Order Code RL34050
Missing and Exploited Children:
Background, Policies, and Issues
June 19, 2007
Adrienne L. Fernandes
Analyst in Social Legislation
Domestic Social Policy Division

Missing and Exploited Children:
Background, Policies, and Issues
Summary
Beginning in the late 1970s, highly-publicized cases of children abducted,
sexually abused, and often murdered prompted policymakers and child advocates to
declare a missing children problem. At that time, about one and a half million
children were reported missing annually. A more recent count, in 1999, estimated
that approximately 1.3 million children went missing from their caretakers that year
due to a family or non-family abduction, running away or being forced to leave home,
becoming lost or injured, or for benign reasons, such as a miscommunication about
schedules. About half of all missing children ran away or were forced to leave home,
and nearly all missing children were returned to their homes. The number of children
who are sexually exploited — defined broadly to include a continuum of abuse, from
child pornography to commercial sexual exploitation — is unknown. Verified
incidents of child sexual exploitation that were reported to the National Center for
Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) from 1998 to 2006 exceeded 180,000.
Recognizing the need for greater federal coordination of local and state efforts
to recover missing and exploited children, Congress created the Missing and
Exploited Children’s (MEC) program in 1984 under the Missing Children’s
Assistance Act (P.L. 98-473, Title IV of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Act of 1974). The act directed the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office
of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to establish both a toll-free
number to report missing children and a national resource center for missing and
exploited children; coordinate public and private missing and exploited children’s
programs; and provide training and technical assistance to recover missing children.
Since 1984, NCMEC has served as the national resource center and has carried out
many the objectives of the act in collaboration with OJJDP.
The MEC program was last reauthorized by the Runaway, Homeless, and
Missing Children Protection Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-96). In addition to funding
NCMEC, the program currently supports the Internet Crimes Against Children
(ICAC) Task Force program to assist state and local law enforcement cyber units
investigate online child sexual exploitation; technical assistance for the AMBER
Alert System, which coordinates local and regional efforts to broadcast bulletins in
the most serious child abduction cases; and training, through NCMEC’s Jimmy Ryce
Law Enforcement Training Center, for law enforcement and prosecutors. For
FY2007, Congress appropriated $47.4 million for the MEC program.
Authorization of appropriations for the MEC program is scheduled to expire at
the end of FY2008. On May 24, 2007, Representative Lampson introduced
Protecting Our Children First Act (H.R. 2517) to reauthorize the program. Issues that
may be relevant to any reauthorization efforts include an Administration proposal to
consolidate the program with juvenile justice programs under a discretionary block
grant; the creation of the National Emergency Child Missing Locator Center at
NCMEC; and the potential need for more comprehensive data on missing and
sexually exploited children. This report will be updated as relevant legislative and
funding activities occur.

Contents
Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Reauthorization Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
FY2007 Appropriations Finalized . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
FY2008 Budget Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Other Legislation on Missing and Exploited Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Demographics of Missing and Exploited Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Missing Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Incidents of Missing Children: Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Defining Child Sexual Exploitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Incidents of Child Sexual Exploitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Description and Funding of the Missing and Exploited Children’s Program . . . 11
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Missing Children’s Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
International Missing Children’s Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Exploited Children’s Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Family Advocacy Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Training and Technical Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
AMBER Alert Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Proposed Block Grant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
National Emergency Child Locator Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Data Collection on Missing and Exploited Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Children Missing From Foster Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Missing Adults . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Appendix A: Demographics of Missing and Exploited Children . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Definitions of Missing Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Incidents of Missing and Non-Missing Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Characteristics of Missing Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Missing Incident Effects on Victims and Their Families . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Incidents of Child Sexual Abuse and Child Sexual Exploitation . . . . . . . . 43
Causes and Effects of Child Sexual Exploitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Appendix B: Federal Criminal Code Provisions Governing
Child Sexual Exploitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Appendix C: The Missing Children’s Assistance Act of 1984 and
Amendments to the Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Appendix D: Map of Statewide, Regional, and Local AMBER Alert Plans . . . 54
Appendix E: Other Federal Activities for Missing Children and
Child Sexual Exploitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Department of Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Department of Homeland Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
U.S. Postal Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Department of State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Treasury Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Appendix F: CRS Reports on Missing and Exploited Children and
Related Topics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
AMBER Alert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Exploitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Related Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
List of Figures
Figure 1. Reported Missing and Caretaker Missing, by Missing Category,
1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Figure 2. Funding for the Missing and Exploited Children’s Program,
Select Years from FY1985 to FY2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Figure 3. Missing Children Services Case Activity, 1990 to 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Figure A-1: Categories of Missing Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Figure A-2. Amber Alert Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
List of Tables
Table 1: Missing and Exploited Children’s Program Funding by Component,
FY2003 to FY2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Table A-1: Missing and Non-Missing Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Missing and Exploited Children:
Background, Policies, and Issues
Recent Developments
Reauthorization Activity
Appropriations for the Missing and Exploited Children’s (MEC) program,
administered by the U.S. Department of Justice, are scheduled to expire at the end
of FY2008.1 On May 24, 2007, Representative Lampson introduced Protecting Our
Children First Act of 2007 (H.R. 2517) to reauthorize the Missing and Exploited
Children’s Program. If passed, the bill would codify many of the activities and
services already provided through the National Center for Missing and Exploited
Children (NCMEC), the federally-funded national resource center and clearinghouse
on missing and exploited children’s issues. (In past reauthorizations of the program,
it has been common to formalize many of NCMEC’s recently implemented activities
and services in legislation.) The legislation would increase NCMEC’s annual
authorized appropriation from $20 million to $50 million in FY2008 to FY2013.
Over that same period, the MEC program would continue to receive such sums as
necessary.
FY2007 Appropriations Finalized
Three continuing resolutions (CR) temporarily extended the Missing and
Exploited Children’s program at the FY2006 annual rate. A fourth CR (H.J.Res. 20)
signed into law (P.L. 110-5) ultimately provided funding for the entirety of FY2007.
This appropriations measure provided $47.4 million, the same funding level the
program received in FY2006.
FY2008 Budget Proposal
The Administration’s FY2008 budget request does not provide a certain sum of
funding for the Missing and Exploited Children’s Program. However, it suggests that
the program — along with certain other programs administered by DOJ’s Office of
Justice Programs — will receive funding under a proposed “Child Safety and
Juvenile Justice Program.” According to the OJP budget justifications, the proposed
budget would consolidate grants now authorized under the Missing Children’s
Assistance Act, Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, Victims of Child
Abuse Act, and other acts into a “single flexible grant program,” and OJP would use
1 Note that the MEC program has previously been reauthorized with the Runaway and
Homeless Youth program.

CRS-2
the funds to make “competitive discretionary grants to assist state and local
governments in addressing multiple child safety and juvenile justice needs.”2
Other Legislation on Missing and Exploited Children
In addition to the MEC program reauthorization legislation, three other bills
have been introduced in the 110th Congress concerning missing and exploited
children.
The Bring Our Children Home Act (H.R. 2518) would amend the Missing
Children’s Assistance Act (which authorizes the MEC program) to assist state and
local entities in locating non-citizen children under age 18 who are missing in the
United States. The legislation would also amend the International Child Abduction
Remedies Act to provide legal assistance for the victims of parental kidnappings,
among other supports for victims. The Securing Adolescents from Exploitation-
Online (SAFE) Act (H.R. 876) would amend Title 18 (Crimes and Criminal
Procedure) to require electronic service providers and remote computing service
providers to report child pornography and characteristics of the incident (i.e.,
geography location of individual and website, information about the individual) to
the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, among other requirements.
Finally, the Audrey Nerenburg Act (H.R. 271) would expand the definition of
“missing child” under the Missing Children’s Assistance Act to include an individual
whose mental capacity is less than 18 years of age as determined by an appropriate
medical authority and whose whereabouts are unknown to the individual’s legal
custodian. (Currently, “missing child” refers to an individual under age 18 whose
whereabouts are unknown to the individual’s legal custodian.)
Introduction
During the 1970s and 1980s, highly publicized cases of children abducted,
sexually abused, and often murdered prompted policymakers and child advocates to
declare a missing children problem. At that time, advocates estimated that one and
a half million children were reported missing annually, and that some children who
did go missing were sexually exploited. In some parts of the country, non-profit
organizations formed by the parents of missing children were often the only entities
that organized recovery efforts and provided counseling for victimized families.
Recognizing the need for greater federal coordination of local and state efforts
to assist missing and exploited children and to publicize information about this
population, Congress created the Missing and Exploited Children’s (MEC) program
in 1984 under the Missing Children’s Assistance Act (P.L. 98-473, Title IV of the
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974).3 The act directed the U.S.
Department of Justice’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
2 U.S. Department of Justice, FY2008 Performance Budget, Office of Justice Programs, pp.
65-71.
3 The Missing and Exploited Children’s Program is at §5771 et seq.

CRS-3
(OJJDP) to establish both a toll-free number to report missing children and a national
resource center and clearinghouse to provide information; coordinate public and
private missing and exploited children’s programs; and provide training and technical
assistance related to missing children. Since 1984, the National Center for Missing
and Exploited Children (NCMEC), a non-profit organization located in Alexandria,
Virginia, has carried out these duties in collaboration with OJJDP.
The MEC program was last reauthorized by the Runaway, Homeless, and
Missing Children Protection Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-96). NCMEC is the primary
component of the program and supports a range of activities authorized under the
Missing Children’s Assistance Act and other federal legislation.4 The MEC program
also supports (1) the Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Force program
to assist state and local enforcement cyber units to investigate online child sexual
exploitation; (2) technical assistance for the AMBER (America’s Missing: Broadcast
Emergency Response) Alert System, which coordinates local and regional efforts to
broadcast bulletins in the most serious child abduction cases, and other missing and
exploited children’s programs; (3) training, through NCMEC’s Jimmy Ryce Law
Enforcement Training Center, for state and local agencies that serve missing and
exploited children; and (4) administration of the program. In FY2007, Congress
appropriated $47.4 million for the MEC program. The authorization of the program
expires at the end of FY2008.
This report begins with an overview of the scope of the missing and exploited
children issue, including definitions and approximate numbers of children known to
be missing or exploited. This section also discusses the limitations of data on
missing and exploited youth. The report then provides information about the MEC
program’s funding, oversight, and major components. Finally, the report discusses
issues that may be relevant to the reauthorization of the act. These issues include
! a Department of Justice proposal to consolidate the program with
juvenile justice programs under a discretionary block grant;
! the creation of the National Emergency Child Missing Locator
Center at NCMEC that will provide assistance to jurisdictions
experiencing disasters; and
! the potential need for current and region-specific data on missing
children and comprehensive, nationally-representative studies of
sexually exploited children.
The end of the report includes several appendices. Appendix A provides
additional information about the demographics of missing and exploited children and
the causes and effects of missing and sexual exploitation incidents on victims and
families. Appendix B enumerates prosecutable acts of sexual exploitation under
federal law. Appendix C presents the major provisions of the Missing Children’s
Assistance Act of 1984 and amendments to the act. Appendix D includes a map of
4 NCMEC coordinates and is involved with several federal activities relating to missing and
exploited children. Many of these activities are funded from sources other than the Missing
and Exploited Children’s program, although the largest share of federal funds for NCMEC
is through the program.

CRS-4
state, regional, and local AMBER Alert programs, as of May 2007. Appendix E
describes federal efforts to combat sexual exploitation across multiple agencies, such
as Project Safe Childhood (U.S. Attorney’s Office), Innocent Images National
Initiative (FBI), and Operation Child Predator (Immigration and Customs
Enforcement Agency), among others. Appendix F provides a list of CRS reports on
issues related to the Missing and Exploited Children’s program.
Demographics of Missing
and Exploited Children
Overview
Missing children and exploited children are distinct but overlapping
populations. The term “missing child” is defined under the Missing Children’s
Assistance Act as an individual under age 18 whose whereabouts are unknown to that
individual’s legal custodian under circumstances suggesting abduction, abuse, or
exploitation.5 Children who go missing — and children who are not missing — may
be sexually exploited. Although the act does not define child sexual exploitation,
OJJDP characterizes sexual exploitation as the use of a child for the sexual
gratification of an adult.6 Federal statutes (both criminal and civil) also specify acts
of sexual exploitation for purposes of prosecuting offenders and providing minimum
standards of child abuse for states to use in their own definitions of child abuse.
The current number of missing or exploited children is unknown. The Missing
Children’s Assistance Act requires OJJDP to periodically conduct incidence studies
of the number of missing children, the number of children missing due to a stranger
abduction or parental abduction, and the number of missing children who are
recovered.7 Since the act’s passage in 1984, two national incidence studies have been
conducted. However, the studies are dated (one was conducted in 1988 and the other
in 1999) and provide little information about children who were exploited during a
missing episode. (Limitations of the data set are discussed in the “Issues” section of
this report.)
As discussed below, the 1999 study indicates that of the 1.3 million children
who went missing that year, most had run away from home or were forced to leave
their home, and nearly all were returned to their caretakers. Cases of serious non-
family abductions, in which the child is transported and held for ransom or killed, are
rare. The discussion below indicates that the true number of child sexual exploitation
incidents is unknown because of the secrecy around exploitation.
5 This definition is codified at 42 U.S.C. §5772.
6 This definition was provided in correspondence with the Office of Justice Programs in
May 2007.
7 42 U.S.C. §5773(c).

CRS-5
Missing Children
NISMART-1. The first national incidence study of missing children — known
as the National Incidence Study of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway
Children (commonly known as NISMART-1) — was conducted in 1988 pursuant
to the Missing Children’s Assistance Act. NISMART-1 provided the first nationally
representative comprehensive data on the incidence of missing children. Unlike
previous sources of missing children data, the study provided two counts of children
who were missing. One count was based on whether a parent considered the child
missing, regardless of the seriousness of the incident, and another was based on
whether law enforcement considered a missing child at risk and in need of immediate
intervention.8
The study classified five categories of missing children: (1) children who were
missing because they were lost, injured, or did not adequately communicate with
their caretakers about their whereabouts; (2) children abducted by family members;
(3) children abducted by non-family members; (4) runaways; and (5) “thrownaways”
forced to leave their homes. NISMART-1 did not aggregate the number of missing
children across these categories because researchers viewed each category as distinct
from other categories. Researchers also raised concerns that some children were not
literally missing because caretakers knew of their children’s location, but could not
recover them.
NISMART-2. NISMART-2 attempted to resolve some of the methodological
challenges of NISMART-1.9 Based on policymakers’ views that missing children
(even those not literally missing because their parents knew their whereabouts) share
a common experience, data for all missing children were aggregated for “caretaker
missing” and “reported missing” cases. For an episode to qualify as “caretaker
missing,” the child’s whereabouts must have been unknown to the primary caretaker,
with the result that the caretaker was alarmed for at least one hour and tried to locate
the child. In this circumstance, a child could have been missing for benign reasons,
such as miscommunication about schedules. A “caretaker missing” child was
considered “reported missing” if a caretaker contacted the police or a missing
children’s agency to locate the child.10
8 David Finkelhor, Gerald Hotaling, and Andrea J. Sedlak, Missing, Abducted, Runaway,
and Thrownaway Children in America, First Report:
Number and Characteristics National
Incidence Studies
, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention, May 1990.
9 NISMART-2 combined data from four sources — the National Household Survey of Adult
Caretakers, the National Household Survey of Children, Law Enforcement Study, and
Juvenile Facilities Study. Each sampled child was counted only once in the unified
estimate. See Heather Hammer, David Finkelhor, and Andrea J. Sedlak, National Estimates
of Missing Children: An Overview
, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention, October 2002, p. 5, available at [http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles
1/ojjdp/196465.pdf]. (Hereafter referenced Hammer, Finkelhor, and Sedlak, National
Estimates of Missing Children
.)
10 Some children reported in NISMART-2 were missing, but their caretakers may not have
(continued...)

