of 797,500, and percents sum to more
than 100, because children who had multiple episodes are included in every row that applies to
them.”
b OJJDP states that “[e]stimate is based on an extremely small sample of cases; therefore, its precision
and confidence interval are unreliable.”
Family Abductions
A family abduction, as mentioned above, is when a family member or someone
representing a family member violates a custody order or decree by failing to return
a child and conceals or transports the child out of state with the intent of depriving
the legal caretaker of their custodial rights indefinitely or permanently. Researchers
discovered that with family abductions it was possible for a child to have been
unlawfully taken from the custody of a family member, and for the child’s
whereabouts to be fully known. This meant that a child could be abducted, but not
be really missing. Furthermore, in family abduction cases there were often disputes
between the parties involved regarding custodial rights and privileges and other
elements that were used to determine whether an episode qualified as a family
abduction. Researchers did not try to verify statements from respondents. In order
for a child to be counted by NISMART-2 researchers as one who was abducted by a
family member, the child had to be under 18 years of age, and have experienced the
specific episode category for a family abduction as stated above.
Researchers used National Household Surveys of Adult Caretakers and Youth
to conduct the family abduction part of the study. They cautioned that when
considering estimates of family abductions, it should be kept in mind that the
respondents were (1) mainly female caretakers of children, and (2) generally it was
the aggrieved caretaker who provided all of the information regarding custodial rights
and privileges that were used to determine whether a family abduction had occurred.
In family abductions, researchers surmised, rights and privileges were typically a
matter of dispute between the parties involved. Along with the primary caretaker’s

---

CRS-9
responses, and with that person’s permission, one randomly selected youth (between
10 and 18 years of age) in the household also was interviewed.
Key findings indicated that in 1999, an estimated total of 203,900 children were
family abduction victims, however, 43% were not considered missing because their
caretakers knew where they were or were not alarmed by the circumstances.21 Of this
number, 117,200 were missing from their caretakers (see Table 1), and of those
children, 56,500 were reported missing to authorities who assisted with locating the
children (see Table 2). Of the total 203,900 family abductions, 44% of family
abducted children were under six years of age; 53% were taken by their biological
fathers; 25% were taken by their biological mothers (other family abductors included
a grandparent [14%], as well as a sibling, uncle, aunt, and the mother’s boyfriend);
35% of children were abducted by more than one person, for example, a father and
his girlfriend; 46% were gone for less than one week; 21% were missing for one
month or longer; and only 6% had not been returned at the time of the survey
interview.22
Because younger children were at disproportionate risk for family abductions
(that is, 44% of the total 203,900 family abducted children were younger than six
years of age,23 as stated above)24 researchers suggested that prevention programs
should be designed to focus on such children. They noted that particular interest
should be concentrated on those children who do not live with both biological
parents, and should specifically promote the well-being of such children and address
issues related to their safety.25
In considering those statistics, researchers pointed out that the data reflected a
large number of child victims who were caught up in divisive and possibly unsettling
family problems. Also, they stated that the potential for harm to family abducted
children exists whether or not they are reported as missing. NISMART-1 analysts
found that family abductions could result in psychological harm to the child.
NISMART-2 researchers stated that they were not in a position to provide full
21 U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, NISMART: Children Abducted by Family Members: National
Estimates and Characteristics, by Heather Hammer, David Finkelhor, and Andrea J. Sedlak,
NISMART Bulletin Series, NCJ 196466 (Washington: Oct. 2002), p. 2. These children
were counted among the estimated 203,900 total children abducted by a family member, but
not counted among the 117,200 caretaker missing children. In order to be counted as a
caretaker missing child, three criteria had to be met — (1) the child’s whereabouts must
have been unknown to the caretaker; (2) the caretaker must have been alarmed for at least
one hour; and (3) the caretaker must have attempted to locate the child. NISMART: National
Estimates of Missing Children: an Overview, p. 4.
22 NISMART: Children Abducted by Family Members: National Estimates and
Characteristics, p. 2.
23 NISMART: National Estimates of Missing Children: an Overview, p. 4.
24 This finding also was determined in NISMART-1, Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and
Thrownaway Children in America, First Report, Executive Summary, p. 6.
25 NISMART: Children Abducted by Family Members: National Estimates and
Characteristics, p. 9.

