Missing and Exploited Children:
Background, Policies, and Issues
Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara
Specialist in Social Policy
August 1, 2014
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RL34050
Missing and Exploited Children: Background, Policies, and Issues
Summary
Beginning in the late 1970s, highly publicized cases of children abducted, sexually abused, and
sometimes murdered prompted policy makers and child advocates to declare a missing children
problem. At that time, about 1.5 million children were reported missing annually. Though dated,
survey data from 1999 provide the most recent and comprehensive information on missing
children. The data show that approximately 1.3 million children went missing from their
caretakers that year due to a family or nonfamily abduction, running away or being forced to
leave home, becoming lost or injured, or for benign reasons, such as a miscommunication about
schedules. Nearly 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 is unknown because of the secrecy surrounding exploitation; however, in the 1999
study, researchers found that over 300,000 children were victims of rape; unwanted sexual
contact; forceful actions taken as part of a sex-related crime; and other sex-related crimes that do
not involve physical contact with the child, including those committed on the Internet.
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 a toll-free number to
report missing children and a national resource center for missing and exploited children;
coordinate public and private programs to assist missing and exploited children; and provide
training and technical assistance to recover missing children.
Since 1984, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) has served as the
national resource center and has carried out many of the objectives of the act in collaboration with
OJJDP. In addition to NCMEC, the MEC program supports (1) the Internet Crimes Against
Children (ICAC) Task Force program to assist state and local enforcement cyber units in
investigating online child sexual exploitation; (2) training and technical assistance for state
AMBER (America’s Missing: Broadcast Emergency Response) Alert systems, which publicly
broadcast bulletins in the most serious child abduction cases; and (3) other initiatives, including a
membership-based nonprofit missing and exploited children’s organization that assists families of
missing children and efforts to respond to child sexual exploitation through training.
The Missing Children’s Assistance Act has been amended multiple times, most recently by the E.
Clay Shaw, Jr. Missing Children’s Assistance Reauthorization Act (P.L. 113-38). This
authorization, which expires at the end of FY2018, specifies new provisions such as requiring
more regular (every three years) studies on missing and sexually exploited children and
implementing new accountability standards for grant recipients. The ICAC Task Force program is
authorized separately under the PROTECT Our Children Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-401), as amended,
through FY2018. The AMBER Alert program is authorized under the PROTECT Act (P.L. 108-
21). P.L. 108-21 authorized funding for the program in FY2004. Congress has continued to
provide funding in each year since then. Missing and exploited children’s activities are
collectively funded under a single appropriation for the MEC program. For FY2014, Congress
appropriated $67 million to the program.
Congressional Research Service
Missing and Exploited Children: Background, Policies, and Issues
Contents
Recent Developments ...................................................................................................................... 1
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 3
Demographics of Missing and Exploited Children .......................................................................... 4
Overview ................................................................................................................................... 4
Missing Children ....................................................................................................................... 5
NISMART-1 ........................................................................................................................ 5
NISMART-2 ........................................................................................................................ 5
Defining Child Sexual Exploitation .......................................................................................... 8
Incidents of Child Sexual Exploitation .................................................................................... 10
NISMART-2 ...................................................................................................................... 10
National Survey of Children’s Exposure to Violence ........................................................ 10
Incidents Reported to the NCMEC CyberTipline ............................................................. 11
Description and Funding of the Missing and Exploited Children’s (MEC) Program .................... 11
Overview ................................................................................................................................. 11
Administration and Funding .............................................................................................. 12
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children .................................................................... 17
Missing Children’s Services .................................................................................................... 17
Call Center ........................................................................................................................ 17
Case Management ............................................................................................................. 18
Project ALERT (America’s Law Enforcement Retiree Team) .......................................... 18
Team Adam ....................................................................................................................... 19
Forensic Services Unit ...................................................................................................... 19
International Missing Children’s Cases ................................................................................... 20
Exploited Children’s Division ................................................................................................. 21
The Child Victim Identification Program (CVIP) ............................................................. 21
CyberTipline ...................................................................................................................... 22
Sex Offender Tracking Team ............................................................................................. 23
Child Sex Trafficking Team .............................................................................................. 23
Family Advocacy Services ...................................................................................................... 24
Training and Technical Assistance .......................................................................................... 24
Partnerships ............................................................................................................................. 24
Work with Federal Agencies ............................................................................................. 24
Work with State Clearinghouses ....................................................................................... 24
Public-Private Partnerships ............................................................................................... 25
Background Screening Pilot Program ............................................................................... 25
Financial Coalition Against Child Pornography ............................................................... 25
Community Outreach ........................................................................................................ 25
Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Force ................................................................... 26
ICAC Task Forces ................................................................................................................... 26
National ICAC Data System (NIDS) ....................................................................................... 27
National Strategy for Child Exploitation Prevention and Interdiction .................................... 28
AMBER Alert Program ................................................................................................................. 29
Program Administration .......................................................................................................... 30
DOJ Grant ................................................................................................................................ 30
DOT Grant ............................................................................................................................... 31
Congressional Research Service
Missing and Exploited Children: Background, Policies, and Issues
AMBER Alert Training and Technical Assistance .................................................................. 31
Other Program Activities ............................................................................................................... 32
Issues.............................................................................................................................................. 33
Data Collection ........................................................................................................................ 33
National ICAC Data System.................................................................................................... 34
National Emergency Child Locator Center ............................................................................. 35
Child Welfare Disaster Planning ....................................................................................... 35
Children Missing from Foster Care ......................................................................................... 36
Missing Adults ......................................................................................................................... 38
Figures
Figure 1. Reported Missing and Caretaker Missing, by Missing Category, 1999 ........................... 7
Tables
Table 1. Actual Funding for the Missing and Exploited Children’s Program by
Component, FY2004 to FY2013, Plus Funding Under the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (ARRA, P.L. 111-5) ....................................................................................... 15
Table A-1. Categories of Missing Children ................................................................................... 39
Table A-2. Missing and Non-missing Children ............................................................................. 40
Table B-1. The Missing Children’s Assistance Act of 1984 and Amendments to the Act ............. 46
Appendixes
Appendix A. Demographics of Missing and Exploited Children .................................................. 39
Appendix B. The Missing Children’s Assistance Act of 1984, as Amended ................................. 46
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 48
Congressional Research Service
Missing and Exploited Children: Background, Policies, and Issues
Recent Developments
On September 12, 2013, Representative Guthrie introduced the E. Clay Shaw, Jr. Missing
Children’s Assistance Reauthorization Act (H.R. 3092) to reauthorize the Missing and Exploited
Children’s (MEC) program for FY2014 through FY2018. The bill was referred to the Education
and Labor Committee, and on December 17, 2013, the House voted to approve the bill under
suspension of the rules. On September 25, 2013, the Senate took up and passed the bill under
unanimous consent. On September 30, 2013, President Obama signed H.R. 3092 into law as P.L.
113-38.
P.L. 113-38 authorizes appropriations of $40 million for each of FY2014 through FY2018, for the
Administrator of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to fund
activities carried out under the act. OJJDP is the office within the Department of Justice’s Office
of Justice Programs (OJP) that administers the MEC program. Of this amount, up to $32.2
million is to be used for National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), the
federal clearinghouse and resource center on missing and exploited children’s issues. 1 The law
also makes other changes:
• It adds a finding that many missing children are runaways.
• It requires the OJJDP Administrator to coordinate with the United States
Interagency Council on Homelessness2 to ensure that homeless services
professionals are aware of educational resources and assistance provided by
NCMEC regarding child sexual exploitation.
• Prior law required NCMEC to provide information to state and local government,
public and private nonprofit agencies, and individuals about legal and other
services for missing and exploited children and federal programs to assist these
children and their families. P.L. 113-38 requires NCMEC to provide this
information to state and local education agencies (i.e., state boards of education
and local school districts) as well.
• P.L. 113-38 adds three new requirements for NCMEC. NCMEC must (1) provide
technical assistance and training to state and local law enforcement agencies and
statewide missing children clearinghouses to coordinate with state and local
educational agencies in identifying and recovering missing children; (2) assist the
efforts of law enforcement in coordinating with child welfare agencies to respond
to children missing from foster care; and (3) provide technical assistance to law
enforcement agencies and first responders in identifying, locating, and recovering
victims of, and children at risk for, child sex trafficking. Although these
responsibilities were not specified in the law as it existed before P.L. 113-38 was
enacted, generally these activities have been carried out by NCMEC.
1 This change was made to Section 407 of the act, at 42 U.S.C. §5777. The law does not amend a separate provision (at
Section 404(b)(2) at 42 U.S.C. §5773(b)(2)) that included an authorization of appropriations specifically for NCMEC,
at $40 million for FY2008 and such sums as necessary for each of FY2009 through FY2013.
2 The United States Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH) was created in 1987 under the Stewart B.
McKinney Homeless Assistance Act, P.L. 100-77. Its mission is to coordinate the national response to homelessness.
The USICH is composed of the heads of federal departments and agencies whose policies and programs have some
responsibility for homeless services, including the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD),
Health and Human Services (HHS), Department of Labor (DOL), and the Veterans Administration (VA).
Congressional Research Service
1
Missing and Exploited Children: Background, Policies, and Issues
• It limits the compensation of NCMEC employees by prohibiting the use of
federal funds if the compensation, as determined at the beginning of each grant
year, exceeds 110% of the maximum annual salary payable to a member of the
federal Senior Executive Service (SES) for that year. NCMEC may compensate
an employee at an amount that exceeds the maximum limit so long as it is paid
with non-federal funds. Prior law did not address compensation; however, DOJ
imposed similar restrictions as part of its requirements under the MEC grant.
• P.L. 113-38 amended the prior law by changing the requirement for OJJDP to
conduct incidence studies of missing children from “periodically” to
“triennially.”
• It adds to the requirement under prior law that OJJDP provide information about
the lawful use of school records, to ensure that these school records are used in
compliance with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) of
1974. 3
• It amends provisions that authorize OJJDP to make grants and enter into
contracts for research, demonstration projects, or service programs on selected
activities. Specifically, it amends one of the activities—on educating parents,
children, and community organizations about preventing the abduction and
sexual exploitation of children—to include other stakeholders: schools, school
leaders, teachers, state and local educational agencies, homeless shelters, and
service providers. It also amends another activity area—to aid communities in the
collection of materials that would be useful to parents in assisting others in
identifying missing children—by adding that these schools (along with
communities) could also be a recipient of this aid.
• It adds new accountability provisions that direct the DOJ Inspector General (IG)
to conduct audits of recipients of grants under the law in two years in the period
from FY2014 through FY2018. It prohibits grantees with an unresolved audit
finding4 to receive grant funding during a specified timeframe. It requires
repayment of grant funds that were improperly awarded. It also prohibits DOJ
from awarding a grant under the act to any nonprofit organization that holds
money in offshore accounts for the purpose of avoiding paying taxes. Further, it
limits the use of funds ($20,000 only) for hosting or supporting conferences,
unless the Deputy Attorney General or other selected DOJ employees provide
prior written authorization that the funds may be expended to host a conference.
The Deputy Attorney General is required to submit a report to Congress on all
such conference expenditures that are approved. Finally, it prohibits recipients
who receive grants under the law to participate in lobbying representatives of the
Department of Justice, or federal, state, local, or tribal governments regarding the
award of any grant funding; and it establishes penalties for grant recipients who
do so.
3 FERPA guarantees parental access to student education records, while limiting the disclosure of those records to third
parties.
4 According to the law, this term means “an audit report finding in the final report of the DOJ Inspector General that the
grantee has utilized grant funds for an unauthorized expenditure or otherwise unallowable cost that is not closed or
resolved within a 12-month period beginning on the date when the final audit report is issued.”