CRS-6
NISMART-2 added to and combined some of the missing children categories
created in NISMART-1.11 “Missing benign” was added as a category to describe a
child who goes missing due to a miscommunication and is not in any danger. The
survey consolidated the runaway and thrownaway categories that had been separate
in NISMART-1. NISMART-2 researchers determined that the categorization of each
type of runaway or thrownaway episode frequently depended on whether information
was gathered from the children (who tended to emphasize the thrownaway aspects
of the episode) or their caretakers (who tended to emphasize the runaway aspects).12
Findings from NISMART-2. NISMART-2 combined the data across the five
categories to calculate a total number for both caretaker missing and reported missing
episodes. The survey found that 1,315,600 children were missing based on the
caretaker missing definition. In about 798,000 (61%) of these cases, parents reported
their child missing to the police or a missing children’s agency. Nearly all (99.8%)
caretaker missing children were recovered. Only 2,500 (0.2%)”caretaker missing”
children had not returned home or been located, and the majority of these children
were runaways from institutions.13
Figure 1 below summarizes the number of caretaker missing and reported
missing incidents within the five missing children categories: (1) non-family
abductions; (2) family abductions; (3) missing involuntary, lost, or injured; (4)
missing benign; and (5) runaway or thrownaway. Children who were missing under
multiple categories are included in every category that applies to them. About 36,500
(3%) children experienced more than one type of caretaker missing incident during
the year. Therefore, the total number of caretaker missing incidents combined across
episodes is 1,352,100. Approximately 28,600 (4%) children experienced more than
one type of reported missing incident during the year. Therefore, the total number
of reported missing incidents is 828,600.
Half of the caretaker missing children and 45% of the reported missing children
in NISMART-2 had run away or were forced to leave their homes.14 Children
missing due to benign reasons comprised the next largest share in both categories —
28% in the caretaker missing category and 43% in the reported missing category.
Family abductions made up 9% of the caretaker missing children population and 7%
of the reported missing children population. Finally, non-family abductions
comprised 3% of caretaker missing children and 2% of reported missing children.
10 (...continued)
been alarmed or contacted authorities; these children were identified as “non-missing.” See
Appendix A for a further discussion of non-missing children.
11 See Appendix A for a description of the NISMART-2 missing children categories.
12 Heather Hammer, David Finkelhor, and Andrea J. Sedlak, Runaway/Thrownaway
Children: National Estimates and Characteristics
, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, October 2002, p. 2, at [http://www.ncjrs.gov/
pdffiles1/ojjdp/196469.pdf].
13 Hammer, Finkelhor, and Sedlak, National Estimates of Missing Children, p. 6.
14 Hammer, Finkelhor, and Sedlak, National Estimates of Missing Children, p. 7.

CRS-7
Figure 1. Reported Missing and Caretaker Missing,
by Missing Category, 1999
Reported Missing
Caretaker Missing
1,352,100
828,600
1,400,000
n
re

1,200,000
ild
h

628,900
C
1,000,000
g
n

374,700 357,600
800,000
issi
198,300 340,500
f M
600,000
117,200
33,000
61,900
ts o
56,500
n
400,000
e
12,100
d
ci

200,000
In
0
s
ns
tion
d
tio
ay
s
ation
bduc
duc
r Injure
an
nAw
sode
ily A
ly Ab
ow
st, o
f Epi
Fam
Fami
y/Thr
y, Lo
gn Expl
es o
on-
ar
wa
N
una
l Typ
ing Beni
R
Al
ss
Mi
sing Involunt
is
M
Missing Category
Source: Congressional Research Service presentation of data provided in Table 3 in Heather
Hammer, David Finkelhor, and Andrea J. Sedlak, National Estimates of Missing Children:
An Overview
, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention, October 2002, p. 7.
Stereotypical kidnapping — in which a stranger or slight acquaintance detained
the child overnight, traveled at least 50 miles, and held the child for ransom or killed
the child — is a type of non-family abduction. Extensive media coverage about
stereotypical kidnapping cases, such as those involving Adam Walsh (1981), Polly
Klaas (1993), and Elizabeth Smart (2002), may contribute to the belief that these
missing children incidents are common. However, such cases are rare. With the
caveat that NISMART-2 data on stereotypical kidnappings are not entirely reliable
because estimates are based on too few sample cases, about 90 of the reported
missing non-family abduction victims in 1999 experienced a stereotypical kidnapping

CRS-8
(this information is not shown in Figure 1).15 Although non-family abductions
rarely result in more serious cases, children who are not recovered immediately in
such cases are at increased risk of becoming harmed. Studies show that the first
three hours after an abduction are the most crucial for the recovery of the child. Just
over 75% of abducted children who are murdered are dead within three hours of the
abduction.16
NISMART-2 shows that children missing in 1999 tended to be teenagers, male,
and white. About half (44% of caretaker missing and 45% of reported missing) of
missing children were between the ages of 15 and 17. The next largest share of
children (30% and 31%) were between the ages of 12 and 14 in both categories,
followed by children ages 6 to 11 (13% and 14%) and children 0 to 5 (11% and
12%). A disproportionate share — 57% of the caretaker missing children and 51%
of the reported missing children — were male. Though whites made up the greatest
proportion (54% and 57%) of missing children, they were underrepresented
compared to their share of the total U.S. population; black (16% and 19%) and
Hispanic (18% and 21%) children were overrepresented.
Incidents of Missing Children: Trends
Not all questions in the surveys used in NISMART-1 and NISMART-2 were
identical, and in some instances, the question format was changed for the second
study.17 For these reasons, report findings for each type of missing category cannot
be compared. However, data for certain types of categories are commensurate
between the two studies — children abducted by family members, runaways, and
children categorized as lost, injured, or missing for other reasons. Applying the
NISMART-1 definitions of “broad scope” and “policy focal” to data from both
surveys, researchers found that the incidence of missing children in the three
categories decreased between 1988 and 1999 for “broad scope” cases and remained
about the same for “policy focal” cases.18 (“Broad scope” classified a missing
incident the way affected families defined it, and included both serious and minor
episodes that might be more alarming to parents, and a “policy focal” definition
classified a missing incident from the point of view of the police or other missing
children agencies.)
15 David Finkelhor, Heather Hammer, and Andrea J. Sedlak, Non-family Abducted
Children: National Estimates and Characteristics
, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, October 2002, p. 6. Available online at
[http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/196467.pdf]. (Hereafter referenced Finkelhor,
Hammer, Sedlak, Non-Family Abducted Children.)
16 Katherine M. Brown et al. Case Management for Missing Children Homicide
Investigation
, Office of the Attorney General, State of Washington and U.S. Department of
Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, May 2006, p. 13, available
at [http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/documents/homicide_missing.pdf].
17 Heather Hammer et al., National Estimates of Missing Children: Selected Trends, 1989-
1999
, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,
October 2002.
18 Ibid, p. 2.

CRS-9
Defining Child Sexual Exploitation
As discussed above, child sexual exploitation refers to the use of a child for the
sexual gratification of an adult, and a child can be exploited regardless of whether he
or she goes missing.19 This definition reflects a continuum of exploitation ranging
from child sexual molestation to the production of child pornography and trafficking
of children for sexual purposes. Both Title 18 (Crimes and Criminal Procedure) and
Title 42 (Public Health and Welfare) of the U.S. Code address sexually exploitative
acts involving children. Federal offenses that are prosecutable under Title 18
include, but are not limited to, the following:
! Possession, production, and distribution of child pornography and
obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children;
! Transfer of obscene material to a child;
! Prostitution of children;
! Sex tourism involving children;
! Selling or buying of children for exploitation; and
! Providing a misleading Internet domain name.20
Title 42 provides two types of definitions related to child sexual exploitation.
First, 42 U.S.C. §5101, as enacted by the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act
(CAPTA, P.L. 93-247), provides the minimum standards of child abuse — including
child sexual abuse — that states must incorporate into their statutory definitions of
child abuse and neglect in order to be eligible to receive CAPTA funds.21 According
to CAPTA, the term “sexual abuse” includes “(1) the employment, use, persuasion,
inducement, enticement, or coercion of any child to engage in, or to assist any other
person to engage in, any sexually explicit conduct or simulation of such conduct for
the purpose of producing a visual depiction of such conduct; or (2) the rape, and in
cases of inter-familial relationships, statutory rape, molestation, prostitution, or other
form of sexual exploitation of children, or incest with children.” Guardians of
children under age 18 who are investigated for engaging in these acts or failing to
adequately protect their children from such acts may be penalized under state civil
and criminal procedures governing child abuse and neglect.
Second, specified crimes of sexual exploitation are defined under 42 U.S.C.
§16911, as enacted by the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act (P.L. 109-
19 Based on correspondence with Office of Justice Programs in May 2007. See also David
Finkelhor et al., A Sourcebook on Child Sexual Abuse (Beverly Hills: Sage Publications,
1984), pp. 22-27 and Richard J. Estes, The Sexual Exploitation of Children: A Working
Guide to the Empirical Literature
, August 2001, p. 6.
20 Appendix B includes a more complete list of federal statutes governing child pornography
and enticement crimes under Title 18.
21 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Child Welfare Information Gateway,
Definitions of Child Abuse and Neglect: Summary of State Laws, January 2005, available
at [http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/defineall.pdf].
(Hereafter referenced U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Definitions of Child
Abuse and Neglect
.)

CRS-10
248).22 The law modified federal guidelines for state programs that require
individuals convicted of crimes against children or sexually violent crimes to register
his or her address. Specified crimes of sexual exploitation requiring offender
registration include criminal sexual conduct against a minor; solicitation of a minor
to engage in sexual conduct; use of a minor in a sexual performance; solicitation of
a minor to practice prostitution; video voyeurism (such as watching a child on a web-
cam); possession, production, and distribution of child pornography; criminal sexual
conduct involving a minor or the use of the Internet to facilitate or attempt such
conduct; and any conduct that by its nature is a sex offense against a minor.
Incidents of Child Sexual Exploitation
NISMART-2 did not collect data on incidents of child sexual exploitation
except as they accompanied cases of non-family member abductions or precipitated
runaway or thrownaway events. The true number of sexual exploitation incidents —
whether they accompany missing children cases or not — is not known because the
abuse often goes undetected. Nonetheless, data collected by NCMEC provide some
evidence about the prevalence of sexual exploitation.23
Incidents Reported to the NCMEC CyberTipline. A measure of the
prevalence of child sexual exploitation is the number of verified incidents reported
to NCMEC’s CyberTipline. The CyberTipline began in March 1998 to serve 24
hours a day, seven days a week as the national clearinghouse for tips and leads about
child sexual exploitation.24 The tipline allows individuals and electronic
communication service providers (ESPs) to report incidents of (1) child pornography,
(2) child prostitution, (3) child sex tourism, (4) child sexual molestation (not in the
family), and (5) online enticement of children for sexual acts. The CyberTipline also
takes reports of misleading domain names and unsolicited obscene materials sent to
children, which are referred to the Department of Justice’s Child Exploitation and
Obscenity Section (CEOS) in the Criminal Division (see Appendix E for
information about CEOS).
From 1998 through 2006, the CyberTipline received 485,000 reports of sexual
exploitation, of which nearly 181,000 were confirmed. About 85% of the confirmed
22 This program was originally created under the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children
Act and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act at 42 U.S.C. §14701 (Title XVII of the
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, P.L. 103-322). For additional
information about the federal sexual offender program, see CRS Report RL32800, Sex
Offender Registration and Community Notification Law: Enforcement and Other Issues
, by
Garrine Laney.
23 Researchers have provided estimates of the number of children in the child welfare system
who were sexually exploited and the number of children at risk of sexual exploitation via
the Internet and commercial sexual exploitation (see Appendix A for information about
these studies).
24 The Center’s role as administrator of the CyberTipline was formalized by the 1998
Missing, Exploited, and Runaway Children Protection Act (P.L. 108-21).

CRS-11
acts involved child pornography.25 The number of substantiated reports has generally
increased each year, due likely to heightened public awareness about child
exploitation and better reporting by Internet providers. NCMEC staff attribute the
spike in substantiated reports from 2003 to 2004 to increased reporting by Yahoo
Inc., which had not consistently reported online incidents in previous years.
Description and Funding of the Missing
and Exploited Children’s Program
Overview
The Missing and Exploited Children’s (MEC) program is the centerpiece of
federal efforts to prevent the abduction and exploitation of children and to recover
those children who do go missing.26 The program was created by the Missing
Children’s Assistance Act of 1984 in response to increasing concern about the
abduction and sexual exploitation of children in the late 1970s and early 1980s.27 At
that time, many of the victims’ families and communities perceived that kidnappings
were becoming more commonplace. Prominent cases of missing children were
highly publicized and a docudrama, “Adam” depicted the story of abducted six-year-
old Adam Walsh, son of John and Revé Walsh.28
Testimony at congressional hearings about missing children further reinforced
the perception of a missing children’s problem. Witnesses testified that as many as
1.8 million children were missing. They also highlighted the accompanying sexual
exploitation that children often experienced during missing episodes. Senator Mitch
McConnell, then chairman of the Kentucky Task Force on Exploited and Missing
Children, said that the nexus between exploited and missing children was evident by
the fact that nearly 10% of 844 missing children in one Kentucky county were
sexually exploited.29 Hearings on the act also underscored the need for the federal
25 Approximately 4% of the reports received were through the Child Pornography Tipline,
operated by the NCMEC Call Center. This includes the 32,000 referrals sent from hotline
and law enforcement in 22 countries, primarily in Europe.
26 Other federal efforts around missing and exploited children focus on prosecution and
punishment, some of which are listed in Appendix B.
27 The Missing Children’s Assistance Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-292) was the first piece of
legislation related to missing children. The legislation added one new section to existing
law (at the time) that directed the Attorney General to keep records on missing children in
the National Crime Information Center’s (FBI) Missing Persons File and to disseminate
those records to state and local agencies. That law neither created new federal jurisdiction
over missing children’s programs nor required federal law enforcement officials to
coordinate missing children efforts.
28 Martin L. Forst and Martha-Elin Blomquist, Missing Children (New York: Lexington
Books, 1991), pp. 56-66.
29 Testimony of Mitch McConnell, in U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Judiciary,
Subcommittee on Juvenile Justice, Missing Children’s Assistance Act hearing, 98th
(continued...)

CRS-12
government to coordinate efforts to locate missing children and prosecute their
abductors. McConnell testified:
Communities such as mine and states such as Kentucky are attempting to do all
that they can to assist missing children and better protect all children from
exploitation and abuse. There is a point, however, beyond which we cannot go
and where our resources cannot reach. [A national missing children program]
picks up where our work leaves off and will go a long way toward plugging the
holes and gaps in the system.
The Missing Children’s Assistance Act was passed shortly thereafter to address
concerns about coordination by directing the Department of Justice’s Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) Administrator to lead federal
efforts to recover missing children through the MEC program. The legislation
established a national resource center and clearinghouse designed to provide
technical assistance to state and local governments and law enforcement agencies,
as well as disseminate information about the national incidence of missing children.
Further, the OJJDP Administrator was directed to establish a toll-free telephone line
to report information about missing children.
The Missing Children’s Assistance Act has been amended six times since 1984.
Major amendments include (1) requiring OJJDP to disseminate information about
free or low-cost legal, restaurant, lodging, and transportation to families of missing
children (P.L. 100-690); (2) formalizing NCMEC’s role as the nation’s clearinghouse
for missing and exploited children and authorizing separate funding levels for
NCMEC (P.L. 106-71); and (3) formalizing NCMEC’s role in overseeing activities
to track reports of online child sexual exploitation (P.L. 108-21). Appendix C
provides a description of the original Act and its amendments. Note that the act has
authorized OJJDP to establish grants and contracts for research and demonstration
projects, but OJJDP has not provided funding through the MEC program for this
purpose.30 NISMART-1 and NISMART-2 were funded through a separate account.
Administration and Funding. The Child Protection Division in the
Department of Justice’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
(under the Office of Justice Programs) oversees the Missing and Exploited Children’s
program, in conjunction with NCMEC, which has served as the national resource
center and clearinghouse since 1984.
The Missing and Exploited Children’s program was first funded at $4 million
in FY1985 and has steadily received funding increases in all subsequent years, except
FY1994 through FY1997. Funding more than doubled in FY1998, from $6 million
in FY1997 to $12.3 million in FY1998, due to the implementation of the Internet
Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Force program, which works to combat child
sexual exploitation via the Internet (see below for further discussion). Another
29 (...continued)
Congress, 2nd sess., February 7, 1984 (Washington: GPO, 1984).
30 Based on correspondence with U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,
May 2007.

CRS-13
funding peak, from FY2004 to FY2006, was the result of increased funds for
NCMEC. Figure 2 shows the funding levels for the program for selected years from
FY1985 to FY2007.
Figure 2. Funding for the Missing and Exploited Children’s Program,
Select Years from FY1985 to FY2007
Funding Level
($ in millions)
$47.4
$50
$46.3
$45
$40
$32.6
$35
$30
$23.0
$25
$17.2
$20
$15
$8.0 $8.5
$10
$6.7
$4.0 $4.0 $4.0
$6.0
$5
$0
1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007
Source: Congressional Research Service presentation of data provided by the U.S. Department of
Justice, Office of Justice Programs, May 2007.
Note: Funding is not adjusted for inflation.
Based on recent funding levels, major components of the program are NCMEC,
the ICAC Task Force program, Jimmy Ryce Law Enforcement Training Center
(housed in NCMEC), training and technical assistance for the AMBER Alert
program, and the MEC program office that administers the program in OJJDP’s
Child Protection Division. The most recent reauthorization of the Missing Children’s
Assistance Act, in 2003 (P.L. 104-235), authorized funding for NCEMEC at $20
million annually for FY2004 through FY2008 and such sums as necessary for other
components of the MEC for these same years. Table 1 shows the funding levels for
each of the components from FY2003 to FY2006. (OJJDP has not yet made
component-level data available for FY2007.)