---

CRS-10
assessments of the types of harm family abductions could inflict on children or to
what extent police or interventions by other authorities eased the resolution of the
episode.26 Another OJJDP report concerning parental abductions indicated, however,
that a child was often harmed by life on the run and being deprived of the other
parent. Also, the study stated that prior to abduction, many of the child victims were
exposed in their homes to neglect and abuse, as well as witnessing high levels of
conflict between their parents.27
NISMART-2 analysts suggested that once reported missing family abducted
children were located and returned, service agencies seeking to assist them should
address the conflicts that caused the child’s abduction in the first place. Analysts
noted that irrespective of the image that the word “abducted” produces, most of the
family abducted children were in the lawful custody of the perpetrator when the
episode began, meaning that they were not returned home at the proper time.
Additionally, they found that almost one-half of the family abducted children were
returned to the primary caretaker in one week or less, and the majority were returned
within one month.28
Family abductions, the analysts concluded, is an area that needs further
attention. A December 2001 report by OJJDP appears to corroborate this concern.
Entitled The Criminal Justice System’s Response to Parental Abduction, the report’s
findings indicate that “the majority of law enforcement agencies and prosecutors’
offices do not have written policies and procedures governing the processing of
parental abduction cases, do not train staff in how to respond to these cases, and do
not have special programs designed to specifically address the crime.”29 On the other
hand, the study expressed hope by further stating that several jurisdictions had been
identified that were developing promising approaches to handling such abduction
cases. Another OJJDP report indicated, however, that international family
abductions, which occur when a child is taken by a parent to another country,
presents even more obstacles for finding and recovering the child. Consequently,
many such children are never returned to the United States.30
26 Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children in America, First Report,
Executive Summary, p. 8; NISMART: Children Abducted by Family Members: National
Estimates and Characteristics, p. 9.
27 U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, Early Identification of Risk Factors for Parental Abduction, by
Janet R. Johnston, et al., OJJDP Bulletin, NCJ 185026 (Washington: Mar. 2001), p. 1.
28 NISMART: Children Abducted by Family Members: National Estimates and
Characteristics, p. 9.
29 U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, The Criminal Justice System’s Response to Parental Abduction,
by Kathi L. Grasso et al., OJJDP Bulletin, NCJ 186160 (Washington: Dec. 2001), p. 7.
30 U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, Issues in Resolving Cases of International Child Abduction by
Parents, by Janet Chiancone, Linda Girdner, and Patricia Hoff, OJJDP Bulletin, NCY
190105 (Washington: Dec. 2001), p. 1.

---

CRS-11
According to NISMART-2 analysts, information that has been reported about
family abductions should encourage prevention efforts for occurrences of family
abductions, as well as for finding ways to assist the victims and their caretakers in
rebounding from the effects when such episodes occur.
Nonfamily Abductions
NISMART-2 indicates that there are ambiguities about how to define
“abduction” because of high profile kidnapping crimes, such as those of Adam Walsh
(July 27, 1981), Polly Klaas (October 1, 1993), Elizabeth Smart (June 5, 2002)31, and
Samantha Runnion (July 15, 2002). The legal definition for abduction according to
the report is “when a person is held against his or her will for a modest amount of
time or moved even a short distance, which often occurs in the commission of other
crimes.”32 This definition, the researchers felt, would not be satisfactory to persons
concerned about estimates of stereotypical kidnappings, which, as previously
mentioned, are considered to be rare, nor would only stereotypical kidnapping
estimates be satisfactory to those interested in abductions in general.
Analysts met both needs by using two definitions for nonfamily abductions —
(1) the more precise and serious concept of stereotypical kidnapping, defined above
as when a child is detained overnight, transported at least 50 miles, or held for
ransom by a stranger or slight acquaintance in a nonfamily abduction with the intent
of keeping the child permanently or killing the child; and (2) a broader concept for
nonfamily abductions, which includes stereotypical kidnappings, but also includes
less serious nonfamily abductions with friends, acquaintances, and strangers as
perpetrators. The less serious nonfamily abduction concept is described as when a
child is physically threatened and moved or detained for a substantial period of time
(at least one hour) in an isolated place by using physical force, or when a child
younger than 15 years old is lured for purposes of ransom, concealment, or the intent
to keep permanently.33
The key findings concerning nonfamily abductions broadly defined were that
in 1999, there was an estimated total of 58,200 children abducted by nonfamily
members.34 As mentioned above, an estimated 115 were stereotypical kidnappings
(the true number falls somewhere between 60 and 170 representing the 95%
confidence interval around the estimate35). Although data cannot be compared
between NISMART-1 and NISMART-2 because of methodological differences,
31 On Mar. 12, 2003, now 15-year-old Elizabeth Smart was discovered and recovered by Salt
Lake City, Utah police officials after receiving several tips that led to the abductor, a former
handyman of the Smart family. The suspect and his wife were taken into custody on
suspicion of aggravated kidnapping.
32 NISMART: Nonfamily Abducted Children: National Estimates and Characteristics, p. 2.
33 Ibid., pp. 2-3.
34 This is a larger number than that reflected in Table 1 because, as discussed previously,
some of these children were not considered “missing.” Of the 58,2000 total nonfamily
abductions, 33,000 were caretaker missing.
35 NISMART: Nonfamily Abducted Children: National Estimates and Characteristics, p. 11.