Congressional Research Service
2
Missing and Exploited Children: Background, Policies, and Issues
Introduction
Beginning in the late 1970s, highly publicized cases of children abducted, sexually abused, and
sometimes murdered prompted policy makers and child advocates to declare a missing children
problem. At that time, advocates estimated that 1.5 million children were reported missing
annually, and that some children who went missing were sexually exploited. In some parts of the
country, nonprofit 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).5 The act directed the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) within the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) 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 nonprofit organization, has carried out
these duties in collaboration with OJJDP.
The MEC program supports a range of activities authorized under the Missing Children’s
Assistance Act and other laws.6 In addition to NCMEC, the MEC provides funding for (1) the
Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Force program to assist state and local
enforcement cyber units in investigating online child sexual exploitation; (2) training and
technical assistance for state AMBER (America’s Missing: Broadcast Emergency Response) Alert
systems, which publicly broadcast bulletins in the most serious child abduction cases; and (3)
other initiatives, including a membership-based nonprofit missing and exploited children’s
organization that assists families of missing children and efforts to respond to sexual exploitation
involving both youth perpetrators and victims. The program was most recently reauthorized under
the E. Clay Shaw, Jr. Missing Children’s Assistance Reauthorization Act (P.L. 113-38) for
FY2014 through FY2018. For FY2014, Congress appropriated $67.0 million to the MEC
program.
This report covers only select aspects of the broader topic of missing and exploited children.7 It
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
5 The Missing Children’s Assistance Act, which outlines the duties of OJDDP and NCMEC, is codified at 42 U.S.C.
§5771 et seq. (Chapter 72, Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention). The act was most recently reauthorized by the
E. Claw Shaw, Jr. Missing Children’s Assistance Reauthorization Act (P.L. 113-38). The ICAC Task Force program is
codified at 42 U.S.C. §17601 et seq. (Chapter 154, Combating Child Exploitation) and was authorized under the
PROTECT Our Children Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-401), as amended by the Child Protection Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-206).
The AMBER Alert program is codified at 42 U.S.C. §5791 (Chapter 72, Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention)
and was authorized under the PROTECT Act (P.L. 108-21).
6 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 MEC program, although the largest share of federal funds for
NCMEC is provided through the program.
7 For information about child sex trafficking, see CRS Report R41878, Sex Trafficking of Children in the United States:
Overview and Issues for Congress, by Kristin Finklea, Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara, and Alison Siskin.
Congressional Research Service
3
Missing and Exploited Children: Background, Policies, and Issues
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 MEC program. The end of the report includes
two appendices. Appendix A provides additional information about the demographics of missing
and exploited children and some of the causes and effects of missing and sexual exploitation
incidents on victims and families. Appendix B presents the major provisions of the Missing
Children’s Assistance Act of 1984 and amendments to the act.
Demographics of Missing and Exploited Children
Overview
As a policy issue, missing children are often included in discussions of sexual victimization.
Missing children and sexually 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.8 Children who
go missing—and children who are not missing—may be sexually exploited. Although the act
does not define child sexual exploitation, federal statutes, both criminal and civil, 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 actual number of children who are currently missing or exploited is unknown. The Missing
Children’s Assistance Act requires OJJDP to 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.9 Since the act’s passage in 1984, two national
incidence studies, known as the National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and
Thrownaway Children (NISMART 1 and 2), have been conducted. However, the studies are dated
(one was conducted in 1988 and the other in 1999) and provide limited information about
children who were sexually exploited. (Limitations of the data set are discussed in the “Issues”
section of this report.)
As discussed below, the 1999 study indicated that of the 1.3 million children who went missing
that year, almost half had run away from home or were forced to leave their home, and nearly all
were returned to their caretakers. Cases of serious nonfamily abductions, in which the child is
transported and held for ransom or killed, were rare. Further, researchers explained that the true
number of child sexual exploitation incidents was unknown because of the secrecy around
exploitation; however, the study estimated that over 300,000 children were sexually victimized in
1999.
8 This definition is codified at 42 U.S.C. §5772. It was changed in 2006 under P.L. 109-248. Previously, the definition
included an individual under age 18 whose whereabouts are unknown to that individual’s legal custodian if (a) the
circumstances surrounding his or her disappearance indicate that the individual may possibly have been removed by
another individual from the control of his or her legal custodian without the custodian’s consent or (b) the
circumstances of the case strongly indicate that the individual is likely to be abused and sexually exploited.
9 42 U.S.C. §5773(c).
Congressional Research Service
4
Missing and Exploited Children: Background, Policies, and Issues
A third national incidence study has been commissioned by OJJDP.10 As with NISMART-2, the
study, known as NISMART-3, will measure the number of stereotypical kidnappings by strangers
and the prevalence of familial abductions; lost, injured, or otherwise missing children; runaway
children; and thrownaway children. These figures will be derived from surveys of households,
juvenile residential facilities, law enforcement agencies, and other entities that record information
on missing child episodes.11
Missing Children
NISMART-1
The first national incidence study of missing children, 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.12
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 nonfamily
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.
NISMART-2
NISMART-2, conducted in 1999, attempted to resolve some of the methodological challenges of
NISMART-1. Based on policy makers’ 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
10 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,
Grant Solicitation, OJJDP FY 2010 National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway
Children 3, 2010, http://ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/grants/solicitations/FY2010/NISMART3.pdf.
11 The NISMART-3 grant was awarded to the Rockville Institute, and funding has been provided in each of FY2010-
FY2013. The study continues at present. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, “Grant Awards by
Fiscal Year,” http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/funding/funding.htm.
12 David Finkelhor, Gerald Hotaling, and Andrea J. Sedlak, Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children in
America, First Report: Numbers and Characteristics National Incidence Studies, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of
Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, May 1990.
Congressional Research Service
5
Missing and Exploited Children: Background, Policies, and Issues
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.13
NISMART-2 added to and combined some of the missing children categories created in
NISMART-1.14 “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).15 In short, the categories of missing children include (1) nonfamily abductions; (2)
family abductions; (3) missing involuntary, lost, or injured; (4) missing benign; and (5) runaway
or thrownaway.16
NISMART-2 is the most comprehensive survey to date about missing children. The study relied
on a random sample of households and juvenile facilities to develop estimates.17 Researchers
conducted telephone surveys of adults and children in homes, as well as telephone surveys of
staff who worked with youth living in juvenile facilities, including shelters for runaway and
homeless youth, residential treatment centers, group homes, and youth detention centers. One
limitation of the study is that it does not count individuals living in households without
telephones or those not living in households, including youth living on the streets and homeless
families.
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. Approximately 2,500 (0.2%) “caretaker missing”
children had not returned home or been located, and the majority of these children were runaways
from institutions.18
13 Some children reported in NISMART-2 were missing, but their caretakers may not have been alarmed or contacted
authorities; these children were identified as “non-missing.” See Appendix A for a further discussion of non-missing
children.
14 See Appendix A for a description of the NISMART-2 missing children categories.
15 Heather Hammer, David Finkelhor, and Andrea J. Sedlak, Runaway/Thrownaway Children: National Estimates and
Characteristics, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention, October 2002, p. 2, http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/196469.pdf. (Hereinafter Heather Hammer, David
Finkelhor, and Andrea J. Sedlak, Runaway/Thrownaway Children: National Estimates and Characteristics.)
16 For further information about each of the categories, see Appendix A.
17 NISMART-2 combined data from four sources: the National Household Survey of Adult Caretakers, the National
Household Survey of Youth, Law Enforcement Study, and Juvenile Facilities Study. Each sampled child was counted
only once in the combined estimate. See Andrea J. Sedlak et al., National Estimates of Missing Children: An Overview,
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,
October 2002, p. 5. (Hereinafter Andrea J. Sedlak et al., National Estimates of Missing Children: An Overview.)
18 Andrea J. Sedlak et al., National Estimates of Missing Children: An Overview, p. 6.
Congressional Research Service
6
Missing and Exploited Children: Background, Policies, and Issues
Figure 1 below summarizes the number of caretaker missing and reported missing incidents
within the five missing children categories. 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 31,100 (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.
Figure 1. Reported Missing and Caretaker Missing,
by Missing Category, 1999
Reported Missing
Caretaker Missing
1,315,600
1,400,000
797,500
n
e
1,200,000
ildr
h
C
1,000,000
628,900
ing
357,600
s
800,000
is
374,700
M
340,500
600,000
198,300
of
s
117,200
nt
400,000
33,000
61,900
56,500
12,100
ide
c
200,000
In
0
Non-Family Abductions
Family Abductions
Missing Involuntary, Lost, or Injured
Missing Benign Explanation
Runaway/Thrownaway
All Types of Episodes
Missing Category
Source: Congressional Research Service presentation of data provided in Table 3 in Andrea J. Sedlak et al.,
National Estimates of Missing Children: An Overview, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, October 2002, p. 6.
Note: Estimates of caretaker missing children sum to more than the total of 1,315,600 because 36,500 (3%)
children who experienced multiple episodes are included in every category that applies to them, but these
multiple counts are not included in the total. Estimates of reported missing children sum to more than the total
of 797,500 because 31,100 (4%) children who experienced multiple episodes are included in every category that
applies to them, but these multiple counts also are not included in the total.
Nearly 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.19 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
19 Andrea J. Sedlak et al., National Estimates of Missing Children: An Overview, p. 7.
Congressional Research Service
7
Missing and Exploited Children: Background, Policies, and Issues
caretaker missing children population and 7% of the reported missing children population.
Finally, nonfamily abductions comprised 3% of caretaker missing children and 2% of reported
missing children.
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
nonfamily 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
nonfamily abduction victims in 1999 experienced a stereotypical kidnapping (this information is
not shown in Figure 1).20 Although nonfamily 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 three-quarters of abducted children who are murdered are dead
within three hours of the abduction.21
NISMART-2 shows that the children missing tended to be teenagers, male, and white. About half
(45% of caretaker missing and 44% of reported missing) of missing children were between the
ages of 15 and 17. The next largest share of children (31% and 30%) 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 majority of the children were male—57% of the caretaker missing children
and 51% of the reported missing children. Though whites made up the greatest proportion (57%
and 54%) 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.
Defining Child Sexual Exploitation
Child sexual exploitation generally 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.22 This
exploitation includes 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.
Title 18 prohibits the following crimes involving the sexual exploitation of children: commerce in
child pornography;23 crossing state lines to engage in a sexual act with a child; engaging in child
20 David Finkelhor, Heather Hammer, and Andrea J. Sedlak, Nonfamily Abducted Children: National Estimates and
Characteristics, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention, October 2002, p. 6, http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/196467.pdf. (Hereinafter David Finkelhor,
Heather Hammer, Andrea J. Sedlak, Nonfamily Abducted Children.)
21 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 Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention, May 2006, p. 13, http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/documents/homicide_missing.pdf.
22 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.
23 This includes possessing, receiving, reproducing, distributing, and advertising to receive, trade, buy, or distribute
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
8
Missing and Exploited Children: Background, Policies, and Issues
prostitution and child sex trafficking across state lines; transferring obscene material to a child by
mail or through interstate or foreign travel; traveling abroad to engage in a sexual act with a child;
and using a misleading domain name, words, or digital images on the Internet with the intent to
deceive a minor into viewing material that is harmful to that minor.24 As discussed below,
NCMEC fields reports of sexual crimes against children through its CyberTipline, which includes
eight categories that are mostly based on these federal criminal statutes. In addition, state and
local law enforcement agencies have the authority to investigate these crimes because child
sexual exploitation is generally outlawed in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.25
Title 42 provides two types of definitions related to child sexual exploitation. First, 42 U.S.C.
Section 5101g, as enacted by the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA, as
amended), 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 funding under CAPTA.26 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. Section 16911, as
enacted by the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-248).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.27 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, manufacture, and distribution of child pornography; criminal
(...continued)
child pornography. It also extends to a parent or guardian who permits a minor to produce a visual depiction of sexually
explicit conduct. Notably, federal courts have upheld the constitutionality of federal child pornography statutes that
criminalize intrastate possession by finding the activity sufficiently connected to Congress’s broader scheme of
regulating the interstate commercial market for child pornography. For further information, see CRS Report RL30315,
Federalism, State Sovereignty, and the Constitution: Basis and Limits of Congressional Power, by Kenneth R. Thomas.