CRS-14
Table 1: Missing and Exploited Children’s Program Funding
by Component, FY2003 to FY2007
($ in millions)
Program Component
FY2003
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
NCMEC (includes
$14.6
$14.8
$23.6
$23.7
$23.7
Cyber Tipline)
ICAC Task Force
12.4
12.4
13.3
14.3
Not
available
AMBER Alert Training and
2.5
4.0
4.9
4.9
Not
Technical Assistance
available
Jimmy Ryce Center (housed in
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
Not
NCMEC)
available
MEC Program Office
2.3
1.5
1.5
1.5
Not
available
MEC Program Total Funding
$34.8
$35.7
$46.3
$47.4
$47.4
Source: Congressional Research Service based on information provided by the U.S. Department of
Justice, Office of Justice Programs, May 2007.
FY2008 Budget Request. The Administration’s FY2008 budget does not
provide a certain sum of funding for the Missing and Exploited Children’s Program.
However, it suggests that the program, along with certain other programs
administered by OJP, will receive funding under a proposed “Child Safety and
Juvenile Justice Program.” According to the OJP budget justifications, the proposed
budget would consolidate grants now authorized under the Missing Children’s
Assistance Act, Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, Victims of Child
Abuse Act, and other acts into a “single flexible grant program,” and OJP would use
the funds to make “competitive discretionary grants to assist state and local
governments in addressing multiple child safety and juvenile justice needs.”31
The remainder of this report discusses the major components of the MEC
program (note that the Jimmy Ryce Law Enforcement Training Center, housed at
NCMEC, is included in the section on NCMEC), and potential reauthorization issues.
31 U.S. Department of Justice, FY2008 Performance Budget, Office of Justice Programs, pp.
65-71.

CRS-15
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children
NCMEC is a primary component of the Missing and Exploited Children’s
Program and employs over 300 employees at its Alexandria, Virginia headquarters
and regional offices in California, Florida, Kansas, New York, and South Carolina.
These regional offices provide case management and technical support in their
geographic areas. An Austin, Texas office is scheduled to open in summer 2007.32
NCMEC provides activities and services concerning (1) missing children,
including those abducted to or from the United States; (2) exploited children; (3)
training and technical assistance; (4) families of missing children; and (5)
partnerships with state clearinghouses, the private sector, and children’s
organizations. (Note that some missing children and exploited children programs are
not mutually exclusive and that this report does not provide an exhaustive discussion
of all services provided by NCMEC.) These activities and services are detailed
below.33
In addition to funding through the Missing and Exploited Children’s Program,
NCMEC is also funded through contributions34 and the U.S. Secret Service (USSS)
in the Department of Homeland Security. Pursuant to the Violent Crime and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-322), Congress has mandated that the USSS
provide forensic and technical assistance to NCMEC and federal, state, and local law
enforcement agencies in matters involving missing and exploited children. For
FY2007, Congress appropriated $6 million to the USSS for a grant for activities
related to investigations of missing children, which was subsequently granted to
NCMEC.
Missing Children’s Services

Call Center. NCMEC’s Call Center receives calls on its 24-hour, national and
international toll-free hotline (1-800-THE-LOST). Approximately 330 calls are
received each day primarily from parents and law enforcement officials.35 From
October 1984 to December 2006, the Center received 2,154,118 calls. Calls for
services involving missing-children cases (“case” labels are based on one or more
children and do not represent a single incident), leads or sightings of missing
children, requests for information and assistance, and (since 1987) reports of child
32 Online at [http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/NewsEventServlet?Language
Country=en_US&PageId=3128].
33 Unless otherwise noted, the description of these services is based a site visit to NCMEC
and interviews and correspondence with NCMEC staff from March 2007 to May 2007. A
primary source of data is National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, Quarterly
Progress Report, October to December 2006
.
34 In CY2006, NCMEC received $7.8 million in contributions, $2.7 million from special
events, $531,000 from interest income, and $180,000 from other sources. For further
information, see National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, NCMEC Annual
Report 2006
, available at [http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/publications/NC92.pdf].
35 The daily call information is based on data from April 2006 to December 2006.

CRS-16
exploitation through the Child Pornography Tipline, are routed to the Call Center.36
Call Center staff assist law enforcement and other professionals in cases of missing
and exploited children and transfer call data regarding runaway children to the
National Runaway Switchboard (1-800-RUNAWAY). Assistance activities range
from sending publications or educational materials to providing technical support to
law enforcement and families about missing children cases. The Call Center also
provides information to families of missing children about free or low-cost
transportation services or requests transportation for families needing assistance with
reunification. NCMEC partners with American Airlines, Continental Airlines,
Amtrak, and Greyhound to transport families.
NCMEC is the only non-profit, non-law enforcement entity to have access to the
FBI’s National Crime Information Center’s (NCIC) Missing Person File, which is
reviewed by Call Center staff for records of missing children reported by local and
state law enforcement agencies.37 The Crime Control Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-647)
requires law enforcement agencies that enter cases into the NCIC database to work
with NCMEC to receive information and technical support. Cases of children who
are believed to be seriously at risk are flagged in NCIC for NCMEC. NCMEC is
permitted to search the Missing Person File for adult missing person cases because
some missing children, upon reaching the age of majority, are reentered into NCIC
as missing adults.
Case Management. Each missing child case is entered into NCMEC’s
nationwide database, a central clearinghouse for law enforcement, and a case
manager in the Missing Children’s Division is assigned. NCMEC case managers
serve as the single point of contact for the searching family and provide technical
assistance to locate abductors and recover missing children.
From 1990 to 2006, case managers handled nearly 103,000 cases (i.e.,
individual children), of which approximately 99,000 were recovered (including
located deceased victims). Just under three quarters of the cases (74,000) involved
endangered runaways, followed by victims of family abduction (23,600). Figure 3
below summarizes the number of cases handled, cases resolved, and “media ready”
cases from 1990 to 2006. Cases are certified media ready if they meet particular
criteria, including that the case must have been processed through the Call Center and
a police report must have been made regarding the missing child, among other
36 Calls on the Child Pornography Tipline are taken on behalf of the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement; U.S. Postal Inspection
Service; Federal Bureau of Investigation; and U.S. Secret Service, and include victims of
pornography, prostitution, sex rings, and sex tourism. This reflects activity since June 1987.
37 NCIC data are reported by federal, state, and local law enforcement officials. As of
January 1, 2006, juveniles under age 18 accounted for nearly 80% of all missing person
cases. The FBI authorizes the National Central Bureau of Interpol to input missing-child
cases into the Missing Person File where no U.S. law enforcement agency jurisdiction exists
(42 U.S.C. §5780). For additional information about the NCIC, see U.S. Department of
Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), NCIC Missing Person File, available at
[http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/missingpersons.htm]. (Hereafter NCIC Missing Person File).


CRS-17
criteria. In 2005, an usually high number of missing children cases were handled due
to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
Figure 3. Missing Children Services Case Activity, 1990 to 2006
Source: Congressional Research Service based on graphic provided by the National Center
for Missing and Exploited Children, March 2007.
Project ALERT (America’s Law Enforcement Retiree Team). The
Project ALERT program was established in 1992 to assist law enforcement agencies
with the recovery of missing children at no cost to the agencies. Project ALERT
members include 134 retired federal, state, and local law enforcement officials who
have recent and relevant investigative experience and complete a 40-hour
certification course. From 1992 to 2006, Project ALERT representatives were
assigned over 2,000 cases. Project ALERT services include witness interviews,
surveillance, search and rescue coordination, and liaison efforts with the family of
a missing child. Representatives also conduct outreach to the community through
public speaking and attending conferences.
Team Adam. Team Adam, created in 2003, is a rapid, on-site response and
support system that provides no-cost investigative and technical assistance to local
law enforcement officers. The team is staffed by 64 retired federal, state, and local
investigators chosen by a committee with representatives from the FBI and state and
local law enforcement executives experienced in crimes-against-children
investigations. Team Adam consultants determine, through contact with the law
enforcement agency and the victim’s family, which additional resources or
assistance would be valuable with the search for the victim, the investigation of the
crime, and family crisis management. Team Adam assisted law enforcement 212
times in 42 states and aided the recovery of 218 children from 2003 through 2005.38
38 National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, NCMEC Annual Report 2005, p. 17.
(continued...)

CRS-18
Forensic Assistance Unit. The Forensic Assistance Unit is composed of
the Forensic Imaging Team, Cold Case Team, and Unidentified Human Remains
Team; this unit assists in the recovery of long-term missing children and works to
identify the remains of children and young adults believed to have gone missing.
Forensic Imaging Team. The Forensic Imaging Team was created in 1990
to age-progress images of missing children. The team’s technicians age-progress
photos of children through software programs using the most recent picture of the
child. The image is stretched to approximate normal cranial and facial growth, and
the stretched image is merged and blended with a photograph of an immediate
biological family member.39 The age-progressed image appears in clothing and a
hairstyle consistent with the child’s current age. Missing children photos are age-
progressed every two years and adult photos are age-progressed in five-year
increments. Age-progressed images are distributed to the local police, searching
families, media, and posted on the NCMEC website. Approximately 3,200 children
have been age-progressed since 1990, of whom 750 have been recovered.
Age-regressed images are also created by the forensic team. These images are
produced at the request of law enforcement agents posing as youth in online
communication with adults who seek to engage in sexual acts with children. Agents
in their twenties and thirties (usually) send their photograph to NCMEC, and they are
made to appear as adolescents. Finally, the age-progression unit creates facial and
skull reconstructions of missing children based on recovered remains. The team
works with an offsite forensic anthropologist who CAT-scans the remains. Based on
the digital depiction of the image and discussions with the anthropologist about the
child’s likely background (race, gender, age), the team creates a black-and-white
digital profile (so as to not provide exact eye/hair/skin tones) of the child. The
forensic team might also reference medical examiner records and newspaper
clippings from the area where the child was recovered. To date, 24 facial
reconstruction and seven skull reconstruction cases have been identified.
Cold Case Team and Unidentified Human Remains Team. Analysts
on these teams provide support and resources to the “cold” cases of long-term
missing children and cases of unidentified human remains of victims believed to be
children and young adults. They also assist law enforcement and medical
examiners/coroners in cases of child homicides and identification. Since the teams
were established in 2001, through 2006, analysts reviewed approximately 4,800 cases
and assisted in the recovery of nine living children and 320 deceased children. The
unit has responded to approximately 640 calls from medical examiners/coroners and
has resolved 605 long-term runaway cases. NCMEC has partnered with the
University of North Texas to offer parents and family members of missing children
an opportunity to have their DNA samples profiled and uploaded to the FBI’s
38 (...continued)
(Hereafter referenced National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, Annual Report
2005
].
39 National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, Forensic Imaging Activities, 2006.
This description of forensic imaging activities is from an internal document made available
to CRS in March 2007.

CRS-19
Combined DNA Index System (CODIS), where once a week, the DNA of the
missing child is scanned against the DNA profiles of unidentified persons. Family
participation exceeds 50%.
International Missing Children’s Cases40
Since 1995, NCMEC has worked — under a Cooperative Agreement with the
State Department and OJJDP — to handle incoming international abduction cases
under The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction
(the “Hague Convention”).41 Signatories to the Convention pledge to work toward
the prompt return of abducted children. Of the 192 formally recognized countries in
the world, however, 131 lack formal civil mechanisms in place with the U.S. to
facilitate the return of a parentally abducted child.42
NCMEC, through its International Missing Children’s Division, is responsible
for processing applications seeking the return of or access to children abducted to the
United States; however, NCMEC also coordinates cases of American children
abducted abroad.43 NCMEC is permitted to receive reports from the Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE) Agency of passengers and arrival and international
travel destination information as they pertain to missing children cases.44 As of
December 2006, the International Missing Children’s Division was handling 1,801
active international family abduction cases (i.e. individual children). Of the active
caseload, 56% are outgoing cases involving a child missing from the United States
and believed to be in a foreign country, and 44% are incoming cases involving a child
missing from a foreign country and believed to be in the United States. NCMEC
40 The International Centre for Missing and Exploited Children (“ICMEC”) is a sister
organization and is affiliated with NCMEC. ICMEC focuses on policy, advocacy, and
training, and does not perform case work. ICMEC advocates for adoption of treaties in
regards to children’s rights; engages international law enforcement officials, civil service
organizations, and government representatives; offers technical assistance in creating
missing children centers; and creates and distributes reports on international child abduction
and child sexual exploitation.
41 T.I.A.S. No. 111670. The Department of State is designated as the U.S. Central Authority
for the Hague Convention. NCMEC is permitted to serve as the representative of the State
Department pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §11608.
42 Based on correspondence with NCMEC in May 2007.
43 A civil lawsuit (Rodriguez v. NCMEC et al.) against NCMEC was filed concerning an
“incoming” case to the United States from Columbia. Due to the high costs of the lawsuit,
the NCMEC Board has voted that a change must be made before renewing the Cooperative
Agreement that would indemnify NCMEC for legal expenses arising from being sued for
carrying out that Cooperative Agreement. Arrangements have been made by NCMEC for
insurance coverage. The Prevention of Child Abduction Partnership Act (P.L. 108-370)
provides NCMEC with limited immunity for handling such Hague Convention cases under
the agreement (42 U.S.C. §1591d).
44 See U.S. Department of Treasury, Customs Service (now U.S. Department of Homeland
Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement), “Privacy Act of 1974, as Amended;
Privacy Records: Notice of Altered System of Records,” 64 Federal Register 14500, March
25, 1999.

CRS-20
collaborates with law enforcement to pursue criminal warrants via the International
Parental Kidnapping Crime Act (P.L. 103-173), which criminalizes removing a child
from the United States “with the intent to obstruct the lawful exercise of parental
rights.” (The term parental rights refers to the right to joint or sole physical custody
of a child obtained through a court order, a legally binding agreement between the
involved parties, or by operation of law.45)
NCMEC handles hundreds of prevention and abduction-in-progress matters
each year. NCMEC also coordinates the provision of pro-bono legal assistance to
victim families and provides technical support, including legal technical assistance
to parents, lawyers, court officers, law enforcement officials, and others on matters
relating to international abduction.
Exploited Children’s Services
Pursuant to the Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-
322), Congress mandated that the U.S. Secret Service (USSS) provide forensic and
technical assistance to NCMEC and federal, state, and local law enforcement
agencies in matters involving missing and exploited children. NCMEC’s Exploited
Children Unit (ECU) was established in January 1997 with a grant from USSS
received pursuant to P.L. 103-322.
The ECU administers the Child Victim ID Program (CVIP) and CyberTipline
(discussed below). The unit also analyzes data and forwards requests to appropriate
NCMEC divisions and departments and monitors online services, news reports, and
other sources each day for new cases and information relative to the issues of child
sexual exploitation. From 1997 through 2006, the unit archived approximately
222,000 articles, of which more than 6,400 pertained to reports of child sexual
exploitation; law enforcement was contacted in more than 9,600 cases as a result of
the reports found in the articles.
In addition to the ECU, a separate unit in NCMEC — the Sex Offender
Tracking Team within the Case Analysis & Support Division — works on exploited
children’s issues. The team tracks sexual offenders pursuant to the Adam Walsh
Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-248), discussed below.
The Child Victim Identification Program (CVIP). CVIP formally began
in 2002 in response to the decision in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002), in
which the Supreme Court held that federal laws prohibiting pornography are
enforceable when they involve identified children, and not images that appear to be
children.46 CVIP analysts assist law enforcement officers and prosecutors with child
pornography cases throughout the country using NCMEC’s Child Recognition and
45 For further information about the International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act and the
Hague Convention, see CRS Report RS21261, International Parental Abduction Cases, by
Alison M. Smith.
46 For further information about Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002), see CRS Report
95-406, Child Pornography: Constitutional Principles and Federal Statutes, by Henry
Cohen.