---

CRS-12
researchers believed that since both studies yielded the same order of magnitude, that
is, in the hundreds (200 to 300 annually in NISMART-1) rather than the thousands,
they concluded that “stereotypical kidnappings do not appear to be any more frequent
in 1999 than in 1988.”36 In such kidnappings, NISMART-2 found that of the 115
stereotypical kidnappings, the child was murdered in 40% of such cases (that is, 46
victims), and 4% (or five) of the children were never recovered.37 Close to 3% (or
33,000) of total caretaker missing children (that is 1,315,600) were taken by
nonfamily members, among such cases 90 were stereotypical kidnapping victims,
which the analysts considered an extremely small number of victims.38 In addition,
57% (or 33,000) of total nonfamily abducted victims (that is, 58,200) were missing
from caretakers for at least one hour, and police were called to assist in locating 21%
(or 12,100) of such abducted children.39
The most frequent victims of both stereotypical kidnappings and broadly defined
nonfamily abductions were teenage girls. Furthermore, almost one-half of the
victims were sexually molested by the perpetrator.40 Researchers believed that this
finding reinforced the belief that sexual assault was the motive for a large percentage
of nonfamily abductions. This finding suggested, they stated, “the importance and
usefulness of combining sexual assault prevention strategies and abduction
prevention strategies as a way to reduce the rates of both crimes.”41 Furthermore,
they noted that declines in the rates of sexual abuse during the 1990s could have
reflected the noticeable effectiveness of sexual assault prevention programs,
including public awareness, educational programs, and aggressive prosecution to
deter such behavior.42
Researchers concluded that data on nonfamily abductions could be regularly and
systematically obtained by fully implementing the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s
(FBI’s) National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS). This system collects
data on each single crime incident that is reported to law enforcement that falls
within 22 offense categories comprised of 46 specific crimes. Also, arrest data are
collected for 11 of the 22 NIBRS offense categories.43 NIBRS allows police to
determine when an abduction occurs and whether it is connected with other crimes.
In 2000, the analysts noted, only 20 states contributed to NIBRS. When fully
nationally operative, they stated, the system would be able to produce yearly
estimates of the number of children reported to police who have been abducted by
36 Ibid., p. 12.
37 Ibid., pp. 10-11.
38 NISMART: National Estimates of Missing Children: Overview, p. 6-7.
39 NISMART: Nonfamily Abducted Children: National Estimates and Characteristics, p. 7.
40 Ibid, pp. 2, 12.
41 Ibid., p. 13.
42 Ibid.
43 “FBI National Incident-Based Reporting System: Historical Background,” at [http://www.
fbi.gov/ucr/faqs.htm].

---

CRS-13
nonfamily and family perpetrators. One limitation of NIBRS, they observed, is that
the data collected could not ease the difficulty in determining the incidence of
stereotypical kidnapping. In order to make this estimate, more data would have to
be collected on such specifics as the duration of the episode and the distance
kidnapped victims were taken.44
Researchers suggested that the purpose of the National Crime Information
Center (NCIC), a FBI database containing information about missing children, could
be expanded to track the incidence of stereotypical kidnapping. Currently, the police
report to NCIC the names of missing children whom they are tracking, but the system
is not designed for data gathering.45
The AMBER Alert System
Nine-year-old Amber Hagerman was kidnapped and murdered in her hometown
of Arlington, Texas in 1996. As a result of the tragedy, regional law enforcement
agencies in northern Texas and the Dallas/Ft. Worth Association of Radio Managers
(ARMS) developed an emergency alert plan to help recover abducted children.
Called the AMBER Plan, it was used when a child was abducted and believed to be
in grave danger. Law enforcement agencies and broadcasters voluntarily partnered
to send out an emergency alert to the public. Local radio and television stations
interrupt programming to broadcast information about an abducted child using the
Emergency Alert System (EAS)46 that is used to alert the public of severe weather
emergencies. Other communities in the nation also adopted the system.
NCMEC notes that in 2001, missing children reports declined to the lowest total
in 10 years. NCMEC President Ernie Allen credits this decline, after 20 years of
increases, to a system that is working. Law enforcement is responding more
effectively, he stated, technology allows transmitting images and information
instantly, the public is paying greater attention to missing children photos, and the
vast majority of the nation’s missing children are recovered safely.
In fall 2001, NCMEC initiated the AMBER Plan (that is, America’s Missing:
Broadcast Emergency Response, also called the AMBER Alert system) in partnership
with ARMS of Texas to help recover abducted children nationwide. NCMEC
reported that the goal for this action was to assist cities and towns across the nation
with establishing their own AMBER Alert emergency system. The Center credits the
AMBER Plan with the successful recovery of 201 children nationwide.47 When the
system was launched, there were 20 such plans around the nation.48 At the time of
44 NISMART: Nonfamily Abducted Children: National Estimates and Characteristics, p. 13.
45 Ibid.
46 The EAS was formerly known as the Emergency Broadcast System.
47 “AMBER Alert Plan,” at [http://www.missingkids.com] (link to Amber Alert, under Help
Now menu).
48 “National Center for Missing & Exploited Children Spearheads Campaign to Promote
(continued...)