24 Most federal criminal statutes on child sexual exploitation are in Chapters 71, 77, 109A, 109B, 110, and 117 of Title
18 of the U.S. Code. For further information about select offenses, see CRS Report R42132, Sexual Abuse of Children:
Federal Criminal Offenses, by Richard M. Thompson II.
25 National District Attorneys Association, National Center for Prosecution of Child Abuse, “NCPCA State Statues,”
http://www.ndaa.org/ncpca_state_statutes.html. See statues pertaining to child pornography, prostitution of children,
child protection, sexual offenses, and trafficking.
26 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Child Welfare Information Gateway, Definitions of Child Abuse
and Neglect: Summary of State Laws, http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/define.pdf.
(Hereinafter U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Child Welfare Information Gateway, Definitions of Child
Abuse and Neglect: Summary of State Laws.)
27 This program was originally created under the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children Act and Sexually Violent
Offender Registration Act, codified at 42 U.S.C. §14701 (Title XVII of the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994, P.L. 103-322).
Congressional Research Service
9
Missing and Exploited Children: Background, Policies, and Issues
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
The true number of sexual exploitation incidents—whether they accompany missing children
cases or not—is unknown because this type of abuse often goes undetected. In addition, studies of
child sexual exploitation report varying numbers because of differences in their methodology, the
time periods in which the data were collected, and differences in how exploitation is defined.
Nonetheless, three sources—NISMART-2, the National Survey of Children’s Exposure to
Violence, and data collected by NCMEC—provide some insight into the prevalence of sexual
exploitation.28 In short, the data show that a significant number and share of children under age
18 have been sexually victimized.
NISMART-2
In addition to asking questions about children going missing, NISMART-2 surveyed a
representative sample of children under age 18 and their caretakers about whether children were
victims of sexual exploitation. The study found that in 1999 approximately 285,400 children were
victims of sexual assault, which encompasses unwanted sexual conduct involving the use of force
or threat.29 Examples of sexual assault include rape, unwanted sexual conduct when the
perpetrator touches the child’s private parts, or when the child is forced or coerced to touch the
perpetrator’s private parts. An additional 35,000 children were victims of other sex offenses that
did not involve physical contact or force, primarily acts of exhibitionism or voyeurism. In total,
more than 300,000 children were believed to have been sexually victimized in 1999.
National Survey of Children’s Exposure to Violence
The National Survey of Children’s Exposure to Violence, conducted by the University of New
Hampshire with support from OJJDP, examines the incidence and prevalence of children’s
exposure to violence.30 Researchers interviewed a nationally representative sample of children
under age 18 and their caretakers by phone. They asked whether children had experienced certain
forms of violence and victimization, including sexual victimization, within the past year and over
their lifetime. The sexual victimization category encompasses seven types of victimization:
sexual conduct or fondling by an adult the child knew, sexual conduct or fondling by an adult
stranger, sexual contact or fondling by another child or teenager, attempted or completed
intercourse, exposure or “flashing,” sexual harassment, and consensual sexual conduct with an
adult. The study found that 1 in 16 (6.1%) surveyed children and youth were sexually victimized
28 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).
29 David Finkelhor, Heather Hammer, and Andrea J. Sedlak, Sexually Assaulted Children: National Estimates and
Characteristics, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention, August 2008, http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/214383.pdf.
30 David Finkelhor et al., Children’s Exposure to Violence: A Comprehensive National Survey, U.S. Department of
Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, October 2009,
http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/227744.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
10
Missing and Exploited Children: Background, Policies, and Issues
in the past year and nearly 1 in 10 (9.8%) were sexually victimized over their lifetimes. Girls
were more likely than boys to report that they had been sexually victimized, with 7.4% of girls
reporting sexual victimization within the past year and 12.2% reporting victimization over their
lifetimes. Female adolescents ages 14 to 17 had the highest rate of victimization. Nearly 8% had
been sexually victimized within the past year and 18.7% had been sexually victimized over their
lifetimes.
Incidents Reported to the NCMEC CyberTipline
One measure of the prevalence of child sexual exploitation is the number of 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.31 As
required under statute, the tipline allows individuals and electronic communication service
providers (ESPs) to report incidents under eight categories: (1) possession, manufacture, and
distribution of child pornography; (2) online enticement of children for sexual acts; (3) child sex
trafficking;32 (4) child sex tourism; (5) child sexual molestation (not in the family); (6) unsolicited
obscene material sent to a child; (7) misleading domain names; and (8) misleading words or
digital images on the Internet. These reports are forwarded to ICAC task forces and other law
enforcement officials for investigation. In FY2013, the CyberTipline received nearly 520,000
reports of child sexual exploitation, most of which (97.4%) were submitted under the category of
child pornography.33
Description and Funding of the Missing and
Exploited Children’s (MEC) Program
Overview
The 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. 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.34 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.35
31 NCMEC’s role as administrator of the CyberTipline was authorized by the Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools
to End the Exploitation of Children Today (PROTECT) Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-21).
32 The statute states “child prostitution” but NCMEC uses the term “child sex trafficking.”
33 Based on correspondence with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, November 2013.
34 The Missing Children 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.
35 Martin L. Forst and Martha-Elin Blomquist, Missing Children (New York: Lexington Books, 1991), pp. 56-66.
Congressional Research Service
11
Missing and Exploited Children: Background, Policies, and Issues
Testimony at congressional hearings about missing children further reinforced the perception of a
missing children 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.36 Hearings on the act also underscored the need for the federal 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 and to direct 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 multiple times since 1984. Major
amendments include (1) requiring OJJDP to disseminate information about free or low-cost legal,
restaurant, lodging, and transportation services 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); (3) formalizing NCMEC’s role in
overseeing activities to track reports of online child sexual exploitation (P.L. 108-21); (4)
codifying and expanding many of the activities already carried out by NCMEC (P.L. 110-240);
and (5) requiring more regular (every three years) studies on missing and sexually exploited
children and implementing new accountability standards for grant recipients. Appendix B
provides a description of the original act and its amendments.
The MEC program also provides funding for activities authorized under separate laws. The ICAC
Task Force program was authorized under the PROTECT Our Children Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-
401) and the AMBER Alert program was authorized under the PROTECT Act (P.L. 108-21).
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) administers the MEC program.
NCMEC has served as the national resource center and clearinghouse since 1984.
36 Testimony of Mitch McConnell, in U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Juvenile
Justice, Missing Children’s Assistance Act hearing, 98th Congress, 2nd sess., February 7, 1984 (Washington: GPO,
1984).
Congressional Research Service
12
Missing and Exploited Children: Background, Policies, and Issues
The MEC program was first funded at $4 million in FY1985 and has steadily received funding
increases in most subsequent years beginning in 1991. Funding more than doubled from $6
million in FY1997 to $12.3 million in FY1998, when the ICAC Task Force program was
implemented. Another funding peak, from FY2004 to FY2005, was the result of increased funds
for NCMEC. Funding increased again—from $50 million in FY2008 to $70 million—in FY2009,
the year following the most recent reauthorization of the program. Also in FY2009, Congress
appropriated funding for the program under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (P.L.
111-5). ARRA provides funding for myriad federal programs and initiatives to address the
economic recession that began in December 2007 and extended through June 2009. The law
appropriated $50 million for the ICAC Task Force program. The funds supported four grant
programs authorized under P.L. 110-401: (1) ICAC grants, which were awarded on a formula
basis (as required by the law) and other criteria to existing task forces; (2) ICAC Training and
Technical Assistance grants, which provide training to ICAC task forces and other law
enforcement agencies in the areas of investigation, forensics, and prosecution, among other
topics; (3) ICAC Research grants to encourage innovative and independent research and data
collection to further understand the scope and prevalence of technology and Internet crimes
against children; and (4) the National ICAC Data System, which is intended to provide a secure,
dynamic undercover infrastructure to facilitate online law enforcement investigations of child
exploitation, among other purposes.37
Table 1 shows the total funding and funding for each of the components from FY2004 through
FY2013. NCMEC has received the most funding in each of these years, followed by the ICAC
Task Force program. In some years, the AMBER Alert program has received the next highest
level of funding, followed by funding for other activities. These activities include program
administration, support services for missing children’s organizations, and grant programs that can
vary from year to year.
FY2014 Funding
On January 17, 2014, President Obama signed into law the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2014 (P.L. 113-76), which provided $67.0 million in FY2014 funding for the Missing and
Exploited Children’s program. The appropriations law does not specify the level of funding for
each component of the program. DOJ generally determines the funding level, often toward the
end of the fiscal year.
FY2013 Funding
On March 26, 2013, President Obama signed into law the Consolidated and Further Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2013 (P.L. 113-6). This full-year continuing resolution (CR) superseded a
six-month CR for FY2013 (P.L. 112-175) that had been enacted on September 28, 2012. P.L. 113-
6 provided $67.0 million for the Missing and Exploited Children’s Program, minus an across-the-
37 Funds were awarded for three of the grants in FY2009: ICAC Grants ($41.5 million); ICAC Training and Technical
Assistance Grants ($5.1 million to six organizations); and ICAC Research Grants ($2.0 million to the University of
Hawaii and University of New Hampshire). Funding was awarded for the National ICAC Data System Grant in
FY2010 ($.9 million to the Massachusetts State Police). U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,”
“Funding,” http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/funding/funding.htm. See the “Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task
Force” section for further information on the National ICAC Data System. An additional $487,556 was handled by the
National Institute of Justice to complete an evaluation of ICAC Community Education programs.
Congressional Research Service
13
Missing and Exploited Children: Background, Policies, and Issues
board rescission of 1.877%, per Section 3001 of the act.38 With this rescission, funding was
reduced to $65.7 million.
On March 1, 2013, President Obama ordered that a sequester be implemented as required under
the terms of the Budget Control Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-25) and the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (P.L. 99-177), as amended. The order called for an
across-the-board cut of 5.0% for non-exempt nondefense discretionary funding. Because the
sequester was ordered before the enactment of the FY2013 full-year CR, OMB calculated the
amounts to be sequestered based on annualized funding levels in place under the six-month
FY2013 CR (P.L. 112-175). 39 DOJ then determined that the amount of funding for the MEC
program with the sequester (and rescission) was $62.4 million. 40
38 This rescission was applicable to discretionary, non-security (as defined at 2 U.S.C. §900(c)(4)(A)) accounts within
Division B of the act. Division B pertains to appropriations for Commerce-Justice-Science (CJS) accounts.
39 Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, OMB Report to the Congress on the Joint
Committee Sequestration for Fiscal Year 2013, March 1, 2013, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/
files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/fy13ombjcsequestrationreport.pdf.
40 Based on correspondence with the Department of Justice, July 2014.
Congressional Research Service
14
Table 1. Actual Funding for the Missing and Exploited Children’s Program by Component, FY2004 to FY2013, Plus Funding
Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA, P.L. 111-5)
($ in thousands)
Program
Component FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 ARRA FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013
NCMEC
17,810 25,751 26,259 26,500 24,740 30,488
N/A 30,496 30,130 26,623 25,500
ICAC Task Force
12,368 13,320 14,133 11,779b 15,950 25,000 50,000c 28,800 28,583 25,670 25,050
Programa
AMBER Alert Training
and Technical
3,958 4,913 4,936 5,000 4,481 5,000 N/A 3,150 4,075 2,515 2,364
Assistance
Other Missing and
Exploited Children’s
1,484
2,290 2,059 4,108 4,829 3,171 N/A 6,354 5,605 10,192 9,478
Activitiesd
Total Funding
$35,621
$46,274
$47,387
$47,387
$50,000 $70,000 $50,000 $70,000 $69,866 $65,000 $62,392
Source: Congressional Research Service, based on information provided by the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, March and July 2014; and
Continuing and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 (P.L. 113-6); and Rules Committee Print 113-32 on the amendment to H.R. 3547, which was enacted as P.L.