CRS-21
Identification System (CRIS), a catalog that stores information about identified and
unidentified sexually exploited children. Local and federal law enforcement agencies
may submit seized images to assist law enforcement agencies in the rescue of
children who are currently being abused. These images are reviewed by CVIP
analysts who then provide the submitting agencies with information about the
children. To date, CRIS has processed more than seven million images and movies,
and contains information about 1,055 child victims who have been identified by law
enforcement agencies around the world.
In April 2007, NCMEC made available the Victim Identification Lab to law
enforcement officers and prosecutors through a secure website to examine sanitized
images that contain clues about a child’s whereabouts. Authorized users can
examine the images and post comments and suggestions for both NCMEC and other
authorized users to read. Viable clues or suggestions are pursued by NCMEC in
collaboration with local and state law enforcement.
CyberTipline. As discussed above, the CyberTipline began in March 1998 to
serve 24 hours a day, seven days a week as the national clearinghouse for tips and
leads about child sexual exploitation.47 The tipline allows persons and electronic
communication service providers (ESPs) to report the enticement of children for
sexual acts, child sexual molestation not in the family, child pornography, sex
tourism of children, and child victims of prostitution. The CyberTipline also accepts
reports of misleading domain names and unsolicited materials sent to children, which
are then referred to the Department of Justice’s Child Exploitation and Obscenity
Section in the Criminal Division.
As of May 2007, the CyberTipline received 485,000 reports, about 90%
involving child pornography.48 All CyberTipline reports are accessible by the FBI,
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), U.S. Postal Inspection Service
(USPIS) and the DOJ Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section through a secure web
connection. The CyberTipline logs every report opened by each agency and each
agency has the ability to indicate if they plan to take further action on a particular
report.
Analysts from NCMEC’s Exploited Children’s Unit send verified reports to the
appropriate Internet Crimes Against Children Task Forces (see below), or when
appropriate, the local police agency. Federal law enforcement agents and analysts co-
located at NCMEC prepare and serve subpoenas based on leads from the
CyberTipine, and report leads are referred to field offices.49 The FBI uses
47 The Center’s role as administrator of the CyberTipline was formalized by the 1998
Missing, Exploited, and Runaway Children Protection Act (P.L. 108-21).
48 Approximately 4% of the reports received were through the Child Pornography Tipline,
operated through the Call Center. The CyberTipline received more than 32,000 referrals
from law enforcement and hotlines operated by non-governmental organizations in 22
countries, primarily in Europe, which are counted in the overall figures.
49 Federal law enforcement officials from four agencies (FBI - 2 Agents, 7 Analysts; US
Postal Inspector Service - 1 Inspector; U.S. Marshal Service - 1 Inspector; Immigration and
(continued...)

CRS-22
CyberTipline reports to gain leads for their Innocence Lost Project on domestic child
trafficking (see Appendix E for additional information about this initiative). All
CyberTipline reports are available in “real time” in an online database for authorized
users from federal law enforcement. These reports are also available via Virtual
Private Network (VPN) on cases specifically referred to the Internet Crimes Against
Children Task Forces. Reports may then be forwarded to the appropriate service
provider. From 1998 to 2006, ECU analysts also made more than 4,300 requests to
electronic communications service providers to remove illegal child pornography
content from their servers.
Electronic communication service providers are required to report all child
pornography to the CyberTipline for forwarding to designated law enforcement
agencies.50 Only 318 of the approximately 3,000 ESPs have voluntarily complied
with the law. Federal law and federal regulations are silent on whether or how
uniform resource locators (URLs) containing child pornography should be removed,
filtered, or blocked, and NCMEC assumes that these providers take necessary steps
to ensure that the URLs are not available to the public.
Sex Offender Tracking Team. The Adam Walsh Child Protection and
Safety Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-248) expanded the requirements for state law
enforcement and prison officials to track and register sex offenders. In partnership
with the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS), NCMEC’s Sex Offender Tracking Team,
in its Case Analysis and Support Division, serves as the central information and
analysis hub and assists in efforts to apprehend non-compliant registered sex
offenders. Analysts support the USMS, Federal Bureau of Investigation, state sex
offender registries, and other state and local law enforcement nationwide to assist in
identifying and locating non-compliant registered sex offenders.
As the Sex Offender Tracking Team develops, analysts will act as liaisons
between state registries in an effort to increase communication and better track sex
offenders moving between states, respond to requests to conduct searches to assist
law enforcement agencies and state registries in their investigations of non-compliant
and absconded sex offenders, and provide the law enforcement community with leads
to locate these offenders. In addition, analysts will compare NCMEC’s attempted
abduction data, online predator data, and child abduction data for potential linkages
with non-compliant sex offenders being sought by law enforcement, and to examine
trends and patterns. This information will be used to create more effective
prevention and response strategies in response to sex offenders.
49 (...continued)
Customs Enforcement Agency - 1 Agent; and the State Department - 1 Foreign Service
Officer) work full- or part-time at NCMEC investigating missing and exploited children
cases, as they pertain to their federal jurisdiction.
50 Electronic communication providers are required to report apparent child pornography to
the CyberTipline pursuant to P.L. 106-113 (Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2000).

CRS-23
Family Advocacy Services
NCMEC’s Family Advocacy Division provides support, crisis-intervention, and
technical assistance to families, law enforcement, and family-advocacy agencies.
The division has assisted with approximately 900 cases of missing children or
sexually exploited children since its creation in 2003, through 2006. Team HOPE
(Help Offering Parents Empowerment), a component of the division, consists of
trained volunteers who have experienced the disappearance of a child in their family.
These volunteers mentor other parents and families of missing children to help them
cope during and after a missing incident. Since Team HOPE was established in
1998, through 2006, it has assisted the families of missing victims in approximately
14,700 cases.
The Family Advocacy Division also collaborates with the 37 American and
Canadian missing children advocacy groups that collectively form the Association
of Missing and Exploited Children’s Organizations (AMECO), by providing
technical assistance (such as training sessions on working with law enforcement and
identifying the needs of victims) and hosting site visits to NCMEC. AMECO is
funded through discretionary MEC program funds.
Training and Technical Assistance
NCMEC trainers provide on- and off-site training and technical assistance to
law enforcement, criminal and juvenile justice professionals, and healthcare
professionals nationwide and in Canada. Training involves issues relating to child
sexual exploitation and missing-child case detection, identification of victims,
investigation, prevention, and forensic imaging. NCMEC provides nationally
accredited training about infant security for healthcare professionals (nursing and
security) in partnership with Mead-Johnson Nutritionals, a baby food company.
Since 1987, NCMEC has trained over 62,000 hospital personnel at 937 hospitals.51
Jimmy Ryce Law Enforcement Training Center. The Jimmy Ryce Law
Enforcement Training Center (housed at NCMEC since 1987 and later named for
nine-year-old Jimmy Ryce who was abducted and killed in Florida in 1995) was
created to provide training courses for law enforcement officials and prosecutors.
Course topics include assistance in creating local law enforcement strategies to
recover missing children and in protecting children online. From 1997 through 2006,
over 3,000 law enforcement executives, 3,100 unit commanders, 3,300 investigators,
and 1,600 prosecutors have been trained at the center in courses for chief executive
officers and protecting children online.
51 From 1983 to 2007, 248 infants were abducted from health care settings, their homes, or
other settings. National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, Newborn/Infant
Abductions
, available at [http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/documents/InfantAbduction
Stats.pdf].

CRS-24
Partnerships
Work with Federal Agencies. As discussed above, NCMEC works closely
with federal agencies, some of which have detailed agents and analysts to work at
NCMEC part-time or full-time. These analysts follow CyberTipline leads and work
with NCMEC to develop policy and procedures around children missing
internationally, among other activities.
Work with State Clearinghouses. Each state, the District of Columbia,
Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Canada have devoted resources to missing
and exploited children’s activities through clearinghouses located within law
enforcement agencies.52 These clearinghouses disseminate information and collect
data about missing individuals, provide technical assistance in cases of missing and
exploited children, and network with other clearinghouses. NCMEC provides the
clearinghouses with training, technical assistance, and information to assist them in
handling missing-children cases.
Public-Private Partnerships. NCMEC coordinates public and private
programs seeking to locate, recover, or reunite missing children with their legal
custodians; identify ways to expand and enhance current programs; and help promote
the development, advancement, and sponsorship of NCMEC programs. NCMEC
staff members create partnerships and maintain relationships with non-profit and
corporate partners to create a network for NCMEC programs.53
Background Screening Pilot Program. The PROTECT Act created a
pilot program to screen employees and volunteers at three children organizations:
Boys and Girls Clubs of America, the National Mentor Partnerships, and National
Council of Youth.54 The act tasked NCMEC with carrying out the screenings from
FY2003 to FY2004, and the act’s reauthorization (P.L. 109-162) extended the
program through FY2008. In FY2005, NCMEC screened 8,038 records processed
for two of the organizations (the third declined to participate), of which 161 (2%)
received a “red light,” meaning the applicant had a conviction for a criterion offense
(any felony or misdemeanor offense not included on the list of non-serious offenses
published periodically by the FBI), or the applicant was on a sex offender registry.55
Another 5% of applicants were rated a “yellow light,” meaning that they were
arrested for a criterion offense, but case results were not available.
NCMEC has not received appropriations for this pilot program through the
Missing and Exploited Children’s program. From 2003 to 2006, the cost of the
program was $1.5 million.
52 Louisiana houses its state clearinghouse within the Department of Social Services.
53 A list of community supporters and corporate sponsors is available online at
[http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/PageServlet?LanguageCountry=en_US
&PageId=2296].
54 42 U.S.C. §5119(a).
55 National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, 2005 Annual Report, p. 13.

CRS-25
Financial Coalition Against Child Pornography. In 2006, NCMEC and
the International Centre for Missing and Exploited Children joined with 29
international financial institutions and Internet industry leaders to combat commercial
online child pornography. The purpose of the coalition is to prevent the purchase and
sale of child pornography over the Internet and to engage in prevention efforts. More
than 1,600 reports of commercial child pornography were made (including those
made by FBI and ICE) to the CyberTipline from March 2006 to December 2006.
Community Outreach. NCMEC works with community partners to prevent
incidents of missing and exploited children. The “Hand in Hand with Children:
Guiding and Protecting” campaign is a statewide initiative to educate families about
keeping children safer. NCMEC’s External Affairs Division (EAD) staff work with
mayors and state officials to hold child safety events to stress the importance of child
protection measures. EAD is also responsible for other community outreach
activities. The division uses staff and volunteers from around the country to attend
school meetings and conferences about child safety. EAD manages the Campaign
Against Sexual Exploitation (CASE) to engage large urban communities in
protecting children from becoming victims of sexual exploitation.
NetSmartz Workshop is an online resource guide (www.NetSmartz.org) for
children ages 5 to 17, parents, law enforcement, and educators to keep children safer
online and empower children to make safer decisions about their Internet use. The
website includes English- and Spanish-language brochures on the program and
resources, such as Blog Beware, to alert children and their parents of the possible
dangers of social networking sites. NetSmartz staff members also train educators and
law enforcement about the resources available through NetSmartz.
Finally, the Minority Outreach Program provides information to minority
communities to make them aware that minority children are overrepresented among
the missing children population. The goals of the program are to educate families
about measures to help keep children safer from individuals who seek to harm
children, to help families respond in the event a child becomes missing, and to assist
families with recognizing symptoms in suspected cases of sexual exploitation.

CRS-26
Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Force
The Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Force program was created
in 1998 (Justice Appropriations Act, P.L. 105-119) to provide federal support for
state and local law enforcement agencies to combat online enticement of children and
the proliferation of pornography. The purpose of the program is develop multi-
agency and multi-jurisdictional task forces that include, but are not limited to,
representatives from federal, state, and local law enforcement, prosecution, victim
services, and child protective services.56
An ICAC task force is formed when a state or local law enforcement agency
enters into a grant contract with OJJDP, and then into a memorandum of
understanding with other federal, state, and local agencies. Currently, 46 regional
task forces have been created, with more than 1,000 affiliated organizations (most of
which are city and county law enforcement agencies).57 All but two states (Delaware
and Mississippi) and the District of Columbia have a regional task force or belong
to a task force in a neighboring state.58 Five states (California, Florida, Illinois,
Texas, and Virginia) have multiple task forces. The task forces receive leads from
CyberTipline analysts at NCMEC and concerned citizens or develop leads through
proactive investigations and undercover operations. In FY2005, ICAC task forces
received over 123,000 complaints, completed more than 6,000 forensic examinations,
and provided technical assistance on 6,143 cases handled by law enforcement
agencies not funded or affiliated with ICAC.59 That same year, nearly 70% of all
CyberTipline investigations were referred to ICACs.60 ICAC task forces are currently
assisting the Justice Department with implementing Project Safe Childhood, an
initiative to increase prosecution of child exploitation cases, in each U.S. Attorney’s
Office. (See discussion in Appendix E).
ICAC Task Force members receive training and technical assistance at courses
through Fox Valley Technical College (FVTC) of Appleton, Wisconsin. Since 1998,
FVTC, in partnership with NCMEC and OJJDP, has also trained law enforcement
officials, state and local government agencies, child protection staff, and others on
responding to missing and exploited children’s cases. (Funding for FVTC is
currently provided through the AMBER Alert Program’s Training and Technical
Assistance component, discussed below. Funding for this component was subject to
a competitive bidding process and the bid was awarded to FVTC.)
56 Michael Medaris and Cathy Girouard, Protecting Children in Cyberspace: The ICAC
Task Force Program
, U.S. Department of Justice, January 2002, p. 3. (Hereafter referenced
Medaris and Girouard, Protecting Our Children in Cyberspace.)
57 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 2008 Performance Budget, p. 70,
available at [http://www.usdoj.gov/jmd/2008justification/pdf/40_ojp.pdf].
58 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Project Safe Childhood, Appendix
D, available at [http://www.projectsafechildhood.gov/guide.htm]. (Hereafter referenced U.S.
Department of Justice, Project Safe Childhood.)
59 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 2007 Performance Budget, p. 216.
60 U.S. Department of Justice, Project Safe Childhood, p. 6.

CRS-27
AMBER Alert Program

AMBER (America’s Missing: Broadcast Emergency Response) Alert systems
are state administered. The Missing and Exploited Children’s Program supports
these programs by providing training and technical assistance to law enforcement
personnel and AMBER Alert administrators.61 AMBER systems are voluntary
partnerships — between law enforcement agencies, broadcasters, and transportation
agencies — to activate messages in a targeted area when a child is abducted and
believed to be in grave danger. The first system began locally in 1996 when fourth-
grader Amber Hagerman was abducted and murdered near her home in the Dallas-
Fort Worth area. After the abduction, law enforcement agencies in North Texas and
the Dallas-Fort Worth Association of Radio Managers developed a plan to send out
an emergency alert about a missing child to the public through the Emergency Alert
System (EAS), which interrupts broadcasting.62 Soon after, jurisdictions in Texas
and other states began to create regional alert programs.
Program Administration. The PROTECT Act (P.L. 108-21) authorized the
Attorney General to create a national AMBER Alert program to eliminate gaps
among state, local, and interstate AMBER Alert networks. The act provided that the
Attorney General appoint an AMBER Alert coordinator to (1) work with states to
encourage the development of additional regional and local AMBER Alert plans; (2)
serve as the regional coordinator of abducted children throughout the AMBER Alert
network; (3) create voluntary standards for the issuance of alerts, including minimum
standards that addressed the special needs of the child (such as health care needs) and
limit the alerts to a geographical area most likely to facilitate the abduction of the
child, without interfering with the current system of voluntary coordination between
local broadcasters and law enforcement; (4) submit a report to Congress by March
1, 2005, on the activities of the Coordinator and the effectiveness and status of the
AMBER plans of each state that has implemented such a plan; and (5) consult with
the FBI and cooperate with the Federal Communications Commission in
implementing the program.
In 2003, the DOJ AMBER Alert coordinator was appointed and convened a
national advisory group to oversee the national initiative and make recommendations
on the AMBER Alert criteria, examine new technologies, identify best practices, and
identify issues with implementation. On the basis of the group’s recommendations,
the Department issued guidelines for issuing an alert: law enforcement officials have
a reasonable belief that an abduction has occurred; law enforcement officials believe
that the child is in imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death; enough
descriptive information exists about the victim and the abductor for law enforcement
to issue an alert; the victim is age 17 or younger; and the child’s name and other
critical data elements have been entered into the National Crime Information Center
(NCIC) system. A new AMBER Alert “flag” was created within NCIC for abducted
children for whom an alert has been issued. The Department submitted a report to
61 42 U.S.C. §§5791-5791d.
62 For further discussion about the distribution of the alerts, see CRS Report RS21453,
AMBER Alert Program Technology, by Linda K. Moore.