---

CRS-14
this writing, the number has increased to 114 plans nationwide — that is, 50
statewide plans, 27 regional plans, and 37 local plans.49 NCMEC President Ernie
Allen has stated that the plan is highly effective, but it is not a panacea.50
In summer 2002, the media reported that several children were missing and/or
abducted, including some who were found murdered. Media-generated perceptions
that appeared to indicate a possible child abduction epidemic proved false. The
number of such abductions at the time caused concern about a possible overuse of the
AMBER Alert system, and that the program was an over reaction to the problem.51
NCMEC responded to such concerns by stating that the Center had developed an
AMBER Alert Kit available to all law enforcement agencies and broadcasters upon
request that presents a step-by-step guide for implementing effective plans to ensure
that AMBER Alert systems are created properly. Step-by-step instructions for
establishing an AMBER Plan in one’s area is located at NCMEC’s website —
[http://www.missingkids.com].
Guidelines and Criteria for Issuing an AMBER Alert
DOJ recommends that the following guidelines be followed before issuing an
AMBER Alert:52
! Law enforcement officials must confirm an abduction before issuing
an AMBER Alert. Abuse of the system and a weakening of its
effectiveness could occur if an alert was activated without significant
proof that an abduction had taken place. Each case, however, must
be assessed on its own merits and a judgment made quickly. Law
enforcement authorities must take a “best judgment” approach based
on the evidence before issuing an alert;
! Law enforcement agencies must not issue an alert unless officials
believe that the victim is in imminent danger of bodily harm or
death. This criteria must be based upon law enforcement’s
knowledge that typically, stranger abductions present the greatest
danger to children;
48 (...continued)
AMBER Plan Nationwide Provides Training Video and Manual For Preventing Over Use,”
Received Aug. 23, 2002 from Joann Donnellan, AMBER Plan Manager of NCMEC.
49 “AMBER Alert Plan,” at [http://www.missingkids.com] (link to Amber Alert, under Help
Now menu).
50 “National Center for Missing & Exploited Children Spearheads Campaign to Promote
AMBER Plan Nationwide,” Received Aug. 23, 2002 from Joann Donnellan.
51 Ibid.
52 U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, “America’s Missing: Broadcast
Emergency Response, AMBER Plan “Guidance on Criteria for Issuing AMBER Alerts:
From the National AMBER Alert Coordinator,” Apr. 2004 at [http://amberalert.gov].

---

CRS-15
! Law enforcement personnel must have sufficient descriptive
information about the victim, abductor, and/or the abductor’s vehicle
to indicate that an immediate alert broadcast to the public would be
helpful by enhancing the recovery of the victim and arrest of the
suspect;
! The victim must be 17 years of age or younger before an alert is
issued. DOJ encourages each state to adopt the “17 years of age or
younger” standard. To date, most AMBER Plans specify that alerts
be activated for children under certain ages. Such ages, however,
can vary. Some state plans stipulate that an alert should be issued
for missing children under the age of 10, some indicate 12, some 14,
15, and 16. Such differences in age requirements cause confusion
when multiple alerts are necessary across states and jurisdictions;
and
! The victim’s name and other critical data be must be entered into the
NCIC system.
In February 2002, NCMEC reported, the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) created a special code to be used within the Emergency Alert System when a
community activates an AMBER Alert about a child abduction. Because AMBER
Alerts were often confused with other civil emergencies, such as a flood or tornado,
the FCC adopted a special “Abducted Child Statement” event code referred to as
Code CAE. NCMEC observes that not only does the Center and the FCC believe
that Code CAE will enhance the process of communities mobilizing when a child
abduction occurs, but it also will “build on the reputation of the EAS as the most
credible and reliable vehicle for providing this type of emergency information to the
public.”53
America On Line’s AMBER Alert Services
In November 2002, America On Line (AOL) installed AMBER Alerts on its
websites. When warranted, the company uses its AOL Alert Services to notify its
subscribers about a child’s abduction. The AOL Alert Services operates in
conjunction with NCMEC, and federal, state, and local law enforcement officials.54
AMBER Alert Results Questioned
Although NCMEC has stated that the AMBER Alert plan has not been over
used, and has proven to be effective in recovering some 201 abducted children at
various places in the nation since its inception, the February 1, 2004 abduction of 11-
53 “AMBER Plan — Support for the AMBER Plan!” at [http://www.missingkids.com/html/
amberplan.html].
54 Tom Mainelli, “AOL Puts AMBER Alert Service Online: Digital Bulletins About Missing
Children offered to Anyone, Through Messaging, or Wireless Device,” PCWorld.com, Nov.
21, 2002, at [http://yahoo.pcworld.com/yahoo/article/0,aid,107256,00.asp].

---

CRS-16
year-old Carlie Brucia in Sarasota, Florida caused some critics to question AMBER’s
effectiveness.
After a security video camera recorded the abduction of Carlie in Sarasota,
Florida, an AMBER Alert was issued the next day, February 2, to get the public’s
attention and assistance in locating her. Five days later, her body was found. CNN
news reported that after Joseph P. Smith was arrested for her abduction on February
3, he confided in a jailhouse witness that he had kidnapped and murdered Carlie.
Subsequently, the witness led investigators to Carlie’s body.55 The AMBER system
was credited for assisting detectives in locating Smith, but the system is under
scrutiny regarding the ways in which it is used, and the timing of issuing an alert.56
An Associated Press (AP) reporter states that “records show the use of the alert
system has been haphazard.” For example, some police departments quickly issue
alerts when it is believed that a child’s life is in danger, while others, such as
Sarasota, are more conservative and do not quickly issue an alert, although a child’s
life is at stake.57 Marc Klaas, one of several AMBER Alert critics, whose daughter
was kidnapped and murdered in 1993, says that most police agencies are too slow in
issuing an Alert. One reason he cites for the delay is that states must get one
another’s permission to issue “cross-border” AMBER Alerts. Most states, the AP
relates, have guidelines that require police to be certain that a child has been
kidnapped and is in danger before issuing an Alert.58 Joe Brucia, Carlie’s father,
disagreed with the criticism and stated that he felt that the police acted responsibly
in handling his daughter’s case. He didn’t believe that the AMBER Alert would have
helped his daughter.59
White House Conference and
Other Actions by the Administration
When a child is abducted, there is no AMBER Alert system that is activated
nationwide. Such alerts are targeted locally, statewide, or regionally. NCMEC
believes that the AMBER Alert system needs to be expanded nationally so that such
a system could be activated when or if an abductor travels with a child to other parts
of the nation. A national AMBER Alert would only be activated when warranted,
if law enforcement officials believed that a child had been transported to other parts
of the nation.60
55 “Key Evidence Missing in Carlie’s Killing, Warrant: Smith Told Witness About Killing
Girl,” CNN.com, Feb. 6, 2004, p. 1.
56 “Brucia Kidnap Prompts Scrutiny of Amber Alert,” Fox News Channel, Feb. 16, 2004.
57 Vickie Chachere, “Girl’s Death Draws Criticism to Use of Missing-Child Alert,” Miami
Herald, Feb. 17, 2004.
58 “Brucia Kidnap Prompts Scrutiny of Amber Alert,” Fox News Channel, Feb. 16, 2004.
59 “Did the Amber Alert System Fail Carlie Brucia?” Fox News Channel, Feb. 10, 2004.
60 “National Center for Missing & Exploited Children Spearheads Campaign to Promote
(continued...)