113-67. Appropriations reflect rescissions where applicable, and the FY2013 appropriations reflect amounts post-sequestration as required under the terms of the
Budget Control Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-25) and the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (P.L. 99-177), as amended.
Notes: N/A means not applicable. The Missing Children’s Assistance Act, as amended by the Protecting Our Children Comes First Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-240),
authorizes funding for NCMEC at $40 million annually for FY2008 and such sums as necessary for FY2009-FY2013 (42 U.S.C. 5773(b)(2). The act also authorizes such
sums as necessary for other activities carried out by DOJ for FY2009 through FY2013 (42 U.S.C. 5777). The PROTECT Our Children Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-401)
provides two authorizations for the ICAC Task Force program—one for $2 million for each of FY2009-FY2016 to collect and report data (42 US.C. §17615(h) and one
for $60 million for FY2009-FY2013 for other ICAC activities, including grants for ICAC task forces (42 U.S.C. §17617). The Child Protection Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-240)
extended authorization for ICAC activities through FY2018, including ICAC task forces. The PROTECT Act (P.L. 108-21) provides two authorizations for the AMBER
Alert program—one for $10 million for FY2004 only (to DOJ) to assist states develop and implement their respective AMBER Alert programs (42 U.S.C. §5791(c)(f)) and
$20 million for FY2004 only (to the Department of Transportation) for states to develop and enhance communications systems along highways for alerts.
a. Funds for the ICAC program include funding for training and technical assistance and research.
b. The ICAC Task Force Program received an additional $11.5 million in 2007 through the Byrne Discretionary Grant Program to expand the program, provide
training and technical assistance, and improve the forensic capabilities of and reduce the backlog of cases handled by the task forces. These funds are not included in
this table.
CRS-15
c. The ICAC funding received under ARRA supported four ICAC activities authorized under the PROTECT Our Children Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-401): (1) ICAC grants;
(2) ICAC Training and Technical Assistance grant; (3) ICAC Research grants to encourage innovative and independent research and data col ection to further
understand the scope and prevalence of technology and Internet crimes against children; and (4) the National ICAC Data System.
d. Includes funding for program administration, support services for missing children’s organizations, and grant programs that can vary from year to year.
CRS-16
Missing and Exploited Children: Background, Policies, and Issues
The remainder of this report discusses the components of the MEC program and issues for
Congress.
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children
NCMEC is a primary component of the MEC program and employs more than 300 employees at
its Alexandria, VA, headquarters and regional offices in California, Florida, New York, and Texas.
These regional offices provide case management and technical support in their geographic areas.
NCMEC provides multiple activities and services pertaining to (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. These activities and services are detailed below.41
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.
In addition to funding through the MEC program, NCMEC is also funded through private
contributions, other DOJ grants, and the United States 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.
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) primarily from parents and law enforcement officials. From October 1984
through the end of FY2013, the Center handled 3.9 million calls with reports on missing children;
sightings of missing children; and requests for assistance, information, and technical assistance
from families of missing children, law enforcement agencies, and others.42 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 exploitation through the Child Pornography Tipline
(now known as the CyberTipline), are routed to the Call Center.43 Call Center staff assist law
enforcement and other professionals in cases of missing and exploited children and transfer call
41 Unless otherwise noted, the description of these services is based on a site visit to NCMEC, interviews and ongoing
correspondence with NCMEC staff, and quarterly progress reports submitted by NCMEC to the Department of Justice
about the status of the grant received under the Missing and Exploited Children’s program.
42 NCMEC, NCMEC Quarterly Progress Report: July 1-September 2013, p. 5.
43 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.
Congressional Research Service
17
Missing and Exploited Children: Background, Policies, and Issues
data regarding runaway children to the National Runaway Safeline (1-800-RUNAWAY).44
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 nonprofit, non-law enforcement entity to have access to the FBI’s National
Crime Information Center’s (NCIC) Missing Person File,45 which is reviewed by Call Center staff
for records of missing children added by local and state law enforcement agencies and updates of
these records. 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 to assist with long-term
missing children, who may have been entered after they reached age 18 while still missing.
Case Management
Each missing child case is entered into NCMEC’s nationwide database 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. In FY2013, case managers handled just over 10,500 cases (i.e., individual
children). About eight out of ten (81.7%) of the cases involved “endangered runaways,” followed
by victims of family abduction.46
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—particularly long-term cases—at no cost to the agencies. Project
ALERT members include approximately 150 retired federal, state, and local law enforcement
officials who have recent and relevant investigative experience.47 Project ALERT services include
case review, organization, recommendation of investigative strategies, assistance with case
interviews, and liaison efforts with the family of a missing child. Representatives also conduct
outreach to the community through public speaking and attending conferences.
44 The National Runaway Safeline was formerly known as the National Runaway Switchboard.
45 The NCIC is a computerized index of information on crimes and criminals that is maintained by the Federal Bureau
of Investigation (FBI). NCIC data are reported by federal, state, and local law enforcement officials. 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), National Crime Information Center,
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ncic/ncic.
46 NCMEC, NCMEC Quarterly Progress Reports, July 1, 2013-September 30, 2013, p 10.
47 Ibid., p. 17.
Congressional Research Service
18
Missing and Exploited Children: Background, Policies, and Issues
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
approximately 75 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.48 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.
Forensic Services Unit
The Forensic Services Unit is composed of the Forensic Imaging Unit and a Biometrics Team.
The teams assist in the recovery of long-term missing children and work to identify the remains
of children and young adults believed to have gone missing.
Forensic Imaging Unit
The Forensic Imaging Unit was created in 1990 to age-progress images of missing children. The
unit’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.49 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.
Age-regressed images are also created by the forensic unit. 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
unit 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 unit creates a black-and-white digital profile (so as to not
provide exact eye/hair/skin tones) of the child. The Forensic Imaging Unit might also reference
medical examiner records and newspaper clippings from the area where the child was recovered.
Biometrics Team
Staff in this unit provide support and resources to long-term missing child cases and cases of
unidentified human remains of victims believed to be children and young adults. They assist law
enforcement and medical examiners/coroners in the identification of unknown children, either
deceased or living, by facilitating the collection of DNA, dental information, fingerprints, facial
48 Ibid., p. 18.
49 Based on congressional briefing by NCMEC staff, August 27, 2013.
Congressional Research Service
19
Missing and Exploited Children: Background, Policies, and Issues
reconstructions, photo enhancements, and documentation of personal belongings found with the
child. Once collected, the information is uploaded to the National Missing and Unidentified
Persons System (NamUs), so it can be compared directly against the information collected from
unidentified persons.50 NamUs is a program created by the Department of Justice’s Office of
Justice Programs to serve as a central repository and resource center for missing persons and
unidentified decedent records. It contains databases storing detailed information about missing
people and unidentified remains and may be searched for possible matches among cases.51
International Missing Children’s Cases52
NCMEC assists with cases of children abducted to and from the United States. From 1995
through May 2008, NCMEC had a Cooperative Agreement with the State Department and OJJDP,
to handle incoming cases of international abduction cases under The Hague Convention on the
Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (the “Hague Convention”).53 The State
Department is now responsible for handling these cases. NCMEC assists the State Department
with developing and distributing posters for missing children abducted to the United States.
Signatories to the Convention pledge to work toward the prompt return of abducted children. Of
the 192 formally recognized countries in the world, however, 124 lack formal civil mechanisms
in place with the United States to facilitate the return of a parentally abducted child.54
NCMEC also coordinates cases of American children abducted abroad, or outgoing cases.
NCMEC provides technical assistance to law enforcement 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.”55
NCMEC handles hundreds of prevention and abduction-in-progress matters each year that
involve international abduction. 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.
50 National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, 2012 Annual Report, http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/
publications/NC171.pdf. (Hereinafter NCMEC, 2012 Annual Report.)
51 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, NamUs: National Institute of Justice, National Missing and
Unidenfied Persons Systems, http://www.namus.gov/.
52 The International Centre for Missing and Exploited Children (“ICMEC”) is a sister organization 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.
53 The Department of State is designated as the U.S. Central Authority for the Hague Convention. NCMEC was
permitted to serve as the representative of the State Department pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §11608.
54 NCMEC, NCMEC Quarterly Progress Report: July 1-September 30, 2013, p. 56, footnote 59.
55 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. For further information about the
International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act and the Hague Convention, see CRS Report RS21261, International
Parental Child Abductions, by Alison M. Smith.
Congressional Research Service
20
Missing and Exploited Children: Background, Policies, and Issues
Exploited Children’s Division
Pursuant to the Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-322), Congress
mandated that the United States 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’s Division was established in January 1997
with a grant from USSS received pursuant to P.L. 103-322.
The ECD administers the Child Victim ID Program (CVIP) and CyberTipline. 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. The ECD also follows up with law enforcement
agencies about cases of exploited children.
In addition to the ECD, two separate units in NCMEC—the Sex Offender Tracking Team and the
Child Sex Trafficking Team within the Case Analysis Division—also work on exploited
children’s issues. The Sex Offender Tracking Team provides technical assistance to law
enforcement tracking noncompliant sexual offenders pursuant to its authorization. The Child Sex
Trafficking Team compares reports of suspected child sex trafficking victims submitted to the
CyberTipline with reports of missing children received by the Missing Children’s Division. It also
provides technical support and analysis to the FBI’s Innocence Lost National Initiative.
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.56
CVIP analysts assist law enforcement officers and prosecutors with child pornography cases
throughout the country using their knowledge of child pornography series as well as the Child
Recognition and Identification System (CRIS), NCMEC’s proprietary software. Federal, state,
and local law enforcement agencies may submit seized images to federal law enforcement agents
detailed to NCMEC and request that CVIP examine the images. CVIP analysts use CRIS and
visual analysis to determine whether any of the images contain identified child victims. NCMEC
maintains information about law enforcement agencies who identified these child victims. CVIP
analysts then provide the submitting agencies with contact information for the officers who
identified each child victim. Through the end of FY2013, CVIP was aware of over 5,000 child
victims who were identified by law enforcement agencies around the world.57
In April 2007, NCMEC made available a secure website (the Victim Identification Lab) to law
enforcement officers and prosecutors 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.
56 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.
57 NCMEC, NCMEC Quarterly Progress Report: July 1-September 30, 2013, p. 28.
Congressional Research Service
21
Missing and Exploited Children: Background, Policies, and Issues
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.58 The law
does not specify that a particular individual make such reports, although it does require that an
electronic communication service or a remote commuting service provider (collectively known as
electronic service providers or ESPs) make reports of online incidents involving child
pornography.59 The tipline enables ESPs and members of the public to report under eight
categories: (1) possession, manufacture, and distribution of child pornography; (2) online
enticement of children for sexual acts; (3) child prostitution; (4) child sex tourism; (5) child
sexual molestation (not in the family); (6) unsolicited obscene material sent to a child; (7)
misleading domain names; and (8) misleading words or digital images on the Internet.60
Although the CyberTipline began operating in March 1998, NCMEC’s role as administrator of
the tipline was formally authorized by the Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the
Exploitation of Children Today (PROTECT) Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-21). The authorizing statute
for the MEC program states that the CyberTipline is intended to take reports of “Internet-related
child sexual exploitation,” but in practice, such incidents do not have to be facilitated by the
Internet.61
Analysts from NCMEC review reports to the CyberTipline and each report is assigned a priority
level of 1, 2, or 3. Reports that are categorized as a “1” are given the highest priority and indicate
that a child is in imminent danger. In evaluating the reports, analysts may, among other things, (1)
determine whether an alleged child pornography image is that of an actual child; (2) determine
whether an image and content in a report is new or has been viewed by law enforcement in the
past; or (3) gather information from open source online sources (e.g., email addresses, websites,
and other information) to learn more about the perpetrator and victim.62 NCMEC analysts then
select a “reclassified incident type” based on 26 reclassified incident types.63
58 NCMEC’s role as administrator of the CyberTipline was authorized by the Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools
to End the Exploitation of Children Today (PROTECT) Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-21).