CRS-28
Congress in July 2005 that provided an overview of its strategy to facilitate a national
AMBER Alert plan and the criteria developed to issue an alert.63
To date, all states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have developed
plans, in addition to 28 regional plans and 40 local plans.64
Funding. The DOJ’s Office of Justice Programs first provided funding for
local and state AMBER Alert programs in 2002, with $10 million in discretionary
funding. Authority to federally fund these programs, through the Departments of
Justice and Transportation, was formalized under the PROTECT Act (P.L. 108-21).
The Department of Justice is authorized to provide grants to states, on as
geographically equitable basis as possible, to develop and enhance their AMBER
Alert communications plans. In FY2004, $4 million was appropriated for this
purpose. However, the grant program was not implemented and the decision was
made that funds were most efficiently spent delivering consistent, comprehensive
training and technical assistance for the AMBER Alert program.65 Since FY2004,
the AMBER Alert program has received between $2.5 million and $5 million each
fiscal year for training and technical assistance (see below for information about
training and technical assistance services).
The PROTECT Act also authorized (and Congress subsequently appropriated)
$20 million through the Department of Transportation (DOT) for states to develop
and enhance communications systems along highways for alerts and other
information for the recovery of abducted children. States are eligible to receive
funding (up to $400,000 each, from the one-time appropriation of $20 million) — to
be used for the implementation of a communications program that employs
changeable message signs or other motorist information systems — if DOT
determines that the state has already developed the program.66 To date, 35 states
63 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Report to the Congress on
AMBER Alert
, July 2005, p. 7, available at [http://www.AMBERalert.gov/docs/AMBERCo-
ngress_Report.pdf]. (Hereafter referenced U.S. Department of Justice, Report to Congress
on AMBER Alert
).
64 Based on information provided by NCMEC, April 2007. A compilation of state laws
authorizing state, regional, and local AMBER Alert systems are available at
[http://www.AMBER-net.org/AMBERstatutes.htm].
65 Based on correspondence with the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs
in May 2007.
66 Pursuant to the PROTECT Act, states are eligible to receive two types of DOT grants.
Development grants to be used to develop general policies, procedures, training, and
communication systems for changeable message signs or other motorist information about
an abduction. Implementation grants are to be used to support the infrastructure of the
program. Funding authorized under the PROTECT Act was used exclusively for the
implementation of communication systems to issue AMBER alerts. However, states are
eligible to apply for grants up to $125,000 each, through a separate DOT appropriation for
the Intelligent Transportation Systems program, to support state departments of
transportation efforts related to AMBER Alert planning. These funds are available until
expended. This information was provided to CRS in May 2007 by DOT, Federal Highway
(continued...)

CRS-29
have received funding. The federal share of the cost of these activities is not to
exceed 80%, and federal funds are available until expended.67
AMBER Alert Training and Technical Assistance. Every five years
OJJDP issues a competitive solicitation seeking bids to provide technical training for
law enforcement around techniques to recover missing and exploited children.
Funding for this bid was last awarded in 2005, through AMBER Alert program
funding. Fox Valley Technical College was awarded the bid and provides training
and technical assistance for seven courses:
! Child Abduction Response Team (CART): The Child Abduction
Response Team (CART) training program was established to
provide additional support in recovering missing and abducted
children. CART deployments can be used for all missing children
abduction cases, including those that meet the AMBER Alert
criteria. They can also be used for other missing children cases, such
as to recover runaway children who are believed to be in danger.
! Basic Forensic Response to Missing and Abducted Children: This
training is designed to enhance the forensic skills of law
enforcement professionals involved in missing and abducted
children cases. Topics covered include evidence security, crime
scene identification, and electronic evidence, among others.
! Investigative Strategies for Missing and Abducted Children
(ISMAC): ISMAC training is designed for experienced investigative
professionals. Course topics involve human trafficking, resource
sharing, cold cases, and computer forensics.
! Leadership for Missing and Abducted Children: This course
provides training for law enforcement managers and executives who
are capable of making policy-level decisions that affect
administration and implementation of AMBER Alert plans.
! AMBER and the Media: Media training is designed to assist law
enforcement’s work with the media during missing or abducted
children’s cases.
! Prosecutors’ Strategies: This course is intended for local, state, and
federal prosecutors who handle child abduction cases.
! AMBER Alert Scenario-Based Training at Newsplex: Newsplex is
a state-of-the art scenario-based training that gives participants
66 (...continued)
Administration staff.
67 This information was provided to CRS in May 2007 by DOT, Federal Highway
Administration staff.

CRS-30
unique hands-on experience dealing with evolving incidents or
unusual events, such as AMBER Alerts.
NCMEC’s Role in AMBER Alert Program. At the request of the
Department of Justice, NCMEC serves as the national clearinghouse for AMBER
Alert information and employs a full-time AMBER Alert law enforcement liaison.
NCMEC verifies AMBER Alerts and disseminates information about an abduction
to authorized secondary distributors that can target messages to their customers in a
specific geographic region. (Only law enforcement can initiate and release AMBER
Alerts for primary distribution.) In May 2005, DOJ and NCMEC partnered with
CTIA-The Wireless Association to encourage customers to sign up to receive
wireless AMBER Alerts on their cell phones.68
Issues
Appropriations for the MEC program are scheduled to expire at the end of
FY2008.69 On May 24, 2007, Representative Lampson introduced Protecting Our
Children First Act of 2007 (H.R. 2517) to reauthorize the Missing and Exploited
Children’s Program through FY2013.70 If passed, the bill would codify many of the
activities and services already provided through NCMEC. (In past reauthorizations
of the program, it has been common to formalize many of NCMEC’s recently-
implemented activities and services in legislation.) The legislation would increase
NCMEC’s annual authorized appropriation from $20 million to $50 million and
would authorize such sums as necessary for the program overall.
Issues that may be relevant to any reauthorization hearings include a Department
of Justice proposal to consolidate the program with juvenile justice programs under
a discretionary block grant; the creation of the National Emergency Child Missing
Locator Center at NCMEC that will provide assistance to jurisdictions experiencing
disasters; and the potential need for more comprehensive data on missing and
sexually exploited children. Related issues include children missing from foster care
and missing adults.
Proposed Block Grant
The Administration’s FY2008 proposal to create a block grant for the Missing
and Exploited Children’s Program and other juvenile justice programs does not
provide a specific funding request for the MEC program. According to the OJP
budget justifications, the proposed budget would consolidate grants now authorized
under the Missing Children’s Assistance Act, Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
68 U.S. Department of Justice, Report to Congress on AMBER Alert, p. 7.
69 Note that the MEC program has previously been reauthorized with the Runaway and
Homeless Youth program.
70 In addition to the MEC program reauthorization legislation, three other bills (H.R. 2518,
H.R. 876, and H.R. 271) have been introduced in the 110th Congress concerning missing and
exploited children.

CRS-31
Prevention Act, Victims of Child Abuse Act, and other acts into a “single flexible
grant program,” and OJP would use the funds to make “competitive discretionary
grants to assist state and local governments in addressing multiple child safety and
juvenile justice needs.”71 Advocates have raised concerns that a block grant could
reduce federal leadership and oversight over the programs, as well as decrease in
appropriations in the future.72 Advocates also question whether child exploitation
activities and juvenile justice programs should be combined into a single funding
stream given their distinct missions.73
National Emergency Child Locator Center
During the evacuations of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005, thousands of
children were separated from their parents and sent to different emergency shelters.
NCMEC was asked by the DOJ to lead federal and local efforts to recover missing
children. As part of its response, NCMEC created a special Katrina/Rita hotline and
mobilized Team Adam personnel to locate and reunite all missing and dislocated
children (over 5,000) with their families.74 Recognizing the need for formalized
coordination efforts in disasters or emergencies, Congress passed legislation (P.L.
109-295) requiring the Department of Homeland Security/Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) to establish the National Emergency Child Locator
Center (NECLC) within NCMEC. The law also required that the FEMA
Administrator establish procedures so that all relevant information about displaced
children will be made immediately available to NCMEC.
In early calendar year 2007, NCMEC developed a Disaster Response Plan
(DRP) describing how NCMEC intends to respond to disasters through the NECLC.75
The plan details the response to a continuum of disaster types.76 For example,
NCMEC would operate its hotline 24 hours a day, seven days a week to respond to
questions from law enforcement and other emergency officials for a Level 1 disaster
(a local man-made or natural disaster, such as a fire). A Level 4 disaster (a
catastrophic event declared by the President, such as Hurricane Katrina) would
warrant NCMEC deploying 60 Team Adam staff in the field to shelters established
in a multi-state region. NCMEC has submitted a preliminary estimate to
DHS/FEMA for the cost of expanding its operations in the event of a disaster or if
71 U.S. Department of Justice, FY2008 Performance Budget, Office of Justice Programs, pp.
65-71.
72 John Kelly, “Are Justice Funds Up for Grabs? Bush Plan to Overhaul OJJDP Grants
Draws Ire.” Youth Today, March 2007, p. 1.
73 Ibid.
74 National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, Annual Report 2005, pp. 5-7.
75 NCMEC and DHS/FEMA have not yet entered into an interagency agreement formally
establishing the NECLC. NCMEC has entered into an agreement with DHS/FEMA, DOJ,
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and the Red Cross to provide missing adult
referrals to and support the activities of the National Emergency Family Registry and
Locator System (NEFRLS), created under P.L. 109-295. NEFRLS will be operated by
DHS/FEMA to help reunify families separated after a disaster.
76 Based on correspondence with NCMEC in April 2007.

CRS-32
its main office in Alexandria becomes inoperable due to a local or regional disaster.
The cost estimate seeks funding for deployed staff, long-term technological
infrastructure (such as outsourcing calls during peak periods), and expanding
operations at its field offices in California and Florida to serve as backup call centers
and support staff during disasters. NCMEC estimates that $4.2 million is needed for
start-up costs and $1.2 million is needed for ongoing costs.77
H.R. 2517 would allow MEC funds to be used to operate the NECLC.
Child Welfare Disaster Planning. The NECLC does not appear to address
children missing from foster care due to a disaster, though the federal government
has recently issued guidelines regarding how state child welfare systems should
respond to disasters.
During the Gulf Coast hurricanes, thousands of children in foster care were
forced to evacuate their homes. Almost 2,000 of Louisiana’s 5,000 foster children
were displaced by the hurricanes, and nearly one out of five displaced foster children
left the state.78 The state’s child welfare system had difficulty tracking the children
during and after the hurricanes. Foster parents knew to call the child welfare agency,
but social workers’ phones were not operational for weeks following Hurricane
Katrina. Louisiana officials experienced difficulty contacting the children because
case information was not in a central database and more than 300 current records
were destroyed. At the time, there were no federal requirements to develop child
welfare disaster plans, and only 20 states and D.C. had a written plan (Louisiana and
Mississippi were among the states that lacked a plan).79 Of those plans, 19 addressed
preserving child welfare records, 13 addressed identifying children who might be
dispersed, and 10 addressed coordination with other states.
In August 2006, Congress passed P.L. 109-288 to amend the Child Welfare
Services program (Title IV-B, Subpart 1 of the Social Security Act), requiring that
states develop procedures, no later than September 29, 2007, to respond to and
maintain child welfare services in the wake of a disaster. The act specified that HHS
establish criteria for how state child welfare systems would respond. These criteria
include (1) identify, locate, and continue services for children under the care or
supervision of the state and who are displaced or adversely affected by the disaster;
(2) respond appropriately to new child welfare cases in areas adversely affected by
a disaster and provide services in those cases; (3) remain in communication with
caseworkers and other essential child welfare personnel displaced because of a
disaster; (4) preserve essential program records; and (5) coordinate services and share
77 Based on correspondence with NCMEC in May 2007.
78 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Lessons Learned for Protecting and Educating
Children after the Gulf Coast Hurricanes
, GAO-06-680R, May 2006, p. 3.
79 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Child Welfare: Federal Action Needed to Ensure
States Have Plans to Safeguard Children in the Child Welfare System Displaced by
Disasters
, GAO-06-944, July 2006, p. 2.

CRS-33
information with other states.80 In February 2007, HHS issued guidelines requiring
states to submit, in their child welfare plan,81 procedures describing how the state
would respond to a disaster based on the five criteria above, before the end of
FY2007.82 HHS has also updated its 1995 guide to assist child welfare agencies
develop disaster relief plans.83
Data Collection on Missing and Exploited Children
OJJDP has funded two data collection waves since the Missing Children’s
Assistance Act passed in 1984. The most recent wave, NISMART-2, conducted in
1999 (discussed above), lacks statistics about the number of exploited children,
except in the case of non-family abductions and runaways (however, the survey did
not distinguish between the share of children who ran away because of sexual abuse
from those who experienced physical abuse, and it did not report the share of children
who experienced both forms of abuse). Further, due to the limited number of non-
family abductions each year, the estimates of caretaker missing and reported missing
cases are imprecise.84 Limited data for all types of missing episodes also precluded
NISMART-2 from drawing conclusions about episode types by region.
In response to NISMART-2’s limitations, OJJDP has tasked NCMEC with
developing an approach to counting missing and exploited children that provides
more detailed and current region-specific data.85 NCMEC is studying the feasibility
of such an approach and is scheduled to convene an advisory panel — composed of
representatives from the National Institute of Justice, the Bureau of Justice Statistics,
the Census Bureau, and the FBI — to develop a plan for collecting and analyzing the
data. NCMEC intends to ultimately create a planning and research unit within the
organization to routinely collect and conduct analyses of missing and exploited
children data drawn from six sources:
80 42 U.S.C. §622(b)(16).
81 To receive federal funding, state child welfare agencies must submit annually its
procedures for carrying out the federal Child Welfare Services program.
82 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and
Families, Children’s Bureau, Annual Progress and Services Report, February 28, 2007,
available online at [http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/laws_policies/policy/pi/2007/
pi0705.pdf].
83 Mary O’Brien, Sarah Webster, and Angela Herrick, Coping with Disasters and
Strengthening Systems: A Framework for Child Welfare Agencies,
University of Southern
Maine, Edmund S. Muskie School of Public Service, February 2007, available online at
[http://muskie.usm.maine.edu/helpkids/rcpdfs/copingwithdisasters.pdf].
84 Finkelhor, Hammer, Sedlak, Non-Family Abducted Children, p. 7. See discussion of
NISMART earlier in this report for explanation of “caretaker missing” and “reported
missing” cases.
85 Based on correspondence with NCMEC in April 2007.

CRS-34
! National Victimization Survey (Census Bureau);86
! National Incident Based Reporting System, NIBRS (FBI);
! National Crime Information Center (FBI);
! CyberTipline (NCMEC);
! NCMEC case reports; and
! data from research conducted by other organizations relevant to the
project.
H.R. 2517 would require MEC funds to be used for NCMEC to report the actual
number of children nationwide who are reported missing each year and
characteristics about missing episodes. However, the bill does not specify whether
data would be collected on the number of children who are sexually exploited.
Children Missing From Foster Care
The Missing Children’s Assistance Act does not include provisions for children
missing from foster care; however, media attention to the case of Rilya Wilson, a six-
year-old foster child missing from the Florida child welfare system and presumed
to have been murdered, has raised concerns about Florida and other states’87 ability
to track children in the foster care system and ensure their safety while under the
custody of the child welfare agency.
A child is considered missing from foster care if s/he is not in the physical
custody of the child welfare agency or the institution or person with whom the child
has been placed, due to (1) the child leaving voluntarily without permission (i.e.,
runaways); (2) the family or non-family member removing the child, either
voluntarily or involuntarily, without permission (i.e., abductions); or (3) a lack of
oversight by the child welfare agency.88 The majority of children known to be
missing from foster care are runaways. According to the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, on the last day of FY2005, approximately 11,000 (2%) of the
513,000 children in foster care had run away, and another 4,400 had exited the
system as runaways.89 However, these figures do not convey the total number of
86 NCMEC plans to contract with the Census Bureau for a study focused exclusively on
victimization of missing and exploited children.
87 Megan O’Matz and Sally Krestin, “States Share DCF’s Woes; Caseworkers Elsewhere
Often Unable to Find Missing Children,” Sun-Sentinel, September 15, 2002, p. 1A.
88 Caren Kaplan, Children Missing from Care, Child Welfare League of America, 2004,
available at [http://www.cwla.org/programs/fostercare/childmiss.htm]. (Hereafter referenced
Kaplan, Children Missing from Care.)
89 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and
Families, The AFCARS Report, September 2005, at [http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/
cb/stats_research/index.htm#afcars]. For additional information about the runaway children
population, see CRS Report RL33785, Runaway and Homeless Youth: Demographics,
Programs, and Emerging Issues
, by Adrienne Fernandes.