---

CRS-17
On October 2, 2002, the first White House Conference on Missing, Exploited
and Runaway Children was held by the Administration “to promote public awareness
of the need to improve children’s safety, and to generate recommendations and best
practices from experts in the field.”61 It was reported that over 600 persons from
across the nation attended the conference as President George W. Bush, the keynote
speaker, expressed his support for the Hutchison-Feinstein National AMBER Alert
Network Act of 2002, legislation sponsored by Senators Hutchison and Feinstein and
passed by the Senate in September 2002. Noting that the House had not acted on the
legislation at that time, the President took immediate action to help expand and
improve the AMBER Alert system.
The Administration’s plan included the Attorney General creating an AMBER
Alert Coordinator at DOJ; establishing suggested nationwide standards for issuing
and disseminating such alerts to help ensure that the system would be used only for
rare instances of serious child abductions; the Attorney General and the Secretary of
Transportation using a total of $10 million from existing funds to develop AMBER
Alert training and education programs, upgrade emergency alert systems, and to
facilitate use of the electronic highway message boards and other systems as
components of AMBER Alert plans.62
On October 2, 2002, the Attorney General appointed Deborah J. Daniels, the
Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) as the first
National AMBER Alert Coordinator at DOJ. The duties of this position include
coordinating and assisting in developing and enhancing the system across the nation;
serving as the contact point for the nation and working with state and local entities
to increase the number of AMBER Alert plans; and seeking to guarantee that such
organizations work together as a smooth network.63 In January 2005, Tracy A.
Henke, as the Acting Assistant Attorney General, became the National AMBER Alert
Coordinator.64
The Attorney General dispensed the initial $3 million for the creation of the plan
to authorities around the nation for high-quality AMBER Alert education, training
and technical assistance resources, assistance in developing voluntary standards for
activating the system, and provision of computer software upgrades for AMBER
Alert systems nationwide. The remaining $7 million were used by the Secretary of
Transportation to develop and enhance notification or communications systems along
60 (...continued)
AMBER Plan Nationwide,” Received Aug. 23, 2002 from Joan Donnellan.
61 The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, “White House Conference on Missing,
Exploited and Runaway Children,” Oct. 2, 2002.
62 Ibid.
63 “Attorney General Ashcroft Announces National Amber Alert Coordinator,” U.S. Dept.
of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Press Release, Oct. 2, 2002.
64 U. S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, “AMBER Alert,” at
[http://www.amberalert.gov].

---

CRS-18
highways for AMBER Alerts, and other relevant information needed to recover
abducted children.65
Legislation for a Nationwide AMBER Alert System
Legislation to enact a nationwide AMBER Alert system was initiated in the
108th Congress by Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison and Diane Feinstein with the
introduction and unanimous Senate passage of S. 121, the National AMBER Alert
Network Act of 2003. The House took action on the issue when Representative F.
James Sensenbrenner introduced H.R. 1104, the Child Abduction Prevention Act.
This bill, which included law enforcement provisions related to the sexual
exploitation of missing and exploited children as well as AMBER Alert provisions,
passed the House, amended (by a vote of 410-14). The House struck the language
of a related Senate-passed bill, S. 151, the Prosecuting Remedies and Tools Against
the Exploitation of Children (PROTECT) Act, and inserted the language of H.R.
1104, as amended and passed by the House. The language of S. 151, which was
initially introduced by Senator Orrin Hatch, amended Title 18 of the U.S. Code that
relates to sexual exploitation of children,66 and the measure was signed into law (P.L.
108-21) by the President on April 30, 2003.
P.L. 108-21, the Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the
Exploitation of Children Today (PROTECT) Act, not only provides $20 million for
state grants to develop and/or enhance AMBER Alert plans, but reauthorizes
NCMEC by doubling its annual grant from $10 to $20 million, requires the
designated authority for a public building to create procedures to locate a child
missing in such a building, as well as includes law enforcement and federal criminal
code provisions related to missing and exploited children. Provisions are discussed
below that are referred to in the Act as Title III — Public Outreach, Subtitle A —
AMBER Alert; Subtitle B — National Center for Missing and Exploited Children;
and Subtitle D — Missing Children Procedures in Public Buildings.
As previously mentioned, the Runaway, Homeless, and Missing Children
Protection Act (P.L. 108-96) was enacted to reauthorize and amend the entire
Missing Children’s Assistance Act (MCAA) of 1984. This measure also
reauthorized the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act (RHYA). For discussions about
RHYA, see CRS Report RL31933, The Runaway and Homeless Youth Program:
Administration, Funding, and Legislative Actions.
65 Discussed with a spokesman at OJJDP in a telephone conversation on Oct. 24, 2002.
66 For an analysis of the original version of S. 151, see CRS Report RL31744, Child
Pornography Produced Without an Actual Child: Constitutionality of 108th Congress
Legislation. Also, for a comparison of S. 151 with H.R. 1161, the Child Obscenity and
Pornography Prevention Act of 2003, which contains similar provisions, see CRS Report
RS21463, Child Pornography: Side-by-Side Comparison on Senate and House Bills.