59 ESPs are required to report apparent child pornography to the CyberTipline pursuant to the PROTECT Our Children
Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-401). According to NCMEC, 1,024 of the more than 7,000 estimated ESPs in the United States
had complied with the law requiring ESPs to report child pornography to the tipline as of September 30, 2013.
NCMEC, NCMEC Quarterly Progress Report for July 1-September 30, 2013, p. 4.
60 The first three reporting categories were specified in P.L. 108-21, and the other five categories were specified in the
Protecting Our Children Comes First Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-240).
61 Based on correspondence with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, November 2011. See also,
NCMEC, CyberTipline, “Watch the CyberTipline Video,” http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/
PageServlet?LanguageCountry=en_US&PageId=2447.
62 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Combating Child Pornography: Steps are Needed to Ensure That Tips to
Law Enforcement are Useful and Forensic Examinations are Cost Effective, GAO-11-334, March 2011, p. 9,
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11334.pdf. (Hereinafter, U.S. Government Accountability Office, Combating Child
Pornography.)
63 NCMEC analysts reclassify each report under 26 categories, including apparent child pornography, child
pornography (unconfirmed), child images (unclothed), child images (clothed), child sexual molestation, child
prostitution, child sex tourism, online enticement–blackmail, online enticement–pretravel, online enticement–travel,
appears adult, anime/drawing/virtual, CSE (commercial sexual exploitation) text, cyberbullying, inanimate objects/no
human images, not enough information/dummy record, other type of incident, SPAM, suicide threats, threat of
violence, child trafficking, child pornography (not Internet-related), ESP test report, Auto-referred International, child
pornography (unconfirmed–international), or child pornography (unconfirmed–files not reviewed). Based on
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
22
Missing and Exploited Children: Background, Policies, and Issues
Regardless of how a report is classified, NCMEC makes reports to the CyberTipline (along with
accompanying analysis) available to select federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies
through a secure web-based system. Certain federal law enforcement agencies have access to all
reports: the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), U.S. Immigrations & Customs Enforcement
(ICE),64 U.S. Postal Inspection Service (USPIS), the Military Criminal Investigative
Organizations (MCIO), and the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS) within the
Justice Department’s Criminal Division.65 These users are able to access all CyberTipline reports
ever submitted, and they may search for and select reports by incident type. Analysts forward
reports to local or state law enforcement agencies, via the ICAC task forces, when they can
identify the geographic location of a suspect, the victim, or both. The ICAC task forces are only
able to access reports that are within their respective jurisdictions. The secure system logs every
report opened by each agency, and each federal agency has the ability to indicate if they plan to
take further action on a particular report.66 According to NCMEC, what constitutes an “action”
taken varies across law enforcement agencies. NCMEC requests feedback from all agencies about
the status of reports; however, these agencies do not always indicate whether they have taken
action or what resulted from their investigations.
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.
NCMEC’s Sex Offender Tracking Team, in its Case Analysis Division, provides assistance to
federal, state, and local law enforcement in their efforts to locate and apprehend noncompliant sex
offenders by providing technical assistance and analysis.
The team developed a standard protocol in response to law enforcement requests for assistance in
locating fugitive sex offenders, which generally includes information obtained through public
databases and search tools routinely used by NCMEC analysts. The team participates in the
National Sex Offender Targeting Center, an interagency intelligence and operations center created
by the U.S. Marshals Service.
Child Sex Trafficking Team
The Child Sex Trafficking Unit provides technical assistance to law enforcement agencies
working to identify and recover children in the United States who have been victimized by sex
trafficking. Analysts in the unit provide analytical reports about offenders who sexually exploited
children through sex trafficking, and they provide information to law enforcement officials about
known missing child cases possibly linked to sex trafficking.67
(...continued)
correspondence with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, November 2013.
64 ICE forwards reports that involve perpetrators and victims outside of the U.S. to relevant foreign law enforcement
agencies.
65 NCMEC refers reports of misleading domain names and unsolicited materials sent to children to the Department of
Justice’s Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section in the Criminal Division.
66 GAO, Combating Child Pornography.
67 NCMEC, 2012 Annual Report.
Congressional Research Service
23
Missing and Exploited Children: Background, Policies, and Issues
Family Advocacy Services
NCMEC’s Family Advocacy Division provides support, crisis-intervention, and technical
assistance to families, law enforcement, and family-advocacy agencies. 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.
The Family Advocacy Division also collaborates with the 36 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 the MEC program, as discussed below.
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,
including nursing and security personnel. In FY2013, NCMEC trained over 3,000 professionals
on these issues.68 NCMEC provides nationally accredited training about infant security for
healthcare professionals, including nursing and security personnel.
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.69 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.
68 Based on correspondence with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, November 2013.
69 For further information, see NCMEC, Missing Child Clearinghouses, http://www.missingkids.com/Clearinghouses.
Congressional Research Service
24
Missing and Exploited Children: Background, Policies, and Issues
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 nonprofit and corporate
partners to create a network for NCMEC programs.
Background Screening Pilot Program
The PROTECT Act created a pilot program to screen employees and volunteers at three children
organizations: Boys & Girls Clubs of America, the National Mentor Partnership, and National
Council of Youth.70 The program authorization was extended six times, most recently through
March 2012 by P.L. 111-341. NCMEC did not receive appropriations for this pilot program
through the MEC program or any funding source. NCMEC discontinued the program in March
2011 due primarily to a lack of funding.71
Over the course of the pilot program, NCMEC processed 104,954 records for prospective
volunteers at child-serving nonprofit organizations. Of these records, 1,914 (1.8 %) 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 nonserious offenses published periodically by the
FBI), or the applicant was on a sex offender registry. Another 4,592 (4.4%) of applicants received
a “yellow light,” meaning that they were arrested for a criterion offense, but case results were not
available.72
Financial Coalition Against Child Pornography
In 2006, NCMEC and the International Centre for Missing and Exploited Children joined with
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. NCMEC, law enforcement
agencies, and financial institutions share information pertaining to commercial child pornography
websites with the goal of eliminating the ability for users to pay for access to these websites.
Community Outreach
NCMEC works with community partners to prevent incidents of missing and exploited children.
The “Take 25” campaign is an initiative to educate families about keeping children safer.73
70 42 U.S.C. §5119(a). The most recent amendment to the PROTECT Act (P.L. 111-341) authorizes NCMEC to
provide background checks to any nonprofit organization that provides “care”—with approval by NCMEC and in
accordance with the FBI—as that term is defined in §5 of the National Child Protection Act of 1993, codified at 42
U.S.C. §5119(c). “Care” is defined as “the provision of care, treatment, education, training, instruction, supervision, or
recreation to children, the elderly, or individuals with disabilities.” NCMEC provided background checks to multiple
child-serving organizations since the creation of the pilot program.
71 Letter from Ernie Allen, Chief Executive Officer of NCMEC, to Senators Hatch and Schumer, March 4, 2011. Letter
provided to CRS by NCMEC.
72 NCMEC, NCMEC Quarterly Progress Reports for March 1-June 30, 2011.
73 Based on correspondence with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, November 2013.
Congressional Research Service
25
Missing and Exploited Children: Background, Policies, and Issues
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 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.
Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Force
The Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Force program was first funded in 1998 under
appropriations law (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. Subsequent appropriation laws also provided funding. The PROTECT Our
Children Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-401) formally authorized the program. P.L. 110-401 provides two
authorizations for the ICAC Task Force program—one for $60 million for FY2009-FY2013 for
ICAC activities generally, including grants for ICAC task forces, and one for $2 million for each
of FY2009-FY2016 for the National ICAC Data System, a data system to facilitate online law
enforcement investigations of child exploitation. The Child Protection Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-206),
signed into law on December 7, 2012, authorizes appropriations of $60 million for ICAC
activities through FY2018.
ICAC Task Forces
As outlined in the law, some of the purposes of the task forces are as follows: (1) increasing the
investigative capabilities of state and local law enforcement officers in the detection,
investigation, and apprehension of Internet crimes against children offenses or offenders,
including technology-facilitated child exploitation offenses; (2) conducting proactive and reactive
Internet crimes against children investigations; (3) providing training and technical assistance to
ICAC task forces and other law enforcement agencies in the areas of investigations, forensics,
prosecution, community outreach, and capacity-building, using recognized experts to assist in the
development and delivery of training programs; (4) increasing the number of Internet crimes
against children offenses being investigated and prosecuted; and (5) developing and delivering
Internet crimes against children public awareness and prevention programs, among other
purposes.
Congressional Research Service
26
Missing and Exploited Children: Background, Policies, and Issues
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, 61 regional task forces have been created, each of which are comprised
of multiple affiliated organizations (most of which are city and county law enforcement
agencies).74 The task forces receive leads from CyberTipline analysts at NCMEC and concerned
citizens or develop leads through proactive investigations and undercover operations. P.L. 110-
401 authorizes the Attorney General to award grants to state and local ICAC task forces using a
formula established by DOJ to distribute 75% of the funds; and the remaining 25% of the funds
are to be distributed based on need. In establishing any formula, the law directs DOJ to ensure
that each state or local ICAC task force shall, at a minimum, receive an amount equal to 0.5% of
the funds available. In addition, DOJ is to take into consideration factors such as each state’s
population; the number of investigative leads within the task force’s jurisdiction; the number of
criminal cases related to Internet crimes against children referred to a task force for federal, state,
or local prosecution; the number of successful prosecutions of child exploitation cases by a task
force; the amount of training, technical assistance, and public education or outreach by a task
force on child exploitation offenses; and other criteria established by DOJ to demonstrate the
level of need for additional resources.
The PROTECT Act further enables the Attorney General to establish national training programs
to support the mission of the program. The ICAC Training and Technical Assistance program
provides assistance to ICAC task forces. Multiple entities have been awarded funds to provide
training on improving investigation, technologies, and prosecutorial capabilities.75
National ICAC Data System (NIDS)
P.L. 110-401 directs the Attorney General to establish the National ICAC Data System (NIDS).
As discussed in the law, the intent of Congress in authorizing the data system was to build upon
Operation Fairplay developed by the Wyoming Attorney General’s office. Operation Fairplay
established a secure, dynamic undercover infrastructure that has facilitated online law
enforcement investigations of child exploitation, information sharing, and the capacity to collect
and aggregate data on the extent of the problems of child exploitation.76 The data system is to be
housed and maintained within DOJ or a credentialed law enforcement agency and is to be
available for a nominal charge to support law enforcement agencies’ efforts to combat child
exploitation. It must also collect and report real time data, provide an undercover infrastructure
for users, identify high-priority suspects, and include a network that provides for secure, online
data storage and analysis, among other items. P.L. 112-206, enacted on December 7, 2012,
requires that the Attorney General submit a report to Congress on the status of the establishment
of the system within 90 days of the law’s enactment. The Department of Justice is in the process
of preparing the report, which will discuss the status of the data system.77
74 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,
“Program Summary: Internet Crimes Against Children Task Program,” http://www.ojjdp.gov/programs/
progsummary.asp?pi=3,
75 Ibid.
76 U.S. Department of Justice, The National Strategy for Child Exploitation Prevention and Interdiction: A Report to
Congress, August 2010, pp. 10-12, http://www.justice.gov/psc/docs/natstrategyreport.pdf. (Hereinafter, U.S.
Department of Justice, The National Strategy for Child Exploitation Prevention and Interdiction: A Report to
Congress.)