CRS-35
children who go missing.90 Kids can go missing for a variety of reasons, including
abduction or benign circumstances, such as misunderstandings about a schedule.
No federal laws specifically address the issue of children missing from foster
care. However, Titles IV-B and IV-E of the Social Security Act require state child
welfare agencies to monitor and provide for the safety and well-being of children in
out-of-home foster care.91 Under Section 471 (Title IV-E), states are eligible for
federal foster care maintenance payments if, among other requirements, they develop
a case plan (as defined under Section 475, which also applies to Title IV-B) for each
child that details the type of home or institution in which the child is placed. The
case plan must discuss the safety and appropriateness of the placement and a plan for
assuring that the child receives safe and proper care.
States must also develop a system (as defined under Section 475) to review, no
less than every six months, the status of the child’s case plan. Also, under Section
471, states must check child abuse and neglect registries (including federal crime
databases) for criminal information about prospective and current foster parents.
Finally, under Section 424 (Title IV-B), states must ensure that children in foster care
are visited by their caseworkers on a monthly basis and that the majority of the visits
occur in the child’s residence. Section 424 sets forth a penalty structure for violating
these and other requirements.
In response to the Rilya Wilson case, the Child Welfare League (CWLA), a
child advocacy organization, in partnership with NCMEC, created the Children
Missing from Care Project in 2004. Drawing on the expertise of policymakers, child
welfare advocates, and law enforcement officials, the CWLA and NCMEC
developed best practices guidelines around missing foster children.92 The guidelines
provide a framework for collaboration between the law enforcement agency and the
child welfare agency. They recommend that the two share a uniform definition of
missing children (based on the three criteria outlined above) and a clear delineation
of shared and distinct roles. Child welfare agencies and law enforcement officials
are encouraged to receive cross-training and to create an integrated local information
system about children.
90 Some states and counties have calculated the number of missing foster children under
their care, based on jurisdiction-specific definitions. After the Rilya Wilson incident,
Florida determined that 393 children were missing from care, of whom 339 (86.3%) had run
away and 31 (7.9%) were parentally abducted. A small share (4.8%) of children were
endangered, meaning that they were missing under circumstances that put them in physical
danger, such as a predatory abduction or kidnapping.
91 Titles IV-B and IV-E and related sections of the Social Security Act are compiled at
[http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/laws_policies/cblaws/safe2003.htm]. See also 42
U.S.C. §§620-629i, 670-679b.
92 Child Welfare League of America, CWLA Best Practice Guidelines: Children Missing
From Care
, 2005 and National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, Children
Missing From Care: The Law enforcement Response
, 2005. The NCMEC publication is
available at [http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/ResourceServlet?Language
Country=en_US&PageId=2234].

CRS-36
The guidelines provide guidance to child welfare agencies to prevent missing-
from-care episodes, including quality supervision; training stakeholders about risk
factors for running away; and frequent contacts between case workers and children,
caregivers, and birth families. To respond effectively to missing episodes, the
guidelines recommend that child welfare agencies provide accurate and up-to-date
records with information about the child and a management information system to
track information related to missing episodes.
Missing Adults
Approximately 20% of the cases reported annually to the NCIC’s Missing
Person File includes individuals age 18 and older.93 NCMEC provides services for
missing young adults ages 18 to 20, pursuant to Suzanne’s Law, which was passed
as part of the PROTECT Act.94 This law changed the age limit of children from age
17 to age 20 who must be entered into the NCIC. (No corresponding amendments
to the Missing Children’s Assistance Act, which specifies missing children services
for children under age 18, have been made to reflect that NCMEC is authorized to
accept cases of missing children ages 18 to 20.) NCMEC processes young adult
cases differently than cases for missing children. NCMEC will accept a young adult
case only if it is reported by a law enforcement officer (and not by parents, spouses,
partners, or others) because NCMEC relies on the officer to verify that the young
adult is missing due to foul play or other reasons that would cause concern about the
individual’s whereabouts (e.g., diminished mental capacity). Once children reach the
age of majority, they may have legitimate reasons for becoming missing, such as
seeking protection from a domestic abuser.
Some states maintain databases of missing adults (age 18 and older) and assist
local law enforcement with missing adult cases, and federal law authorizes funding
for missing adult activities. In 2000, Congress passed Kristen’s Act (P.L. 106-468),95
named for 19-year-old Kristen Modafferi, missing since 1997. The legislation
authorized $1 million in funding from FY2001 to FY2004 and permitted the Attorney
General to make grants to assist law enforcement agencies in locating missing adults;
maintain a database for tracking adults believed by law enforcement to be endangered
due to age, diminished mental capacity, and possible foul play; maintain statistical
information on missing adults; provide resources and referrals to the families of
missing adults; and establish and maintain a national clearinghouse for missing
adults. The National Center for Missing Adults (NCMA), a non-profit organization
in Phoenix, Arizona, received funding under P.L. 106-468. The organization
maintains a database of missing adults believed to be endangered and coordinates
missing adult activities among law enforcement agencies, families, and the media.96
93 NCIC Missing Person File.
94 Suzanne’s Law was passed as part of the PROTECT Act (P.L. 108-21). It raised the age
of missing children reported to the FBI’s National Crime Information Center from age 17
to age 20. 42 U.S.C. §5779(a).
95 42 U.S.C. §14665.
96 For additional information, see [http://www.theyaremissed.org/NCMA/index.php].

CRS-37
Despite the passage of Kristen’s Act, there does not appear to be a national
strategy to recover missing adults. Creating such a strategy might be limited by the
legal right for adults to go missing, such as to escape a domestic spouse or partner,
and the potential difficulty of verifying that an adult is missing for such a reason.
NCMA has reported that it may be forced to close due to financial constraints of
serving families of adults who went missing during Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.97
Legislation to reauthorize Kristen’s Law in 2005 (H.R. 2103) was not reported out
of committee. Pending legislation (H.R. 423) would provide $4 million in annual
funding from FY2008 to FY2018 for grants to locate missing adults.
97 Ibid.


CRS-38
Appendix A: Demographics of Missing
and Exploited Children
This appendix provides additional information about demographics of missing
and exploited children, including definitions of missing children, characteristics of
missing children episodes, the number of children sexually abused or at risk of sexual
exploitation, and the effects of missing and exploitation incidents on victims and
their families.
Definitions of Missing Children
NISMART-2 classified missing children under five categories. Figure A-1 defines
these five categories.
Figure A-1: Categories of Missing Children
Source: Congressional Research Service presentation of definitions in Heather Hammer,
David Finkelhor, and Andrea J. Sedlak, National Estimates of Missing Children: An
Overview
, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention, October 2002, p. 4.

CRS-39
Incidents of Missing and Non-Missing Children
Some children in NISMART-2 were not counted as missing (i.e., “non-missing”
children) because their short-term or long-term missing incident failed to alarm their
caretakers and/or prompt their caretakers to report them as missing. Such cases
included runaway or thrownaway children who went to the home of a relative or
friend, causing their caretakers little or no concern; children held by family members
in known locations, such as the home of an ex-spouse; and children abducted by non-
family but released before anyone noticed their absence. Table A-1 includes a
combined total number of missing and non-missing children within each category.
Note that estimates of non-missing children cannot be totaled across categories.
Table A-1: Missing and Non-Missing Children
Missing Category
Missing
Non-Missing
Total
Non-family abduction
33,000
25,200
58,200
Family abduction
117,200
86,700
203,900
Runaway/thrownaway
628,900
1,054,000
1,682,900
Missing involuntarily,
198,300
0
198,300
lost, or injureda
Missing benign
374,700
0
374,700
explanationa
Total
1,352,100
Source: Congressional Research Service presentation of data in Table 7 in Heather Hammer, David
Finkelhor, and Andrea J. Sedlak, National Estimates of Missing Children: An Overview, U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, October 2002, p. 10.
a. By definition, all children with these episodes are known to be missing.

CRS-40
Characteristics of Missing Children
Runaway and Thrownaway Children. The majority of runaway and
thrownaway children in the NISMART-2 study were between the ages of 15 and 17
(68% of all cases), followed by children ages 12 and 14.98 An equal number of boys
and girls experienced runaway or thrownaway incidents. White children made up the
largest share of runaways (57%), followed by black children (17%) and Hispanic
children (15%). Over half of all children left home for one to six days, and 30%
traveled approximately one to 10 miles. An additional 30% traveled 10 to 50 miles.
Nearly all (99%) runaway and thrownaway children were returned to their homes.
Based on 17 indicators of harm or potential risk measured in NISMART-2, 71% of
the surveyed children were placed at risk for harm when they were away from
home.99 The survey found that 17% of runaway children used hard drugs and 18%
were in the company of someone known to be abusing drugs when they were away
from home. Other risk factors included spending time in a place where criminal
activity was known to occur (12%), involvement with a violent person (7%), and
physical assault by another person (4%).
In other studies of runaways and thrownaways, children most often cite family
conflict as the major reason for leaving home or being forced to leave home.100 A
child’s relationship with a step-parent, sexual activity, sexual orientation, pregnancy,
school problems, and alcohol and drug use are strong predictors of family discord.
Over 20% of children in NISMART-2 reported being physically or sexually abused
at home in the prior year or feared abuse upon returning home.
Children Missing Involuntarily or for Benign Reasons. Children can
become missing involuntarily as a result of being lost or sustaining an injury that
prevents them from returning home or to their caretaker, such as a broken leg or a fall
that renders them unconscious. Benign circumstances such as miscommunication
among family members can also cause a child to be considered missing by their
caretakers. NISMART-2 found that most children missing involuntarily or for
benign reasons were white, male, and older. They disappeared most frequently in
wooded areas or parks and were most often gone for one hour to six hours (77% of
all cases). In most cases, their caretakers knew they were missing because they
disappeared from their supervision (39%) or failed to return home (29%).
Non-family Abductions. The experiences of children abducted by strangers,
slight acquaintances, or others (i.e., friends, babysitters) often involved detention in
an isolated place through the use of physical force or threat of bodily harm. More
serious abduction cases — known as stereotypical kidnappings — may also include
98 Hammer, Finkelhor, and Sedlak, Runaway/Thrownaway Children.
99 Jan Moore, Unaccompanied and Homeless Children Review of Literature (1995-2005),
National Center for Homeless Education, 2005, p. 6, at [http://www.cde.state.co.us/
cdeprevention/download/pdf/Homeless%20Children%20Review%20of%20Literature.pdf].
100 For additional information, see CRS Report RL33785, Runaway and Homeless Youth:
Demographics, Programs, and Emerging Issues
, by Adrienne Fernandes.

CRS-41
detaining the child overnight and transporting him/her outside of his/her community,
with the intent to keep the child permanently or kill the child. Extensive media
coverage about stereotypical kidnapping cases may contribute to the belief that these
missing children incidents are common. However, such cases are rare; about 115 (90
of whom were caretaker/reported missing) of the estimated 58,200 victims of non-
family abductions in 1999 experienced a stereotypical kidnapping.101
With the caveat that NISMART-2 data on non-family abductions are not entirely
reliable because some estimates are based on too few sample cases, the most frequent
victims of both broadly defined and stereotypical non-family abductions were teenage
girls ages 15 to 17.102 Approximately 60% of all victims, male and female, were
abducted by male acquaintances or strangers. Streets (32% of all cases), parks or
wooded areas (25%), and other public places (14%) were places from which children
were typically abducted, and children who were moved, were taken into vehicles
(45%) or to the perpetrator’s home (28%). In nearly half of all broadly defined and
stereotypical kidnapping incidents, the perpetrator sexually assaulted the child, and
in a third of the cases, the perpetrator physically assaulted the child. Less than one
percent of children missing due to a non-family abduction failed to return home alive.
Family Abductions. Approximately 63% of children abducted by family
members were with the abductor under lawful circumstances directly prior to the
incident.103 In these cases, disputes between family members about custodial rights
and privileges may have triggered the abduction. Perpetrators most often were the
child’s father (53% of all cases), followed by the mother (25%) and other relatives.104
Most children were abducted from their own home or someone else’s home, and
nearly all the episodes did not involve the use of threat or force. Children age 11 and
under not living with both parents appeared to be the most likely victims of parental
101 David Finkelhor, Heather Hammer, and Andrea J. Sedlak, Non-family Abducted
Children: National Estimates and Characteristics
, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, October 2002, p. 6. Available at
[http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/196467.pdf].
102 Estimates of non-family abductions are based on the combination of data collected in the
NISMART-2 Household Surveys and the Law Enforcement Study. The Household Surveys,
in which adult and children were interviewed by phone, provide data on broadly defined
non-family abductions. These surveys are limited because they may have undercounted
children who experienced episodes but were living in households without telephones or
were not living in households during the study period. Children who were reported as
victims in both the adult and children interviews were counted only once in the unified
estimate. The Law Enforcement Study yielded data on stereotypical kidnappings.
103 Estimates for family abductions are based on data collected in the NISMART-2
Household Surveys. Respondents to family abduction questions were (1) mainly female
caretakers of children and (2) generally was the aggrieved caretaker who provided all of the
information regarding custodial rights to determine whether a family abduction had
occurred. NISMART-2 researchers did not attempt to verify respondent statements.
104 Heather Hammer, David Finkelhor, and Andrea J. Sedlak, Children Abducted by Family
Members: National Estimates and Characteristics
, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, July 2005, at [http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/
ojjdp/206180.pdf].

CRS-42
abduction. Almost half of children abducted by family members were returned to the
primary caretaker in one week or less, and the majority were returned within one
month.
International Family Abductions. NISMART-2 does not track the number
of international family abductions; however, a 1998 survey of nearly 100 left-behind
parents by the American Bar Association Center on Children and the Law, in
collaboration with three missing children’s organizations, provides some insight into
the characteristics of international abductions by family members.105 Nearly half of
the abductions occurred during a court-ordered visitation by the abducting parent and
child. Gender of the child did not appear to be a factor in the abduction, but abducted
children tended to be young, with a median age of 5 years old. In approximately 70%
of the cases, the responding parents reported that the child had been located, and 25%
said they always knew their child’s precise location. About 40% of the parents
reported that their child had been recovered by the time of the survey. In half of the
cases in which the child was recovered, the separation lasted one year, compared to
five years for half the cases in which the child was not recovered.
Missing Incident Effects on Victims and Their Families
Although few children are killed during a missing incident, their perpetrators
may abuse them sexually or physically. Children abducted by non-family members
are most vulnerable to abuse while away from the care of their families. According
to NISMART-2, approximately half of all broadly defined and stereotypical
abductions involved sexually assault, and one-third involved physical abuse.106
Children involved in family abductions also experience trauma. A study coordinated
by NCMEC of 371 searching parents, nearly half of whom had recovered their
children, found that in many cases, home life prior to the abduction was chaotic.107
Domestic violence was present in more than half of all relationships, and abductions
were threatened in advance of the actual event in almost half of the cases.
Children abducted by family members may also face challenges after they have
been recovered. In a longitudinal study of 32 recovered children who had been
kidnapped by one of their parents and hidden for an average of 2.7 years, over a
quarter of left-behind parents perceived that their children were prone to self
destructive behaviors and nearly half reported that their children had more physical
105 Janet Chiancone, Linda Girdner, and Patricia Hoff, Issues in Resolving Cases of
International Child Abduction by Parents
, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention, December 200, available at
[http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/190105.pdf]. (Hereafter U.S. Department of Justice,
“International Child Abduction by Parents.”)
106 NISMART-2, p. 8.
107 National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, Family Abduction: Prevention and
Response,
5th ed., March 2002, available at [http://www.ncmec.org/en_US/publications/NC
75.pdf].

CRS-43
ailments than their peers.108 According to these parents, approximately three-quarters
of their children had received mental health services after the incident.
Parents also experience trauma during and after the missing child incident.
When parents learn that their child is missing, they may feel overwhelmed by
organizing efforts to recover their child.109 Within the first two days of the incident,
they often must alert the police and missing children agencies, organize volunteers,
and speak with the media. Left-behind parents of children abducted by family
members may not receive adequate support from local law enforcement officials. In
2001, the U.S. Department of Justice reported that the majority of law enforcement
agencies and prosecutors’ offices lacked written policies and procedures governing
the processing of parental abduction cases, do not train staff in how to respond to
theses cases, and do not have specific programs to address the crime.110
Left-behind parents in international family abductions cases experience even
greater obstacles to finding and recovering the child. The American Bar Association
Center on Children and the Law survey found that most of the left-behind parents did
not have sufficient funds to search for their child and experienced difficulties with
foreign laws and officials, U.S. law, costs of recovering children abducted abroad,
U.S. judges’ inexperience with foreign abduction law, and inadequate response by
law enforcement agencies.111 The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of
International Child Abduction obligates countries who have signed the convention
to bring proceedings in the party country to which the child was abducted or in which
the child is detained. Left-behind parents of children abducted to non-Hague
Convention countries face additional challenges in navigating those legal systems to
recover their children.112
Incidents of Child Sexual Abuse
and Child Sexual Exploitation

As discussed above, the true number of sexual exploitation incidents — whether
they accompany missing children cases or not — is not known because the abuse
often goes undetected. Nonetheless, some studies are available to provide insight into
the prevalence of sexual exploitation.
108 Geoffrey L. Grief, “A Parental Report on the Long-Term Consequences for Children of
Abduction by the Other Parent,” Child Psychiatry and Human Development, vol. 21, no. 1,
Fall 2000, p. 66.
109 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, When
Your Child is Missing: A Family Survival Guide
, October 2002, at [http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/
pubs/childismissing/contents.html]. (Hereafter referenced U.S. Department of Justice,
“When Your Child is Missing.)
110 Kathi L. Grasso et al., The Criminal Justice System’s Response to Parental Abduction,
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,
December 2001, p. 7, at [http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/186160.pdf].
111 Ibid, pp. 6-8.
112 “International Child Abduction by Parents,” pp. 2-3.