---

CRS-19
P.L. 108-21, Title III — Public Outreach, Subtitle A — AMBER Alert
Title III, Public Outreach, Subtitle A, AMBER Alert, directs the Attorney
General to assign a DOJ officer as the AMBER Alert Coordinator of the Department,
whose duties include: (1) seeking to eliminate gaps in the AMBER Alert
communications network, including gaps in interstate travel; (2) working with states
to encourage the development of local AMBER plans in the network; (3) working
with states to ensure appropriate regional coordination of various components of the
network; and (4) acting as the nationwide contact point for developing the network,
and for regional coordination of child abduction alerts through the network. To
perform these duties, the Coordinator was directed to notify and consult with the FBI
Director concerning each abducted child for which an AMBER Alert is issued; and
cooperate with the Secretary of Transportation (hereinafter, the Secretary) and the
FCC in implementing such actions. Also, the AMBER Alert Coordinator was
required to submit a report to Congress no later than March 1, 2005, on the
Coordinator’s activities, and the effectiveness and status of AMBER Alert plans of
each state that has implemented such a plan. The Coordinator was to consult with
the Secretary of Transportation when preparing the report. The report is in progress
and will soon be released to Congress.67
The AMBER Alert Coordinator is directed to create minimum standards
regarding issuing alerts through the AMBER system; and to determine the extent to
which such alerts should be disseminated and issued through the network.
Limitations regarding minimum standards include: (1) that such standards should be
adopted only on a voluntary basis; (2) to the maximum extent practicable (as
determined by the Coordinator after consulting with state and local law enforcement
agencies), such standards should stipulate that appropriate information related to the
needs of an abducted child, including health care needs, are disseminated to the
appropriate law enforcement, public health, and other public officials; (3) to the
maximum extent practicable (as determined by the Coordinator after consulting with
state and local law enforcement agencies), such standards should stipulate that
AMBER Alert announcements be limited to the geographic areas that will most
likely facilitate recovering an abducted child; and (4) when establishing minimum
standards, the Coordinator may not interfere with the current system of voluntary
coordination between local broadcasters and state and local law enforcement agencies
regarding such alerts. When carrying out duties regarding minimum standards, the
Coordinator is instructed to cooperate with the Secretary and the FCC; and to
cooperate with local broadcasters and state and local law enforcement agencies when
creating such standards.
Along with requiring the Secretary to provide grants to states for developing and
enhancing highway notification or communications systems for alerts and other
information related to the recovery of abducted children, the measure allows the
Secretary to make grants to states for developing a state program for using
changeable message signs or other motorist information systems to notify motorists
about abducted children. It requires that the state program provide for planning,
coordinating, and designing systems, protocols, and message sets that support the
67 Discussed in a telephone conversation with a OJP spokesman on April 27, 2005.