77 Based on correspondence with the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legislative Affairs, May 2014.
Congressional Research Service
27
Missing and Exploited Children: Background, Policies, and Issues
As discussed in a March 2011 GAO report on federal efforts to combat child pornography, DOJ
issued a grant solicitation in March 2009 for constructing, maintaining, and housing NIDS;
however, grant applicants were notified in January 2010 that DOJ would not make an award
under that solicitation and instead would pursue a different system for “deconfliction” and
investigation than was described in the solicitation.78 DOJ issued another solicitation in June 2010
to select a grantee to conduct a national needs assessment and perform other tasks to support the
future development of NIDS. In September 2010, OJJDP awarded a grant to the Massachusetts
State Police and its partners to conduct a national needs assessment for the National Internet
Crimes Against Children Data System (NIDS).79 According to DOJ, work and payment for the
grant was suspended due to “issues with the grant,” which has expired.80 Separately, DOJ is
funding the ICAC Deconfliction System (IDS), which is a system to be used by ICAC task forces
that will replace a previous system, known as the ICAC Data Network. When NIDS is completed,
the two systems will be linked so that IDS can facilitate deconfliction among law enforcement
agencies that use NIDS.81
National Strategy for Child Exploitation Prevention
and Interdiction
P.L. 110-401 directed the Attorney General to create and implement a National Strategy for Child
Exploitation Prevention and Interdiction. The strategy was to involve establishing long-range,
comprehensive goals for child exploitation and for DOJ to coordinate its programs to combat
child exploitation with other federal programs, as well as with international, state, local, and tribal
law enforcement agencies and the private sector. As part of this strategy, DOJ was directed to
assess the ICAC program, including an evaluation of how entities that comprise each task force
coordinate on investigations and the success of task forces at leveraging state and local resources
and matching funds. The law also directed the Attorney General to conduct periodic reviews of
the effectiveness of each ICAC task force. The act requires DOJ to submit a report on the strategy
to Congress every other year.
In August 2010, the Department of Justice submitted its first report on the national strategy to
Congress, which included information about the ICAC Task Force program.82 According to the
78 GAO, Combating Child Pornography.
79 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Needs Assessment and Development Activities for the
National Internet Crimes Against Children Data System (NIDS), http://www.ojjdp.gov/grants/solicitations/FY2010/
ARRA%20NIDS.pdf.
80 Based on correspondence with the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legislative Affairs, May 2014. No further
information was provided about these issues.
81 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, FY
2011 Internet Crimes Against Children Deconfliction System Program, http://www.ojjdp.gov/grants/solicitations/
FY2011/ICACIDS.pdf. The grant announcement does not explicitly define “deconfliction”; however, this term is
defined by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, in the context of investigations of pornography via the Internet,
as “the coordination and information sharing among law enforcement agencies on multi-jurisdiction investigations to
help ensure officer safety and the effective use of resources.” U.S. Government Accountability Office, Combating
Child Pornography, p. 4.
82 U.S. Department of Justice, The National Strategy for Child Exploitation and Prevention: A Report to Congress,
August 2010, http://www.justice.gov/psc/docs/natstrategyreport.pdf. This report provides a detailed overview of the
ICAC program, including the number of investigations of alleged child sexual victimization, arrests made as a result of
those investigations, criminal referrals to the U.S. Attorneys for prosecution, forensic examinations, real children who
were victims of some form of abuse, trained ICAC personnel at each task force, and other information; information on
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
28
Missing and Exploited Children: Background, Policies, and Issues
report, the overall goal of the strategy is to prevent child sexual exploitation from occurring in the
first place. The report explained that the federal government is coordinating internally and with
social service providers, educators, nongovernmental organizations, caregivers, and others to
meet this goal. The report provides an assessment of the threat to children based on four types of
child sexual exploitation: (1) child pornography, (2) online enticement of children for sexual
purposes, (3) commercial sexual exploitation of children (primarily domestic prostitution), and
(4) child sex tourism. According to the report, cases of child sexual exploitation have increased
dramatically across all four areas. The report goes on to provide detailed information about the
efforts of the various agencies (the Departments of Defense, Health and Human Services,
Homeland Security, Justice, Labor, and State; and the U.S. Postal Service) and organizations,
including NCMEC, to combat child sexual exploitation. In each of the four areas listed above (as
well as child exploitation in Indian country), the strategy emphasizes certain priorities. For
example, in response to the domestic prostitution of children, the Department of Justice is
exploring whether to expand the FBI’s Innocence Lost initiative into other cities and is
considering strategies to reduce the demand for prostituted children through public awareness
campaigns and enforcement. In addition, DOJ is looking into the ways that the ICAC task force
and the Innocence Lost task forces can coordinate further.
P.L. 110-401 additionally directs DOJ to appoint a senior official to serve as coordinator of the
national strategy. DOJ appointed the National Coordinator in January 2010. Soon thereafter, the
national coordinator convened the National Strategy Working Group to assist in implementing the
national strategy.83 Members of the group include participants from multiple federal agencies and
five ICAC Task Forces. The Working Group is comprised of subcommittees that address
implementation of specific provisions of the strategy, including technical assistance, global
outreach, community outreach, research and grant planning, training, and law enforcement
collaboration.
DOJ is in the process of developing a follow-up report and reconvening the Working Group.84
AMBER Alert Program
AMBER (America’s Missing: Broadcast Emergency Response) Alert systems are state
administered. The MEC program supports these programs by providing training and technical
assistance to law enforcement personnel and AMBER Alert administrators. 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
(...continued)
training for ICAC personnel; the number and location of ICAC task forces; and federal funding of each task force,
among other information.
83 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Combating Child Pornography, pp. 12-13.
84 Based on correspondence with the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legislative Affairs, May 2014.
Congressional Research Service
29
Missing and Exploited Children: Background, Policies, and Issues
Emergency Alert System (EAS), which interrupts broadcasting.85 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 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.86
DOJ Grant
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 DOJ (and the Department of Transportation, see below) was formalized under
the PROTECT Act (P.L. 108-21). P.L. 108-21 authorizes DOJ to provide grants to states, on a
geographically equitable basis as possible, to develop and enhance their AMBER Alert
communications plans. The law authorizes $4 million for FY2004 for this purpose. Congress has
continued to provide funding in each year since FY2004. DOJ has not used the funds for AMBER
85 For further discussion about the distribution of the alerts, see CRS Report RS21453, Amber Alert Program
Technology, by Linda K. Moore.
86 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Report to the Congress on AMBER Alert, July 2005, p. 7,
http://www.amberalert.gov/newsroom/pdfs/05_amber_report.pdf. (Hereinafter referred to as U.S. Department of
Justice, Report to Congress on AMBER Alert).
Congressional Research Service
30
Missing and Exploited Children: Background, Policies, and Issues
Alert systems, and instead has determined that funds would be most efficiently spent delivering
consistent, comprehensive training and technical assistance to states.87
DOT Grant
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.88 At the end of FY2013 (September
30, 2013), 40 states and the District of Columbia received funding. The federal share of the cost
of these activities is not to exceed 80%, and federal funds are available until expended.89
Approximately $4.1 million in funding was still available at the end of FY2013.
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 awarded most recently as a five-year cooperative agreement beginning
with FY2010. Fox Valley Technical College was awarded the agreement, and it provides training
and technical assistance for multiple courses on child abduction and related courses.90
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.91 NCMEC partners with over
80 secondary distributors, including wireless providers who encourage customers to sign up to
receive wireless AMBER Alerts on their cell phones.92
87 This information was provided to the Congressional Research Service by the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of
Justice Programs in May 2007.
88 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.
89 This information was provided to the Congressional Research Service by Department of Transportation, Federal
Highway Administration staff in February 2014.
90 U.S. Department of Justice, “AMBER Alert Program, Technical Assistance,” http://www.amber-net.org/
technicalassistance.html.
91 U.S. Department of Justice, Report to Congress on AMBER Alert, p. 7.
92 NCMEC, NCMEC Quarterly Progress Reports for July 1-September 30, 2013, p. 19.
Congressional Research Service
31
Missing and Exploited Children: Background, Policies, and Issues
Other Program Activities
The MEC program provides funding to support other activities related to missing and exploited
children—including program administration, support services provided by missing children’s
organizations, and grant programs—that can vary from year to year.
OJJDP provides training and technical assistance on missing and exploited children for public and
private nonprofit organizations,93 and funds the development and printing of publications and
Missing Children’s Day activities through DOJ’s National Criminal Justice Reference Service.
The program also provides a grant to the National Alliance of Missing Children’s Organizations
(NAMCO). NAMCO is a membership organization of nonprofit organizations that serve the
families of missing and exploited children, provide services to law enforcement and community
agencies, and provide public awareness and education about child protection.
Other program activities vary each year. DOJ funded the following grants through the MEC
program in recent years:
• Child Protection Research: This FY2011 grant funded research on missing and
exploited children and on how technology facilitates crimes against children,
including identifying predictive factors that reliably indicate whether a subject of
an online child exploitation investigation poses a great risk of harming children.
• Technical Assistance to Programs to Address Commercial Sexual Exploitation
(CSE)/Domestic Minor Sex Trafficking (DMST): This FY2011 grant funded an
organization to provide technical assistance to OJJDP grantees and other
organizations addressing CSE or DMST of girls and boys. The program offers
education and training, expert consultations, peer-to-peer networking
opportunities, resources, and other tailored assistance to respond to diverse
communities concerning the sexual victimization of girls and boys.
• Youth with Sexual Behavior Problem: The purpose of this FY2010 program was
to assist localities in responding to child sexual victimization by youth. The
organizations were directed to provide intervention and support services for the
offending youth and treatment services for the victims and their families.
• Improving Community Response to the Commercial Sexual Exploitation of
Children (CSEC): The purpose of this program, from FY2009, was to support
three communities in combating the commercial sexual exploitation of children,
which includes youth under age 18, by improving training and coordination
activities within the community. OJJDP assisted the communities in developing
policies and procedures to identify CSEC victims, adopting best practices for
addressing CSEC, and completing a needs assessment to identify and fill gaps in
local service provision to victims, such as mental and physical health services
and temporary shelter.
93 For further information, see U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, “Missing and Exploited Children’s Program Training and Technical Assistance,”
http://mecptraining.org/.
Congressional Research Service
32
Missing and Exploited Children: Background, Policies, and Issues
• Research on the Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children: The purpose of
this FY2009 program was to support research on the scope and consequence of
the commercial sexual exploitation of children and youth.
• Promoting Child and Youth Safety—Community Initiatives and Public
Awareness: The purpose of this FY2009 program was twofold: (1) to help
communities develop and implement evidence-based demonstration projects that
promote child and youth safety and (2) to provide resources and expertise to help
communities develop effective public awareness strategies about youth safety.
Issues
Issues that are relevant to the MEC program include the potential need for more comprehensive
data on missing and sexually exploited children; the implementation of the National ICAC Data
System; and the creation of the National Emergency Child Locator Center at NCMEC that
provides assistance to jurisdictions experiencing disasters. Other issues pertain to children
missing from foster care and missing adults.
Data Collection
P.L. 110-240 authorizes NCMEC to engage in particular data collection activities. The law
permits NCMEC to report to DOJ the number of missing and recovered children but not to
engage in data collection other than receiving reports about missing children. Further, P.L. 110-
240 authorizes NCMEC to take reports through its CyberTipline of incidents of child exploitation
under multiple exploitation categories; NCMEC already took these reports prior to the enactment
of P.L. 110-240.
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 nonfamily 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
nonfamily abductions each year, the estimates of caretaker missing and reported missing cases are
imprecise.94 Limited data for all types of missing episodes also precluded NISMART-2 from
drawing conclusions about episode types by region.
In FY2010, DOJ awarded funds for a follow-up study known as NISMART-3. As with
NISMART-2, NISMART-3 will include several complementary studies to measure the size and
nature of the missing children problem.95 The studies will provide national estimates of missing
children based on surveys of households, juvenile residential facilities, and law enforcement
agencies.
94 David Finkelhor, Heather Hammer, Andrea J. Sedlak, Nonfamily Abducted Children, p. 7. See discussion of
NISMART-2 earlier in this report for explanation of “caretaker missing” and “reported missing” cases.