CRS-44
Sexual Abuse Among Children in the Child Welfare System.
Incidents of child abuse — including sexual abuse — and neglect by a caretaker that
are reported to the state child welfare system may lead to the removal of a child from
his or her home. Two studies track the share of children each year who enter foster
care as a result of sexual abuse by their caretaker or family member. The National
Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS), administered by the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, provides case-level data on all children
under age 18 who received an investigation or assessment by a state child protective
services agency. NCANDS is not a nationally representative sample because states
are not required to report data, though the majority of states have provided data since
the first NCANDS report was issued for CY2000 (beginning in 2002, NCANDS
began to collect data on a federal fiscal year basis). Sexual abuse is defined
differently across states, but generally includes acts of rape, sexual assault, indecent
exposure, as well as facilitating prostitution and creating and distributing
pornography.113 The FY2005 NCANDS report estimated that 9.3% of children —
or 83,810 — in the child welfare system were victims of sexual abuse during that
year.114

Using NCANDS data from 1990 to 2000, researchers have found a decline in
the number of sexual abuse cases, from an estimated 150,000 cases to 89,500
cases.115 Researchers have concluded that multiple factors likely contributed to the
downward trend, and that one of those factors was probably a true decline in the
occurrence of sexual abuse.116 A true decline in the number of sexual abuse cases is
substantiated by a decrease of 56% from 1993 to 2000 in self-reported measures of
sexual assault and sexual abuse by children ages 12 to 17 in the National Crime
Victimization Survey, conducted annually by the Census Bureau.117 This decline was
due primarily to the decrease in the number of offenses committed by a family
member or acquaintance.
Another analysis of children in the child welfare system provides nationally
representative data of the characteristics and functioning of children, including rates
of sexual victimization. Known as the National Survey of Child and Adolescent
Well-Being (NSCAW), the study found in its first wave of data collection (from
113 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Definitions of Child Abuse and Neglect.
114 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and
Families, Child Maltreatment 2005, April 2007, available at [http://www.acf.hhs.gov/prog
rams/cb/pubs/cm05/].
115 David Finkelhor and Lisa M. Jones, Explanation for the Decline in Child Sexual Abuse
Cases
, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,
January 2004, available at [http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/199298.pdf].
116 Other factors may include decline in the number of self-reports of sexual abuse by
victims; decline in related social problems; greater decline in the most readily preventable
cases of sexual abuse; and increase in the incarceration of offenders. For further discussion
see, Ibid, p. 8.
117 Ibid, pp. 8-9.

CRS-45
October 1999 to December 2000) that 11% of children were sexually abused.118
Sexual abuse was defined along a continuum, which included fondling/molestation
(without genital contact) or other less severe types (e.g., exposure to sex or
pornography), masturbation, digital penetration of sexual organs, oral copulation (of
adult or child), and intercourse. Molestation accounted for just over one-half (55%)
of all cases, followed by intercourse (11.4%), digital penetration of sexual organs
(11.4%), oral copulation (9.4%), and masturbation (5.2%).
Online Victimization of Children. A true estimate of the number of
children sexually exploited over the Internet is unknown. Over 21,000 reports of
online child enticement and over 4,000 reports of obscene material sent to a child
were recorded by the CyberTipline. The Youth Internet Safety Survey conducted in
March to June 2005 by the University of New Hampshire’s Crimes Against Children
Research Center (commissioned by NCMEC and supported by OJJDP) found that
children using the Internet are vulnerable to unwanted sexual solicitation, unwanted
exposure to sexual material, and harassment (these categories do not necessarily
reflect incidents of child sexual exploitation).119
The share of children exposed to sexual material and solicited online was greater
in 2005 than in the previous survey conducted in August 1999 to February 2000.
Despite increased use of filtering, blocking, and monitoring software in households
of children Internet users, in 2005, more than one-third of children Internet users
(34%) saw sexual material online they did not want to see in the past year compared
to one-quarter (25%) of children surveyed in 1999 and 2000. Online harassment also
increased to 9%, from 6%. However, a smaller share of children (13%) received
sexual solicitations compared to children in the previous survey (19%).
Commercial Sexual Exploitation. The commercial sexual exploitation of
children refers to acts of prostitution, pornography, sex trafficking, and sex rings for
118 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and
Families, National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being (NSCAW): CPS Sample
Component Wave 1 Data Analysis Report
, April 2005, available at
[http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/abuse_neglect/nscaw/]. NSCAW provides
information about the characteristics of children and families who came into contact with
the child welfare system through an investigation by child protective services. The sample
includes children whose cases were closed after the investigation, and who remained at
home; those who remained at home, but had a case opened to child welfare services, and
those who were removed from their homes as a result of the investigation.
119 Jane Wolak, Kimberly Mitchell, and David Finkelhor, Online Victimization of Children:
Five Years Later
, National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, 2006, available at
[http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/pdf/CV138.pdf]. Unwanted sexual solicitation is defined by the
study as a request to engage in sexual acts or sexual activities or give personal sexual
information that were unwanted, or whether unwanted or not, were made by an adult;
unwanted exposure to sexual materials refers to a child being exposed to pictures of nude
people or people having sex, when conducting online searches, surfing the web, or using e-
mail and instant messaging; and harassment refers to threats or other offensive behavior (not
sexual solicitation) sent online to the child or posted online about the child for others to see.

CRS-46
financial gain.120 No studies appear to exist that provide the national prevalence and
incidence of commercially exploited children. Estimates have been made, however,
of the number of children in groups classified as “high-risk” for commercial sexual
exploitation. These groups include sexually exploited children not living in their
own homes (i.e., runaway, thrownaway, and homeless children); sexually exploited
children living in their own homes; other groups of sexually exploited children,
including female gang members who have become victims as a result of their gang
membership and transgender street children; and U.S. children and children traveling
abroad and in the United States for sexual purposes.121

Causes and Effects of Child Sexual Exploitation
Child sexual exploitation can first occur in the child’s home.122 Physical or
sexual abuse by family members may lead to children running away or being
“thrownaway.” While away from home, children may experience further
exploitation. An estimated 9.5% of children in shelters and 27.5% of children living
on the street engage in “survival sex” to provide for their subsistence needs.123
While money is often cited as the primary reason for engaging in prostitution,
children and adolescents also report their involvement was an escape from family
problems or the result of a romantic relationship.124
Child sexual exploitation can also begin outside of the family. Sexual
exploitation originating outside the home can be precipitated by other factors — the
presence of large numbers of unattached and transient males in a community such as
military personnel and truckers; female gang membership; and active recruitment into
prostitution by pimps. Solo sexual exploitation involves a single adult who often
knows the child and parent and has ready access to the child.125 After gaining access
to the child, the adult engages in illicit sexual activities and manipulates and coerces
120 The United States is viewed as a primary source of child-sex tourists abroad. In a sample
of information about foreign child-sex tourists in Southeast Asian, tourists from the United
States were the largest group. See Eva J. Klain, Prostitution of Children and Child-Sex
Tourism: An Analysis of Domestic and International Responses
, National Center for Missing
and Exploited Children, April 1999, available at [http://www.missingkids.com/enUS/public
ations/NC73.pdf]. (Hereafter referenced Eva J. Klain, Prostitution of Children and Child
Sex Tourism
).
121 For methodology of estimates of groups of children, see Richard J. Estes and Neil Alan
Weiner, The Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children in the U.S., Cananda, and Mexico,
Executive Summary of the U.S. National Summary,
September 2001, available at
[http://www.sp2.upenn.edu/~restes/CSEC_Files/Exec_Sum_020220.pdf]. (Hereafter
referenced Estes and Weiner, The Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children.)
122 Ann Wolbert Burgess and Christine A. Grant, Children Traumatized in Sex Rings,
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, 1988, p. 3. (Hereafter referenced
Burgess and Grant, Children Traumatized in Sex Rings.)
123 J.M. Greene et al., Prevalence and Correlates of Survival Sex Among Runaway and
Homeless Youth
, American Journal of Public Health, vol. 89, no. 9, pp. 1406-1409.
124 Eva J. Klain, Prostitution of Children and Child Sex Tourism, p. 35.
125 Burgess and Grant, Children Traumatized in Sex Rings, p. 7.

CRS-47
the victim into keeping the abuse secret. Sex-ring activities include behaviors that
occur with a combination of psychological pressure and physical force, with acts of
sexual seduction to rape. Among multiple-adult sex rings, child pornography and
sexual activities may be exchanged between adults with or without financial
transactions.
The effects of child sexual exploitation are both immediate and long-term.
When sexual abuse is not disclosed and the abuse continues, the child encapsulates
the trauma, disrupting the development of other areas of the child’s life.126 The
trauma is reinforced when the offender demands silence and secrecy about the abuse
and the child sets up defenses to disguise the abuse. Studies of victims indicate that
children experience a range of long-term physical and emotional problems —
headaches, sleeping disorders, eating disorders, and feelings of anxiety, fear,
depression, guilt, and shame that are sometime diagnosed as post-traumatic stress
disorder (PTSD).127 Victims are vulnerable to acting out in school by fighting and
skipping class or experiencing sexual problems such as heightened sexual activity
and preoccupation with sex and nudity. Children involved in prostitution may
become pregnant and later engage in adult prostitution.
126 Ibid, pp. 21-25.
127 John E.B. Myers, Child Protection in America: Past, Present, and Future. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2006, pp 104-105.

CRS-48
Appendix B: Federal Criminal Code Provisions
Governing Child Sexual Exploitation
Section
Prohibition(s)
18 U.S.C. §1470
Transferring obscene material to another individual under age
16, or attempts to do so, using the mail or any facility or
means of interstate or foreign commerce
18 U.S.C. §1591
Recruiting, enticing, harboring, transporting, providing, or
obtaining by any means, a minor, or benefitting financially or
by receiving anything of value by doing so, knowing that
force, fraud, or coercion will be used for that minor to engage
in a commercial sex act
18 U.S.C. §2241(c)
Engaging in a sexual act with a child under age 12 or
engaging a child ages 12 to 16 by using force or threat, or by
other means,128 or attempting to do so
18 U.S.C. §2243
Engaging in a sexual act with a child ages 12 to 16 who is at
least four years younger than the perpetrator
18 U.S.C. §2244
Engaging in or causing sexual contact with another person if
it would violate 18 U.S.C. §§§2241, 2242, 2243
18 U.S.C. §2250
Failing to register or update a registration as required by the
Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act where that
person has either been convicted of certain sexual offenses in
federal court or travels in interstate or foreign commerce, or
resides in, Indian country
18 U.S.C. §2251(a)
Employing, using, or enticing a minor to engage in sexually
explicit conduct for the purpose of producing a visual
depiction of that conduct
18 U.S.C. §2251(b)
Parent or guardian permitting a minor to engage in sexually
explicit conduct for the purpose of producing a visual
depiction of the conduct
18 U.S.C. §2251(c)
Employing, using, or enticing a minor to engage in sexually
explicit conduct outside the United States to produce a visual
depiction of that conduct for the purpose of transporting it to
the United States
128 Other means refers to rendering another person unconscious and thereby engaging in a
sexual act with that other person; administering to another person by force or threat of force,
or without the knowledge or permission of that person, a drug, intoxicant, or other similar
substance and thereby substantially impairing the person’s ability to appraise or control
conduct or engaging in a sexual act with that person.

CRS-49
Section
Prohibition(s)
18 U.S.C. §2251(d)
Advertising to receive, trade, buy, or distribute a visual
depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct or
participating in any act of sexually explicit conduct with a
minor for the purpose of producing a visual depiction of the
conduct
18 U.S.C. §2251A(a)
Parent or guardian selling or transferring custody of a minor
knowing or intending that the minor will be portrayed in a
visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct, or offering to do
so
18 U.S.C. §2251A(b)
Purchasing or obtaining custody of a minor knowing or
intending that the minor will be portrayed in a visual depiction
of sexually explicit conduct, or offering to do so
18 U.S.C. §2252(a)(1)
Transporting a visual depiction of a minor engaging in
sexually explicit conduct
18 U.S.C. §2252(a)(2)
Receiving or distributing a visual depiction of a minor
engaging in sexually explicit conduct
18 U.S.C. §2252(a)(3)
Selling, or possessing with intent to sell, a visual depiction of
a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct
18 U.S.C. §2252(a)(4)
Possessing a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually
explicit conduct
18 U.S.C. §2252A(a)(1)
Transporting child pornography129
18 U.S.C. §2252A(a)(2)
Receiving or distributing child pornography
18 U.S.C. §2252A(a)(3)
Reproducing child pornography for distribution, or advertising
material as an obscene visual depiction of a minor engaging
in sexually explicit conduct
18 U.S.C. §2252A(a)(4)
Selling or possessing with the intent to sell, child pornography
18 U.S.C. §2252A(a)(5)
Possessing child pornography
18 U.S.C. §2252A(a)(6)
Distributing child pornography to a minor for purposes of
persuading a minor to engage in illegal activity
18 U.S.C. §2252B(b)
Using a misleading domain name on the Internet with the
intent to deceive a minor into viewing material that is harmful
to minors130 on the Internet
129 Child pornography, as defined at 18 U.S.C. §2256(8) is “not only a visual depiction of
a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct, but also a visual depiction that is
indistinguishable from that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct as well as a
visual depiction that has been created, adopted, or modified to appear that an identifiable
minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct.”
130 “Harmful to minors,” defined in 18 U.S.C. §2252B refers to “any communication,
consisting of nudity, sex, or excretion, that taken as a whole and with reference to its context
(continued...)

CRS-50
Section
Prohibition(s)
18 U.S.C. §2260(a)
Employing or using a minor to engage in sexually explicit
conduct outside the United States for purposes of producing
a visual depiction of that conduct to be transported into the
United States, or the transportation of a minor with the intent
to create such a visual depiction
18 U.S.C. §2260(b)
Receiving, transporting, or distributing a visual depiction of
a minor outside the United States intending that it be imported
into the United States
18 U.S.C. §2421
Transporting any individual across state lines or abroad, with
the intent that such individual engage in prostitution, or in any
sexual activity
18 U.S.C. §2422(a)
Persuading, inducing, enticing, or coercing any person to
travel to engage in prostitution or any sexual activity for
which any person can be charged with a criminal offense
18 U.S.C. §2422(b)
Persuading, inducing, enticing, or coercing any person under
age 18 to travel to engage in prostitution or any sexual activity
for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense
18 U.S.C. §2423(a)
Transporting a person under 18 with intent that the person
engage in prostitution or any sexual activity for which any
person can be charged with a criminal offense
18 U.S.C. §2423(b)
Traveling in or into the United States or traveling abroad to
engage in any illicit sexual conduct131 with another person
18 U.S.C. §2423(c)
Traveling abroad to engage in sexual conduct with another
person
18 U.S.C. §2425B
Transmitting information about a person under 16 with the
intent to entice, encourage, or solicit any person to engage in
any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with
a criminal offense
Source: Compiled by the Congressional Research Service.
130 (...continued)
predominately appeals to prurient interest of minors; is patently offensive to prevailing
standards in the adult community as a whole with respect to what is suitable materials for
minors; and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific values for minors.”
131 “Illicit sexual conduct,” defined in 18 U.S.C. §2423(f) refers to a sexual act with a person
under age 18 that would be in violation of federal sex abuse statutes if it occurred within the
special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or any commercial sex act
with a person under age 18.