---

CRS-20
coordination and communication necessary to alert motorists about abducted
children.
States may use a grant to (1) develop basic policies and procedures for using
changeable message signs or other motorist information systems to alert drivers about
child abductions; (2) develop policies on content and format of alert messages to be
communicated on changeable message signs or other traveler information systems;
(3) coordinate state, regional, and local plans for using changeable message signs or
other transportation related issues; (4) plan secure and reliable communications
systems and protocols among public safety and transportation agencies or change
existing communications systems to support notifying motorists about child
abductions; (5) plan and design improved communications systems to alert motorists,
including the ability to issue wide area alerts to motorists; (6) plan systems and
protocols to encourage ways to efficiently notify motorists about child abductions
during off-hours; and (7) provide training and guidance to transportation authorities
to ease the appropriate use of changeable message signs and other traveler
information systems for notifying motorists about abducted children.
The Secretary may award a grant to a state for implementing a program using
changeable message signs or other such information systems to alert motorists about
abducted children. To be eligible for a grant, the Secretary must determine that the
state has developed such a state program. Also, a state may use a grant to support
implementing systems that use changeable message signs or other motorist
information systems to alert motorists about abducted children. Such support may
include purchasing and installing changeable message signs or other motorist
information systems to alert motorists about abducted children. The federal share for
the cost for these activities funded by a grant may not exceed 80%. The Secretary
must, to the maximum extent possible, ensure that grants are equitably distributed
among states that apply for a grant within the prescribed time period. Furthermore,
the Secretary must set requirements for receiving grants. The term “state” is defined
as the 50 states, the District of Columbia, or Puerto Rico. The legislation authorized
$20 million for FY2004 grants only. The Secretary was required to conduct a study
examining state barriers to adopting and implementing state programs for using
highway communications systems for alerts and other information for recovering
abducted children. In addition, the Secretary was required to submit a report to
Congress no later than one year after the Act became law on the results of the study
with any recommendations deemed appropriate. DOT transmitted the report to
Congress on January 12, 2005.68
For FY2004, DOT received the authorized $20 million69 for the grant program
to be used until the funds were expended. Consequently, DOT implemented a grant
program offering $400,000 to each state for creating and devising some type of
method to notify motorists whenever AMBER Alerts were issued. Thus far, $6.8
68 This information was discussed in a telephone conversation with a DOT spokesman on
April 28, 2005.
69 This figure was subject to the 0.59% reduction, which brought funding to around $19
million. This information was discussed in a telephone conversation with a DOT
spokesman on April 28, 2005.

---

CRS-21
million have been expended to 17 states for such grants. At the time of this writing,
applications were still being accepted and will be available until all funds are
disbursed.
The Attorney General is required to implement a state grant program for
developing or enhancing programs and activities to support AMBER Alert
communications plans. Grant activities may include (1) developing and
implementing education and training programs, and associated materials related to
AMBER Alert plans; (2) developing and implementing law enforcement programs,
and associated equipment for AMBER Alert plans; (3) developing and implementing
new technologies to improve AMBER Alert communications as a grant activity; and
(4) such other activities the Attorney General deems appropriate to support the
AMBER Alert program. The federal share for such a grant may not exceed 50%. To
the maximum extent possible, the Attorney General should ensure that grants are
equitably distributed throughout the various regions in the nation. Also, the Attorney
General should define grant requirements, including application rules for obtaining
a grant. The Act authorized $5 million to be appropriated to DOJ for such grants for
FY2004 only, and an additional $5 million to develop and implement new
technologies to improve AMBER Alert communications for FY2004 only. In
FY2004, Congress appropriated $3.95 million for the AMBER Alert plan.70
The DOJ grant program, however, was never implemented because the
Department did not believe that the $3.95 million grant funding level was sufficient
to use for the entire nation. Instead, DOJ used the funds for training and technical
assistance to states provided through the Fox Valley Technical College of Appleton,
Wisconsin. Fox Valley partnered with NCMEC and OJJDP to provide such
assistance to state and local agencies preparing to address missing and exploited
children, child abuse and neglect, and child fatalities cases.71
The final section of Subtitle A stipulates that NCMEC (including any of its
officers, employees or agents) will not be liable for damages in any civil action for
defaming, libeling, slandering, or harming a reputation that might arise out of any
action or communication connected with any clearinghouse, hotline or any such
complaint intake or forwarding program, or connected with activity that is totally or
partially funded by the United States in cooperation with or directed by a federal law
enforcement agency. This limitation, however does not apply if such a plaintiff
proves that NCMEC (including its officers, employees or agents) acted with malice,
or provided information or took action for a purpose that is unrelated to an activity
mandated by federal law.
Subtitle B — National Center for Missing and Exploited Children
Subtitle B amends section 404(b)(2) of the Missing Children’s Assistance Act
(42 U.S.C. § 5773(b)(2) [Annual Grant to National Center for Missing and Exploited
Children], to authorize $20 million for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2005. P.L.
70 This figure reflects an across-the-board rescission of 0.59%.
71 Discussed in a telephone conversation with a OJP spokesman on April 27, 2005.