95 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,
Grant Solicitation, OJJDP FY 2010 National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway
Children 3, 2010, http://ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/grants/solicitations/FY2010/NISMART3.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
33
Missing and Exploited Children: Background, Policies, and Issues
A related issue concerns requirements about entering data of missing children, including young
adults ages 18 to 21, into the federal National Crime Information Center (NCIC) Missing Person
File. As discussed above, the NCIC is a computerized index of information on crimes and
criminals that is maintained by the FBI. Under federal law, (1) no law enforcement agency within
a state may establish or maintain policies that require a waiting period before accepting a missing
child or unidentified person report; (2) no law enforcement agency may establish or maintain any
policy that requires the removal of a missing person entry from NCIC (or the state law
enforcement system) solely based on the age of the person; and (3) the report of each missing
child must include certain items, such as demographic information, location of the last known
contact with the child, and the category under which the child is reported. States must further
ensure that law enforcement agencies enter the profile of each child—including young adults ages
18 to 21—to the NCIC (and state law enforcement database) within two hours of receiving a
report that he or she is missing.96
In a 2011 study, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that across 10 states,
reports of missing children to NCIC were untimely in 9% to 47% of cases in each of the states.97
GAO also reviewed steps that the FBI has taken to ensure implementation of the two-hour entry
rule and documented challenges with meeting the requirements for entry into NCIC, as reported
by nine law enforcement agencies. Such challenges included determining whether a child is
missing when the child is involved in disputes over custody, and obtaining information about
children missing from foster care. GAO found that while the FBI has tried to mitigate these
challenges, the agency should consider establishing minimum standards for states to monitor
compliance with these requirements and to obtain and share information about improving
compliance.98 The FBI’s Policy Advisory Board, which oversees the NCIC, has declined to
establish such standards.99
National ICAC Data System
As discussed above, DOJ is in the process of developing the NIDS, which began with an
assessment of how best to create and maintain the system. DOJ has reported multiple obstacles
for creating NDIS. For example, DOJ must ensure NIDS is accessible by multiple entities (the
ICAC task forces and federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement officials); however, the
systems these entities use may not be compatible. Still, DOJ believes that the system will be
96 The National Child Search Assistance Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-647) required law enforcement agencies to enter these
profiles “immediately.” The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act (P.L. 109-248) struck “immediately” and
replaced it with “within two hours.” Suzanne’s Law (part of the PROTECT Act of 2003, P.L. 108-21) directs law
enforcement agencies to also submit, within the same two-hour time frame, information about missing adults ages 18
through 20 to the NCIC.
97 For most of these reports, the law enforcement agencies could not provide the reason why they were untimely. When
reasons were provided, law enforcement most often reported that they were unaware of the two-hour requirement or
that they did not provide information about the child in a timely matter for a variety of reasons (i.e., they began
investigating the case before submitting the report, were dispatched to another service call before submitting the report,
or did not think the report was necessary because it involved a child who was a frequent runaway).
98 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Missing Children; DOJ Could Enhance Oversight to Help Ensure That Law
Enforcement Agencies Report Cases in a Timely Manner, GAO-11-444, June 2011, http://www.gao.gov/products/
GAO-11-444.
99 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Missing Children; DOJ Could Enhance Oversight to Help Ensure That Law
Enforcement Agencies Report Cases in a Timely Manner, “Recommendations for Executive Action,”
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-444.
Congressional Research Service
34
Missing and Exploited Children: Background, Policies, and Issues
implemented.100 Given some of these initial challenges, Congress may want to monitor its
implementation.
National Emergency Child Locator Center
P.L. 110-240 specifies that MEC funds may be used to operate the National Emergency Child
Locator Center (NECLC). The law also adds as a purpose of the MEC program that it helps
children who go missing because of natural disasters such as hurricanes and floods.
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 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.101 Recognizing the need for
formalized coordination efforts in disasters or emergencies, Congress passed legislation (P.L.
109-295) requiring 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 2011, FEMA and NCMEC signed an agreement formally establishing the NECLC; however,
NCMEC already had in place a Disaster Response Plan (DRP) describing how the organization
would respond to disasters.102 The DRP was created in 2007 and updated in 2011.103 The plan
details the response to a continuum of disaster types. 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 Team Adam staff in the field to shelters established in
a multi-state region.
NCMEC continues to work on the implementation of the NECLC and has assisted communities
affected by disasters. According to NCMEC, the NECLC consists of operational components as
well as physical components, including facilities, equipment, and a computer network. The
physical components are housed at a backup Call Center in NCMEC’s Lake Park, FL, facility.
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.104 The state’s child welfare
100 GAO, Combating Child Pornography. pp. 32-33.
101 National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, Annual Report 2005, pp. 5-7.
102 This information was provided by NCMEC in April 2007.
103 Ibid., January 2012.
104 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Lessons Learned for Protecting and Educating Children after the Gulf
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
35
Missing and Exploited Children: Background, Policies, and Issues
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).105 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 information with other states.106 States are required
to submit, in their child welfare plan (known as the Child and Family Services Plan),107
procedures describing how the state would respond to a disaster based on the five criteria above.
HHS has also updated its 1995 guide to assist child welfare agencies develop disaster relief
plans.108
Children Missing from Foster Care109
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’110 ability to track children in the foster care system and
ensure their safety while under the custody of the child welfare agency.
(...continued)
Coast Hurricanes, GAO-06-680R, May 2006, p. 3.
105 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.
106 42 U.S.C. §622(b)(16).
107 To receive federal funding, state child welfare agencies must submit annually its procedures for carrying out the
federal Child Welfare Services program.
108 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, http://muskie.usm.maine.edu/helpkids/rcpdfs/copingwithdisasters.pdf.
109 For further information, see Congressional Research Service Congressional Distribution memo, Children Missing
From Foster Care: Background, Responses by Select States, and Issues, by Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara.
Available upon request.
110 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.
Congressional Research Service
36
Missing and Exploited Children: Background, Policies, and Issues
A child is considered missing from foster care if she or 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 nonfamily
member removing the child, either voluntarily or involuntarily, without permission (i.e.,
abductions); or (3) a lack of oversight by the child welfare agency.111 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 FY2012, nearly 5,000 children in foster care (1% of all
children in care) had a current placement setting of “runaway” on the last day of the fiscal year.
For that same year, approximately 1,200 (1%) of all children who exited care exited as
runaways.112 However, these figures do not convey the total number of children who go
missing.113 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.114 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 policy makers, child welfare advocates, and law enforcement
officials, the CWLA and NCMEC developed best practices guidelines around missing foster
children.115 The guidelines provide a framework for collaboration between the law enforcement
111 Caren Kaplan, Children Missing from Care: An Issue Brief, Child Welfare League of America, 2004,
http://www.cwla.org/programs/fostercare/childmiss.htm.
112 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, The AFCARS Report
#20, Preliminary FY 2012 Estimates as of July 2013, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/afcarsreport20.pdf.
For additional information about runaway youth, see CRS Report RL33785, Runaway and Homeless Youth:
Demographics and Programs, by Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara.
113 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.
114 Titles IV-B and IV-E and related sections of the Social Security Act are compiled at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/
programs/cb/resource/safe2010draft. See also 42 U.S.C. §§620-629(i), 670-679(b).
115 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,
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
37
Missing and Exploited Children: Background, Policies, and Issues
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.
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 Adults116
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.117 This law amended the Missing Children’s
Assistance Act by requiring law enforcement agencies to enter individuals under the age of 21
into the NCIC.118 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 individuals
reach the age of majority, they may have legitimate reasons for becoming missing, such as
seeking protection from a domestic abuser.
(...continued)
2005. The NCMEC publication is available at http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/ResourceServlet?
LanguageCountry=en_US&PageId=2234.
116 For additional information, see CRS Report RL34616, Missing Adults: Background, Federal Programs, and Issues
for Congress, by Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara; and CRS Report R40552, Alert Systems for Missing Adults in
Eleven States: Background and Issues for Congress, by Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara and Kirsten J. Colello.
117 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).
118 No corresponding amendments to the Missing Children’s Assistance Act have been made to reflect that NCMEC is
authorized to accept cases of missing children ages 18 to 20.
Congressional Research Service
38
Missing and Exploited Children: Background, Policies, and Issues
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,
and the number of children sexually abused or at risk of sexual exploitation.
Definitions of Missing Children
NISMART-2 classified missing children under five categories. Table A-1 defines these five
categories.
Table A-1. Categories of Missing Children
Category
Non-family Abduction: A non-family member takes a child (without lawful authority or parental permission) by
physical force or threat of bodily harm or keeps a child by force in an isolated location for at least an hour; or when a
child 14 years or younger (or who is mental y incompetent) is taken (without lawful authority or parental permission),
detailed, or voluntarily accompanies a nonfamily perpetrator who conceals the child’s whereabouts, asks for ransom,
or plans to keep the child permanently. A type of non-family abduction, known as a stereotypical kidnapping,
involves detaining the child overnight, transporting him or her at least 50 miles, and holding the child for random with
the intent of keeping the child permanently or killing the child.
Family Abduction: A member of the child’s family or someone acting on behalf of a family member, violates a
custody order, decree, or other legal custodial rights, by taking or failing to return the child and conceals or
transports the child out of state with the intent of preventing contact or depriving the caretaker of custodial rights
indefinitely or permanently. There must be evidence that a child 15 years or older (unless mental y incompetent) was
taken or detained by physical force or was threatened with bodily harm.
Runaway/Thrownaway: A runaway is a child who either leaves home and stays away overnight without parental
permission; is 14 years or younger (or older if mentally incompetent) who leaves home, choose not to return and
stays away overnight; or is 15 years or older who leaves home, chooses not to return and stays away two nights. A
thrownaway child is one who is asked or told to leave the home by a parent or other adult in the household who has
not made adequate alternative care arrangements for the child, and the child is away from the home overnight; or a
child who leaves home, but is prevented from returning by a parent or other household adult who has not arranged
adequate alternative care for the child who is away from home overnight.
Missing Involuntary, Lost, or Injured: A child’s whereabouts are unknown to the caretaker, which causes the
caretaker to become alarmed for at least one hour while trying to locate the child under one of two conditions: (1)
the child is trying to get home and contacts the caretaker, but is unable to do so because the child is either lost,
stranded, or injured; or (2) the child is too young to know how to return home or contact the caregiver.
Missing Benign Explanation: A child’s whereabouts are unknown to the caretaker, which causes the caretaker to
(1) be alarmed, (2) try to find the child, and (3) call the police about the situation for any reason, as long as the child
was not lost, injured ,abducted, victimized, or considered to be a runaway or thrownaway.
Source: Congressional Research Service presentation of definitions in Sedlak et al., National Estimates of Missing
Children: An Overview, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, October
2002, p. 4.
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
Congressional Research Service
39
Missing and Exploited Children: Background, Policies, and Issues
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 nonfamily but released before anyone noticed their absence. Table A-2 includes the missing
and non-missing children within each category. Note that estimates of these children are not
totaled across categories because some children had more than one type of missing episode. The
researchers caution against summing the categories of missing children because these categories
contain multiple (not individual) counts.
Table A-2. Missing and Non-missing Children
Missing Category
Missing Non-missing
Nonfamily abduction
33,000
25,200
Family abduction
117,200
86,700
Runaway/thrownaway 628,900
1,054,000
Missing involuntarily, lost, or injureda 198,300 0
Missing benign explanationa 374,700
0
Source: Congressional Research Service presentation of data from Andrea J. Sedlak et al., 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.
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 14.119 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 31% traveled more than 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. 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 or attempted 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.120 A child’s relationship with a
119 Heather Hammer, David Finkelhor, and Andrea J. Sedlak, Runaway/Thrownaway Children: National Estimates and
Characteristics.
120 For additional information, see CRS Report RL33785, Runaway and Homeless Youth: Demographics and
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
40
Missing and Exploited Children: Background, Policies, and Issues
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%).
Nonfamily 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 detaining the child overnight and transporting them outside of their 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 nonfamily abductions in 1999 experienced a
stereotypical kidnapping.121
With the caveat that NISMART-2 data on nonfamily abductions are not entirely reliable because
some estimates are based on too few sample cases, the most frequent victims of both broadly
defined nonfamily abductions and stereotypical nonfamily abductions were teenage girls ages 12
to 14.122 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 nonfamily abduction failed to return home alive.