CRS-51
Appendix C: The Missing Children’s Assistance Act
of 1984 and Amendments to the Act
Year (Public Law)
Legislative Creation and Amendments to the
Missing Children’s Assistance Act

1984
Defines missing child as any individual under age
(P.L. 98-473)
18 whose whereabouts are unknown to such
individual’s legal custodian if he or she was removed
from control of his or her legal custodian without
custodian’s consent or the circumstances strongly
indicate that such individual is likely to be abused or
sexually exploited;
Directs OJJDP Administrator to:
facilitate effective coordination among all
federally funded programs relating to missing children,
— establish and operate a national toll-free
telephone line
for individuals to report information
regarding the location of any missing child, or other
child 13 years old or younger whose whereabouts are
unknown,
— establish and operate a national resource center
and clearinghouse
designed to provide technical
assistance to state and local governments and law
enforcement agencies, disseminate information about
innovative and model missing children’s programs,
and periodically conduct national incidence studies to
determine the number of missing children,
— analyze, compile, publish, and disseminate an
annual summary of recently completed research
relating to missing children with emphasis on effective
models of inter-governmental coordination and
effective programs designed to promote community
awareness of missing children, among others, and
— prepare an annual comprehensive plan for
facilitating cooperation and coordination among all
agencies and organizations with responsibilities
related to missing children;
Authorizes OJJDP Administrator to make
grants and enter into contracts for research,
demonstration projects, or service programs
designed to disseminate information about missing
children, locate missing children, and collect
information from states or localities on the
investigative practices used by law enforcement
agencies in missing children’s cases, among other
purposes; and
Provides funding authorization at $10 million for
FY1985 and such sums as necessary for FY1986
through FY1988.

CRS-52
Year (Public Law)
Legislative Creation and Amendments to the
Missing Children’s Assistance Act

1988
Requires OJJDP Administrator to submit a
(P.L. 100-690)
report, within 180 days after the end of each fiscal
year, to the President and Congress, including a
comprehensive plan for facilitating cooperation
and coordination among all agencies and
organizations with responsibilities related to
missing children;
identify and summarize effective
models of cooperation; identify and summarize
effective programs for victims of abduction; and
describe in detail the activities in the national resource
center and clearinghouse, among other requirements;
 Requires OJJDP Administrator to disseminate
information
about free or low-cost legal, restaurant,
lodging, and transportation services available for the
families of missing children, as well as information
about the lawful use of school records and birth
certificates to identify and locate missing children;
 Requires OJJDP Administrator to establish annual
research, demonstration, and service program priorities
for making grants and contracts, and criteria based on
merit for making such grants and contracts; limits a
grant or contract to $50,000 unless the grant is
competitive;
 Provides funding authorization at such sums as
necessary for FY1989 through FY1992.
1989
Technical amendments only.
(P.L. 101-204)
1992
 Provides funding authorization at such sums as
(P.L. 102-586)
necessary for FY1993 through FY1996.
1996
 Requires that the OJJDP Administrator use only up
(P.L. 104-235)
to 5% of the amount appropriated for a fiscal year to
conduct an evaluation of the effectiveness of programs
and activities under the Missing Children’s Assistance
Act;
 Provides funding authorization at such sums as
necessary for FY1997 through FY2001.
1999
Provides an annual grant to the National Center
(P.L. 106-71)
for Missing and Exploited Children to carry out the
activities originally designated to the OJJDP
Administrator, including the following
:
— operate the national 24-hour, toll-free telephone
line,
— coordinate the operation of the telephone line with
the operation of the Runaway and Homeless Children
Program’s national communications system, and
— operate the official national resource center and
information clearinghouse for missing and exploited
children, among other responsibilities;

CRS-53
Year (Public Law)
Legislative Creation and Amendments to the
Missing Children’s Assistance Act

 Requires the OJJDP Administrator to make grants to
or enter into contracts to periodically conduct national
incidence studies to determine for a given year the
actual number of children reported missing, among
other statistics; and
 Provides funding authorization for the National
Center for Missing and Exploited Children at $10
million for FY2000 through FY2003
and such sums
as necessary for the Missing Children’s Assistance Act
program for these same years.
2003
 Provides funding authorization for the National
(P.L. 108-21)
Center for Missing and Exploited Children at $20
million for FY2004 through FY2005; and
 Provides that the National Center for Missing and
Exploited Children coordinate the operation of a
cyber tipline
to provide online users an effective
means of reporting Internet-related child sexual
exploitation in the areas of distribution of child
pornography, online enticement of children for sexual
acts, and child prostitution.
2003
 Provides funding authorization for the National
(P.L. 108-96)
Center for Missing and Exploited Children at $20
million for FY2004 through FY2008 and such sums as
necessary for the Missing Children’s Assistance Act
program for these same years.
Source: Compiled by the Congressional Research Service.
Note: This compilation only includes legislation amending the Missing and Exploited Children’s
Program at §5771 et seq.


CRS-54
Appendix D: Map of Statewide, Regional, and Local AMBER Alert Plans
Figure A-2. Amber Alert Plans
Source: National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.

CRS-55
Appendix E: Other Federal Activities for Missing
Children and Child Sexual Exploitation
The Departments of Justice, Homeland Security, and State, and the U.S. Postal
Service, among other federal agencies, investigate and prosecute sexual crimes
against children and pursue missing children cases. Some of their exploited and
missing children activities are discussed below. This discussion is not exhaustive of
all federal activities around missing children and child sexual exploitation.
Department of Justice
Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (Criminal Division). The
Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS) within the Justice Department’s
Criminal Division is a separate entity from the Child Protection Division within
OJJDP. In coordination with the U.S. Attorneys Offices, CEOS prosecutes violations
of federal law related to producing, distributing, receiving, or possessing child
pornography; transporting women or children interstate for such purposes of
engaging in criminal sexual activity; traveling interstate or internationally to sexually
abuse children; and international parental kidnaping.132 CEOS trains and advises
federal prosecutors and law enforcement personnel on child victim witness issues,
and develops and refines proposals for prosecution policies, legislation, government
practices, and agency regulations concerning child sexual exploitation and illegal
transport of children. In 2003, the High Technology Investigative Unit was created
within the section to understand and analyze new technology used to facilitate child
exploitation crimes. This unit works closely with U.S. Attorneys Offices through the
Project Safe Childhood initiative, discussed below.
In collaboration with the FBI and NCMEC, CEOS launched the Innocence Lost
National Initiative in 2003 to combat domestic child trafficking through multi-
disciplinary task forces in areas with the highest incidence of child prostitution.133
As of December 2006, the project opened 273 investigations and secured 135
convictions under state and federal law.
Innocent Images National Initiative. The Innocent Images National
Initiative (IINI), created in 1993, is coordinated through the FBI’s Cyber Crimes
Program. The IINI’s mission has four parts: to reduce the vulnerability of children
to acts of sexual exploitation and abuse which are facilitated through the use of
computers; to identify and rescue witting and unwitting child victims; to investigate
and prosecute sexual predators who use the Internet and other online services to
sexually exploit children for personal or financial gain; and to strengthen the
capabilities of federal, state, local, and international law enforcement through training
132 U.S. Department of Justice, Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS), CEOS
Mission
, available at [http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/ceos/mission.html].
133 U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Division, FY2008 Budget, p. 7, available at
[http://www.usdoj.gov/jmd/2008justification/pdf/14_crm.pdf].

CRS-56
programs and investigative assistance.134 FBI agents conduct undercover operations
in the FBI’s field offices, in cooperation with ICAC Task Force and other federal
agencies, and abroad through the FBI Legal Attaché Program in collaboration with
foreign law enforcement. These agents investigate all areas of the Internet and
online services, such as websites that post child pornography, online groups and
organizations, file services, and peer-to-peer file-sharing programs, among others.
FBI agents and task force officers go online undercover using fictitious screen names
and engage in real-time chat or e-mail conversations with subjects to obtain evidence
of criminal activity. Investigation of specific online locations can be initiated through
several pathways, including a referral from a law enforcement agency or a complaint
from an online service provider. A case management system enables the IINI to track
subjects and correlate transactions (of distributing or receiving child pornography
and/or making payments for child pornography) that do not readily appear to be
connected.
Project Safe Childhood (U.S. Attorney Offices). Project Safe Childhood
(PSC) is an initiative that was created in March 2006 in response to the growing
number of prosecuted crimes against children via the Internet and the production and
distribution of more shocking, graphic images involving increasingly younger
children and infants.135 The goals of the program are to investigate and prosecute
individuals who exploit children and to identify and rescue victims. The initiative
is led by the U.S. Attorney’s Office, and within each judicial district, an attorney is
appointed to serve as the PSC coordinator for the district. The coordinator builds
partnerships with stakeholders in the district including — regional or state ICACs,
federal law enforcement agencies with a local presence (the FBI, the U.S. Postal
Inspection Service, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Marshals),
NCMEC, Internet safety programs, local law enforcement, and public and private
organizations, such as parent groups and school administrators.
Each U.S. Attorney’s Office must complete a strategic plan to implement the
PSC initiative in each district within 90 days after the PSC coordinator is designated.
The strategic plan should include background information to help frame the district’s
present capacity to address child exploitation issues, and to summarize the early
results of partnership-building efforts. The plan must address the ways in which the
district’s partners will coordinate and utilize their resources to fulfill the goals of the
initiative, and respond to leads from NCMEC, including the Child Victim
Identification program, FBI Innocent Images Unit, and CEOS.136 The plan must also
develop a mechanism to ensure that targets of a particular law enforcement agency
are known to the PSC partners in order to avoid duplication of efforts.
134 U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Innocent Images National
Initiative
, available at [http://www.fbi.gov/publications/innocent.htm].
135 U.S. Department of Justice, Project Safe Childhood, May 2006, p. 10, available at
[http://www.projectsafechildhood.gov/guide.htm]. See also, 42 U.S.C. §16942.
136 Ibid, p. 25.

CRS-57
Finally, the PSC partnership should coordinate local public awareness and
education campaigns in the community.137 This may be through identifying PSC
partners currently conducting awareness and outreach programs. As with the MEC
components, Project Safe Childhood is included in the Justice Department’s
proposed FY2008 Child Safety and Juvenile Justice Program.
Sex Offender Control and Apprehension Initiative (Office of Justice
Programs). The Administration has proposed a Sex Offender Control and
Apprehension Initiative as part of its proposed Office of Justice Programs Child
Safety and Juvenile Justice discretionary grant program for FY2008.138 The initiative
is intended to meet some of the goals of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety
Act (P.L. 109-248), which includes provisions related to preventing and punishing
sex offenders and those who victimize children.139 The initiative is intended to assist
state, local, and tribal governments conduct investigations and fugitive apprehension
efforts related to sex offenders; develop and enforce laws related to sex offender
registries; and control and hold sex offenders accountable (through the use of
electronic monitoring and civil commitment); and enhance the ability of state and
local law enforcement to control and investigate sex offenders through training and
assistance. (Note that the Office of Justice Programs administers and funds the
National Sex Offender Public Registry that requires sex offenders to register
information about their sex crimes and crimes against children, pursuant to the Jacob
Wetterling Crimes Against Children Act and Sexually Violent Offender Registration
Act, as amended by the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act.)
Department of Homeland Security
Cyber Crime Center Child Exploitation Section (Immigration and
Customs Enforcement). The Immigrant and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Agency
houses the Cyber Crime Center’s Child Exploitation Section (CES). The CES
investigates the transnational production and distribution of child exploitation images
and individuals who travel abroad for the purpose of engaging in sex with minors.
CES analysts and agents collect evidence and track the activities of individuals and
organized groups who exploit children through the use of websites, chat rooms,
newsgroups, and peer-to-peer trading.140 The section also conducts clandestine
operations throughout the world to identify and apprehend abusers. CES has
137 The FY2007 solicitation for Project Safe Childhood seeks community partners to
increase awareness about the program and to provide training and education around Internet
safety. The solicitation is available at [http://ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/grants/solicitations/FY2007/PS
CPrograms.pdf].
138 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, FY2008 Performance Budget,
p. 70, available at [http://www.usdoj.gov/jmd/2008justification/pdf/40_ojp.pdf].
139 For further information about the legislation, see CRS Report RL33967, Adam Walsh
Child Protection and Safety Act: A Legal Analysis
, by Charles Doyle and CRS Report
RL32800, Sex Offender Registration and Community Notification Law: Recent Legislation
and Issues
, by Garrine Laney.
140 For further information about the Child Exploitation Center, see [http://www.ice.gov/
partners/investigations/services/cyberbranch.htm].

CRS-58
coordinated federal efforts to apprehend individuals and organizations that victimize
children. Operation Predator is perhaps among the most well known project
designed to meet this goal. The project was created in July 2003 to identify,
investigate, arrest, and deport (in the case of foreign perpetrators) child sex predators.
To date, Operation Predator has resulted in the arrest of more than 9,500 individuals
throughout the United States.141
Forensic Services (United States Secret Service). As discussed above,
Congress mandated that the United States Secret Service provide forensic and
technical assistance in matters involving missing and exploited children. Secret
Service forensic analysts assist NCMEC and federal, state, and local law enforcement
agencies with a number of services to identify and track individuals who sexually
exploit children. These services include identification of finger prints using the most
up-to-date chemical and physical methods; forensic automation to identify
fingerprints, handwriting, counterfeit identity documents, and financial documents
when other investigative leads have been exhausted; polygraph services; analysis of
and testimony regarding questioned documents; and forensic photography and other
audio and image enhancements.142
U.S. Postal Service
U.S. Postal Inspection Service. The U.S. Postal Inspection Service
(USPIS) is the law enforcement, crime prevention, and security arm of the U.S.
Postal Service. Pursuant to federal law making it a crime to mail obscene matter and
transmit obscene material over the Internet — including child pornography — the
Postal Inspection Service is authorized to investigate such mailings and transmittals.
In FY2006, postal inspectors arrested 250 suspects and identified 58 child molestors
who mailed or received child pornography in the mail.143
The USPIS participates in the Deliver Me Home program that distributes
missing children flyers to targeted zip codes to alert communities and seek
information that may help locate a missing or exploited child. Deliver Me Home was
created in 1994 in partnership with NCMEC and the Postal Service.
Department of State
Office of Children’s Issues. The U.S. Department of State’s Office of
Children’s Issues was established in 1994 to assist parents whose children are the
141 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
“Two Springfield Men Receive Significant Prison Sentences for Trading Child Porn, March
6, 2007, available at [http://www.ice.gov/pi/predator/index.htm].
142 For additional information about the U.S. Secret Service’s forensic services, see
[http://www.secretservice.gov/forensics.shtml].
143 U.S. Postal Service, U.S. Postal Inspection Service, 2006 Annual Report of
Investigations
, January 2007, pp. 36-37, available at [http://www.usps.com/postalinspectors/
06FY%20PI%20Annual%20Report.pdf].

CRS-59
victims of international parental child abduction.144 As the U.S. Central Authority
for the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction
(“Hague Convention”), the Office of Children’s Issues helps parents file and pursue
applications for their child’s return or for access to their child, through the foreign
Central Authority, or where feasible, directly to a foreign court.145 (NCMEC serves
as the representative of the State Department on matters relating to the Hague
Convention.) State Department employees may also attempt to locate and visit the
abducted child and monitor judicial proceedings overseas. The State Department
works with the Justice Department and Interpol through the Interagency Working
Group to coordinate strategies for resolving cases of abduction and wrongful
retention. The group convenes each month to discuss initiatives and to facilitate
communications between agencies.
Treasury Department
Internal Revenue Service. The Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) Picture
Them Home program publicizes photographs of missing children in agency
instructions and publications. From January 2001 through July 2006, the IRS
publicized approximately 2,500 pictures of missing children.146 NCMEC has
received 587 leads related to 289 children whose photographs have appeared in IRS
instructions and publications.
144 For additional information about the Office of Children’s Issues, see
[http://travel.state.gov/family/abduction/abduction_580.html].
145 The Hague Convention calls on Central Authorities to facilitate parental access, but does
not provide for specific procedures or remedies.
146 U.S. Department of Treasury, Inspector General for Tax Administration, “The Internal
Revenue Service Provides Valuable Assistance in Locating Missing Children,”Press
Release. February 20, 2007, available at [http://www.treas.gov/tigta/auditreports/2007report
s/200740029_oa_highlights.html].

CRS-60
Appendix F: CRS Reports on Missing and
Exploited Children and Related Topics
AMBER Alert
CRS Report RS21453, AMBER Alert Program Technology, by Linda K. Moore.
Exploitation
CRS Report RL32800, Sex Offender Registration and Community Notification Law:
Recent Legislation and Issues, by Garrine Laney.
CRS Report 98-67, Internet: An Overview of Key Technology Policy Issues Affecting
Its Growth and Usage, coordinated by Lennard G. Kruger, John D. Moteff,
Angele A. Gilroy, Jeffrey W. Seifert, Patricia Moloney Figliola, and Rita Tehan.
CRS Report 98-670, Obscenity, Child Pornography, and Indecency: Recent
Developments and Pending Issues, by Henry Cohen.
CRS Report RL33967, Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act: A Legal
Analysis, by Charles Doyle.
Related Issues
CRS Report RL33785, Runaway and Homeless Youth: Demographics, Programs,
and Emerging Issues, by Adrienne L. Fernandes.
CRS Report RL30545, Trafficking in Persons: The U.S. and International Response,
by Francis T. Miko.
CRS Report RL33896, Unaccompanied Alien Children: Policies and Issues, by Chad
C. Haddal.