---

CRS-22
108-96, the Runaway, Homeless, and Missing Children Protection Act continued
NEMEC’s authorization by extending funding years through FY2008. See CRS
Report RS21365, The Missing Children’s Assistance Act (MCAA): Appropriations
and Reauthorization for a discussion about the reauthorization of MCAA and
NCMEC.
Subtitle B also amends section 3056 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code by authorizing
Secret Service agents, under the direction of the Secretary of Homeland Security, to
provide forensic and investigative assistance in support of any missing or exploited
children investigation, if requested by any state or local law enforcement agency or
by NCMEC.
Section 404 (b)(1) of MCAA is amended by authorizing the OJJDP
Administrator to use NCMEC grant money to coordinate the operation of a cyber
tipline by providing online users an effective method of reporting Internet-related
child sexual exploitation. It should be noted that a Cyber Tipline already is funded
through NCMEC for such a purpose. This S. 151 provision, however, made the
tipline a mandatory provision of MCAA.
Subtitle D — Missing Children Procedures in Public Buildings
This subtitle is referred to as the “Code Adam Act.”
Definitions. Definitions that apply to this provision are as follows: (1) “Child”
means a person who is 17 years of age or younger;(2) “Code Adam Alert” means a
set of procedures used in public buildings to alert employees and other building
occupants that a child is missing; (3) “Designated authority,” with respect to a public
building that is owned or leased by an Executive agency, except as otherwise
indicated, means Administrator of General Services; the Board of Trustees of the
John F. Kennedy Center for Performing Arts; the Board of Regents of the
Smithsonian Institution (for buildings under the jurisdiction, custody, and control of
the Smithsonian Institution), the head of an Executive Agency (for another public
building for which an Executive agency has jurisdiction, custody, and control over
the building by law); the Marshall of the Supreme Court, with respect to the Supreme
Court Building; the Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, with
respect to the Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building; and the General
Services Administration in consultation with the U.S. Marshals Service, with respect
to all other public buildings owned or leased by an establishment in the judicial
branch of government; and the Capitol Police Board, with respect to a public building
that is owned or leased by the legislative branch of government; (4) “Executive
agency” means the same as such term under Title 5, Section 105 of the U.S. Code;
(5) “Federal agency” means any Executive agency or any establishment within the
legislative or judicial branches of government; and (6) “Public building” means any
building or a portion of a building that is owned or leased by a federal agency.
Procedures in Public Buildings Regarding a Missing or Lost Child.
The designated authority for a public building must create procedures for locating a
child that is missing in the building no later than 180 days after the date that this Act
becomes law. Established procedures must provide for at a minimum — (1)
notifying security personnel that a child is missing; (2) obtaining a detailed

---

CRS-23
description of the child, including name, age, color of eyes and hair, height, weight,
clothing, and shoes; (3) issuing a Code Adam Alert and providing a description of
the child by communicating in a fast and effective manner; (4) establishing a central
point of contact; (5) monitoring all points of departure from the building while a
Code Adam is in effect; (6) conducting a thorough search of the building; (7)
contacting local law enforcement; and (8) documenting the incident.
Legislative Actions in the 109th Congress
On January 4, 2005, H.R. 96, “The Tory Jo’s Loophole AMBER Response Act”
(identical to S. 133, introduced by Senator Talent on January 24, 2005), was
introduced by Representative Sam Graves and referred to the House Judiciary
Committee. This bill amends Title III, Subtitle A, Section 302 of the PROTECT Act
by altering the minimum standards for issuing and disseminating AMBER Alerts
through the AMBER Alert communications network. It would allow local law
enforcement officers to issue and provide for disseminating an AMBER Alert to
facilitate the recovery of an abducted newborn. H.R. 96 also would amend Title III,
Subtitle A by adding a new Section 306 (Definition) describing the term “child” to
mean “an individual under 18 years of age;” or “a newborn.”
On January 6, 2005, H.R. 252, the “Infant Protection and Baby Switching
Prevention Act of 2005,” was introduced by Representative Jackson-Lee. The bill
was later referred to the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Health, the House
Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, and the House
Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health. The proposal would amend Title
18 (Medicare) of the Social Security Act to require certain hospitals that are
reimbursed under Medicare and provide neonatal and infant care, to have security
procedures in effect that would reduce the likelihood that an infant patient would be
abducted or switched. Such procedures should include ways to identify all infant
hospital patients to ensure that it would be evident if infants were missing. Also, the
bill would establish civil penalties if hospitals failed to have such security procedures
in place. No further action has occurred on the legislation.
Representative Brown-Waite introduced H.R. 528, the “Audrey Nerenberg Act,”
on February 2, 2005. The bill would amend MCAA to extend its applicability to
persons determined by an appropriate medical authority to have a mental capacity of
under 18 years of age. The bill was referred to the House Education and the
Workforce Subcommittee on Select Education. No further action has occurred.
H.R. 1223, the “Protecting Our Children From Violence Act of 2005,” was
introduced by Representative Foley on March 10, 2005, directing the Attorney
General to ensure that appropriate state social services officials have the authority to
access the FBI’s NCIC databases and the Interstate Identification Index to check child
abuse cases and cases of missing children. The bill was referred to the House
Judiciary Committee. No further action has occurred.

---

CRS-24
Concluding Observations
Both NISMART studies indicated that family abductions outnumber nonfamily
and/or stereotypical kidnappings, which were considered to be very rare. OJJDP
found that the family abduction problem has not been adequately addressed by the
criminal justice system, including international abduction cases. Policymakers,
NISMART-2 analysts suggested, need to design effective programs and develop
suitable interventions to help reduce child abduction problems.
Because of the high-profile cases reported in the media about the abduction of
several children in Summer 2002, urgent action to help recover missing children
unharmed appeared to be a matter of priority for Congress and the Bush
Administration. The reported success of local and regional AMBER Alert plans were
used as arguments for expanding the system nationally and for building upon the
successful recovery of abducted children. Although an attempt to initiate nationwide
plans through legislative action stalled in the 107th Congress, the Administration
moved forward with its own National AMBER Alert Plan so that a system would be
in place in case another child was abducted. In the 108th Congress, legislation was
considered, passed, and signed into law by the President to expand such plans
throughout the nation.
Some questions remain, however, about responding to the problem of abducted
children. These questions include:
! What can be done to help reduce and/or prevent family abductions
(which appear to be the majority of abduction cases) particularly of
younger children, and to address issues related to their safety? and
! How can law enforcement responses to family abductions be
enhanced?

---