(...continued)
Programs, by Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara.
121 David Finkelhor, Heather Hammer, Andrea J. Sedlak, Nonfamily Abducted Children p. 6.
122 Estimates of nonfamily 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 adults and children were interviewed by
phone, provide data on broadly defined nonfamily 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.
Congressional Research Service
41
Missing and Exploited Children: Background, Policies, and Issues
Family Abductions
Approximately 63% of children abducted by family members were with the abductor under
lawful circumstances directly prior to the incident.123 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.124 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 and
children not living with both parents appeared to be the most likely victims of parental abduction.
Almost half of children abducted by family members were returned to the primary caretaker in
one week or less, and the majority of these children 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.125 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 five 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.
Incidents of Child Sexual Exploitation
As discussed previously, the true number of sexual exploitation incidents, whether or not they
accompany missing children cases, is not known because the abuse often goes undetected.
Nonetheless, some studies—in addition to those already discussed—provide insight into the
prevalence of sexual exploitation.
Sexual Victimization Among Children Generally
The FBI’s National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) includes data on each single
incident of select crimes that are collected by federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies.
123 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.
124 Heather Hammer, David Finkelhor, and Andrea J. Sedlak, Children Abducted by Family Members: National
Estimates and Characteristics, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, October 2002, http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/196466.pdf.
125 Janet Chiancone, Linda Girdner, and Patricia Hoff, Issues in Resolving Cases of International Child Abduction by
Parents, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention, December 2001, http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/190105.pdf. (Hereinafter U.S. Department of Justice,
International Child Abduction by Parents.)
Congressional Research Service
42
Missing and Exploited Children: Background, Policies, and Issues
The data encompass sexual offenses, including forcible rape, forcible sodomy, sexual assault with
an object, forcible fondling, incest, and statutory rape. An analysis of 418,000 victims reported by
22 states to NIBRS from 2000 and 2001 found that over half of the crimes committed against
juveniles involved sexual assaults.126 Sexual assaults accounted for three in four juvenile female
victims and one in four male victims. Females were more likely to be victimized in their teen
years compared to males, who were more likely to be victimized as young children. A limitation
of these data is that victims tend to underreport sexual victimization to law enforcement and other
agencies.
Sexual Victimization 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. For FY2012, the most recent year for which data are available,
all states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico provided case-level data.127 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.128 The
FY2012 NCANDS report estimated that nearly 63,000 (9.3%) children who had contact with the
child welfare system were victims of sexual abuse during that year.129
Another analysis of children who had contact with child welfare services 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 second survey of data collection (between 2008 and 2009) that 8.5% of cases of
126 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,
Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report, pp. 31-32, http://ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/nr2006/downloads/
NR2006.pdf.
127 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Child Maltreatment
2012, p. 21, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/cm2012.pdf. (Hereinafter U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, Child Maltreatment 2012.)
128 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Child Welfare Information Gateway, Definitions of Child Abuse
and Neglect: Summary of State Laws. Each state defines the types of child abuse and neglect in state statute and policy;
however, in exchange for federal funding, each state must include a minimum definition of “child abuse” that is
included in the Child Abuse Reporting and Treatment Act (CAPTA). This definition includes the term “sexual abuse,”
defined in CAPTA (§111(4)) to include “(A) the employment, use, persuasion, inducement, enticement, or coercion, of
any child to engage in, or 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 (B) the rape, and in the cases of caretaker
or inter-familiar relationships, statutory rape molestation, prostitution, or other forms of sexual exploitation of children,
or incest with children.”
129 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Child Maltreatment 2012, p. 21. Each state defines the types of
child abuse and neglect in state statute and policy; however, in exchange for federal funding, each state must include a
minimum definition of “child abuse” that is included in the Child Abuse Reporting and Treatment Act (CAPTA). This
definition includes the term “sexual abuse,” defined in CAPTA (§111(4)) to include “(A) the employment, use,
persuasion, inducement, enticement, or coercion, of any child to engage in, or 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 (B) the rape, and in the cases of caretaker or inter-familiar relationships, statutory rape molestation, prostitution, or
other forms of sexual exploitation of children, or incest with children.”
Congressional Research Service
43
Missing and Exploited Children: Background, Policies, and Issues
suspected child abuse included sexual abuse.130 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%). The second wave of NSCAW (with data collection
from March 2008 to September 2009) found that 8.4% of cases of suspected child abuse included
sexual abuse.131
Children in foster care are also vulnerable to sex trafficking.132 These children are believed to be
targeted by traffickers because they have characteristics that make them vulnerable to
manipulation and control. There is not a national estimate of the number of children in care who
are victims or are at-risk of victimization; however, NCMEC found that of the children who were
reported to the organization in 2012 as victims or suspected victims of sex trafficking, 67% were
in foster care at the time of their known or suspected victimization.133
Online Victimization of Children
A true estimate of the number of children sexually exploited over the Internet is unknown. 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).134
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.
130 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, National Survey of
Child and Adolescent Well-Being (NSCAW) II Baseline Report: Maltreatment, August 1, 2011, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/
sites/default/files/opre/nscaw2_maltreatment.pdf. 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.
131 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, National Survey of
Child and Adolescent Well-Being (NSCAW) II Baseline Report: Maltreatment, Final Report, August 2011,
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/abuse_neglect/nscaw/.
132 For further information, see CRS Report R41878, Sex Trafficking of Children in the United States: Overview and
Issues for Congress, by Kristin Finklea, Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara, and Alison Siskin.
133 Based on correspondence with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, November 2013.
134 Janice Wolak, Kimberly Mitchell, and David Finkelhor, Online Victimization of Youth: Five Years Later, National
Center for Missing and Exploited Children, 2006, 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.
Congressional Research Service
44
Missing and Exploited Children: Background, Policies, and Issues
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%).
A series of other studies on online victimization of children—the National Juvenile Online
Victimization studies (NJOV)—has been conducted by the University of New Hampshire’s
Crimes Against Children Research Center. The NJOV-1 and NJOV-2 were completed in 2001 and
2006. Both studies examined trends in the incidence of arrests for child sexual exploitation that
was facilitated by computer technology, and described the dynamics of the crimes and the
characteristics of offenders and victims. A third study, NJOV-3, is underway.135 Although the
NJOV-3 will build upon the information provided in the first two studies, it differs from the first
two in that it will (1) collect data on the prosecution of technology-assisted commercial sexual
exploitation crimes, and (2) collect data from law enforcement and prosecutors about cases of
“sexting.”136
Commercial Sexual Exploitation137
The commercial sexual exploitation of children refers to acts of prostitution, pornography, sex
trafficking, and sex rings for financial gain. Few 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.138 In addition,
1 in 8 endangered runaways reported to NCMEC in 2012 were suspected of being victims of
child sex trafficking.139
135 University of New Hampshire, Crimes Against Children Research Center, http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/internet-crimes/
projects.html. The three National Juvenile Online Victimization studies are funded by the Department of Justice, Office
of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention under the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (P.L. 111-5).
136 University of New Hampshire, Crimes Against Children Research Center, http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/pdf/
The%20Third%20National%20Juvenile%20Online%20Victimization%20Study_web%20doc.pdf. The Crimes Against
Children Research Center defines “sexting” as youth-generated sexual images of juveniles themselves or peers that
meet criminal definitions of child pornography and are created, distributed, or possessed by youth. Note that although
accounts of “sexting” are being included in the NJOV-3 study, sexting is not conducted online but rather via cellular
telephones.
137 For further information, see CRS Report R41878, Sex Trafficking of Children in the United States: Overview and
Issues for Congress, by Kristin Finklea, Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara, and Alison Siskin.
138 For the 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., Canada, and Mexico, Executive Summary of the U.S. National
Summary, September 2001, http://www.sp2.upenn.edu/~restes/CSEC_Files/Exec_Sum_020220.pdf.
139 Based on correspondence with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, November 2013.
Congressional Research Service
45
Missing and Exploited Children: Background, Policies, and Issues
Appendix B. The Missing Children’s Assistance Act
of 1984, as Amended
Table B-1. 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 (P.L. 98-473)
—Defines missing child as any individual under age 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 the Administrator of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
(OJJDP) to
(1) facilitate effective coordination among all federally funded programs relating to missing
children,
(2) 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,
(3) 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,
(4) 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
(5) 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.
1988 (P.L. 100-690)
—Removes the requirement that the OJJDP Administrator analyze, compile, publish, and
disseminate an annual summary of recently completed research concerning missing and
exploited children;
—Requires OJJDP Administrator to submit a 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.
Congressional Research Service
46
Missing and Exploited Children: Background, Policies, and Issues
Year (Public Law) Legislative Creation and Amendments to the Missing Children’s Assistance Act
1989 (P.L. 101-204)
Technical amendments only.
1992 (P.L. 102-586)
Provides funding authorization at such sums as necessary for FY1993 through FY1996.
1994 (P.L. 103-322)
Establishes a task force composed of law enforcement officers from pertinent federal agencies
to work with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and coordinate federal
law enforcement resources to assist state and local authorities in investigating the most
difficult cases of missing and exploited children.
1996 (P.L. 104-235)
—Requires that the OJJDP Administrator use only up 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.
1998 (P.L. 105-314)
Deletes the language to establish a task force composed of law enforcement officers from
pertinent federal agencies to work with the National Center for Missing and Exploited
Children.
1999 (P.L. 106-71)
—Provides an annual grant to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children to
carry out the activities originally designated to the OJJDP Administrator, including the
following:
(1) operate the national 24-hour, tol -free telephone line,
(2) coordinate the operation of the telephone line with the operation of the Runaway and
Homeless Children Program’s national communications system, and
(3) operate the official national resource center and information clearinghouse for missing and
exploited children, among other responsibilities;
—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 (P.L. 108-21)
—Provides funding authorization for the National 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 (P.L. 108-96)
Provides funding authorization for the National 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.
2006 (P.L. 109-248)
Changes the definition of missing child to any individual less than 18 years of age whose
whereabouts are unknown to such individual’s legal guardian.
2008 (P.L. 110-240)
Provides funding authorization for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children at
$40 million for FY2008 and such sums as necessary for FY2009 through FY2013, and such
sums as necessary for the Missing Children’s Assistance Act program for these same years.
The law also authorizes the OJP Administrator to make the grant to NCMEC to carry out
specified activities, some of which were already carried out by the organization before the law
was enacted.
Congressional Research Service
47
Missing and Exploited Children: Background, Policies, and Issues
Year (Public Law) Legislative Creation and Amendments to the Missing Children’s Assistance Act
2008 (P.L. 110-344)
Provides authority to an Inspector General to authorize staff to assist NCMEC by conducting
reviews of inactive case files to develop recommendations for further investigations and by
engaging in similar activities.
2013 (P.L. 113-38)
Provides funding authorization of $40 million for each of FY2014 through FY2018 for OJJDP
to fund activities carried out under the act. Of this amount, up to $32.2 million is to be used
for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. The law also requires more
regular (every three years) studies on missing and sexual y exploited children and implements
new accountability standards for grant recipients.
Source: Compiled by the Congressional Research Service.
Note: The Missing Children’s Assistance Act is codified at 42 U.S.C. §5771 et seq.; under Chapter 72 (Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention).This compilation includes only legislation amending the Missing and
Exploited Children’s program at §5771 et seq. The Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Force
Program, a component of the Missing and Exploited Children’s Program, is authorized under the PROTECT Our
Children Act (P.L. 110-401), at 42 U.S.C. §17601 et seq., under Chapter 154 (Combating Child Exploitation). The
AMBER Alert program, another component of the Missing and Exploited Children’s program, is authorized
under the PROTECT Act (P.L. 108-21) and is codified at 42 U.S.C. §5791.
Author Contact Information
Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara
Specialist in Social Policy
afernandes@crs.loc.gov, 7-9005
Congressional Research Service
48