CRS Issue Statement on Missing or Sexually Exploited Individuals

CRS Issue Statement on Missing or Sexually Exploited Individuals

.

CRS Issue Statement on Missing or Sexually
Exploited Individuals
Adrienne L. Fernandes, Coordinator
Specialist in Social Policy
January 13, 2010
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
IS41058
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress
c11173008

.
CRS Issue Statement on Missing or Sexually Exploited Individuals

ongress has long been concerned with the well-being of individuals, particularly children,
who are vulnerable to going missing. Individuals may go missing for a variety of reasons,
C including personal choice, an abduction by a family member or others, foul play, a mental
or physical disability, or a natural catastrophe, among other reasons. Certain adults are vulnerable
to missing episodes, such as individuals with cognitive impairments like Alzheimer’s disease.
Adults who engage in certain high-risk behaviors, including gang involvement or drug use,
among other circumstances, are also vulnerable.
As a policy issue, missing children are often included in discussions of sexual victimization.
Some children—regardless of whether they are missing—can be vulnerable to child sexual
exploitation (CSE). CSE is often characterized as the use of a child for the sexual gratification of
an adult. Among the various forms of CSE are extrafamilial child sexual molestation; enticement
of children for sexual acts over the Internet; obscene material sent to a child; possession,
manufacture, and distribution of child pornography; sex tourism involving children; and sex
trafficking, which involves the use of a commercial sex act induced by force, fraud, or coercion.
These acts can take place domestically or internationally. International incidents can involve
victims who are brought to the United States and individuals who are victimized by U.S. citizens
abroad. Adults may also be sexually exploited through rape, sex trafficking, and other scenarios.
(Unlike missing children, missing adult issues are not considered alongside sexual exploitation.
Nonetheless, adults who go missing may be subject to sexual and other forms of exploitation.) As
part of the U.S. response to sexual exploitation, the federal government has increasingly targeted
sex offenders.
The following discusses the key policy issues Congress faces related to missing and exploited
children, sex offenders, and missing adults.
Missing or Sexually Exploited Children
Missing children and exploited children are distinct but overlapping populations. The term
“missing child” is defined under the Missing Children’s Assistance Act as an individual under age
18 whose whereabouts are unknown to the child’s legal custodian. Although the term “sexually
exploitation” is not formally defined in law, several sexually exploitative acts against children are
classified in the federal criminal code as illegal, including child pornography and online
enticement of children for sexual acts.
The current number of missing or exploited children is not fully known. The definition of
“missing” or “exploitation” can influence the number of children who fall into one or both of
these categories. A study using data from 1999 indicates that of the 1.3 million children who went
missing that year, most had run away from home or were forced to leave their home (i.e.,
thrownaways), and nearly all were returned to their caretakers. Thousands of children had also
been abducted, either by a stranger or family member, within the United States or taken to another
country. Stereotypical kidnapping—in which a stranger or slight acquaintance took the child and
detained him or her for ransom or to kill the child—were rare. Separately, the same study also
found that about 300,000 children were sexually assaulted—including rape, attempted rape,
unwanted sexual contact, and attempted unwanted sexual contact—in 1999. A growing body of
research demonstrates that certain children, particularly runaways and thrownaways, are
vulnerable to sex trafficking, which includes forced prostitution and other forms of exploitation.
Local and state law enforcement agencies are often the first responders in cases involving
children who have gone missing and/or may be the victims of CSE. The federal government has
Congressional Research Service
1

.
CRS Issue Statement on Missing or Sexually Exploited Individuals

used a variety of strategies to support law enforcement agencies in their response efforts,
including programs that work to recover these children and increasingly harsher penalties for
violations of federal laws involving CSE. In considering the role of the federal government in
addressing CSE, Congress has recently sought to better coordinate resources among various
federal agencies with programs on missing and exploited children. The recently enacted
PROTECT Our Children Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-401) requires the Department of Justice (DOJ) to
develop and implement a “National Strategy for Child Exploitation and Prevention.” P.L. 110-401
includes specific provisions about DOJ meeting targets for reducing child exploitation and
coordinating with other agencies around prevention, investigation, and apprehension of
individuals exploiting children. Related to this, the law directs DOJ to establish a data sharing
system to facilitate online law enforcement investigations of CSE. These provisions represent
broad changes to current policy, and Congress will likely want to monitor and review how they
are implemented.
Although efforts are underway to develop a national strategy, they may be complicated by the
multiple federal agencies with oversight of CSE and missing children issues. Within DOJ alone,
this oversight is carried out by the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS) in the
Criminal Division, which prosecutes crimes against children; Innocent Images National Initiative
(IINI) and Crimes Against Children Unit (CACU) in the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI),
which investigate crimes against children facilitated through technology as well as other crimes
that include child abduction without ransom and international and domestic parental abduction of
children; and Project Safe Childhood, an initiative to increase prosecution of child exploitation
cases in each U.S. Attorney’s Office. In addition, the Missing and Exploited Children’s (MEC)
program in DOJ’s Office of Justice Programs (OJP) supports several initiatives related to
combating CSE and recovering missing children. The program funds the National Center for
Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), a non-profit organization that serves as a national
clearinghouse on missing and exploited children’s issues; training and technical assistance to
states on developing and disseminating alerts for missing children known as AMBER Alerts; and
the Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Force program, which funds federal, state, and
local law enforcement agencies that respond to crimes against children that are committed on the
Internet.
Other federal agencies also have jurisdiction to address select aspects of child exploitation,
including the U.S. Secret Service (USSS) and the Cyber Crime Center (C3) at the Immigration
and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency, both under the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS). The USSS provides forensic services to NCMEC. C3 investigates large-scale producers
and distributors of CSE images and individuals who travel abroad for the purpose of engaging in
sex with minors. Further, the Department of State works closely with NCMEC on behalf of
American children abducted overseas, as well as rarer instances of children abducted to the
United States. The Department of State, along with other federal agencies, also reports on and
provides assistance to victims who have been trafficked, domestically and internationally, for
sexually exploitative and other purposes. The national strategy may help to inform how each of
these agencies can better coordinate to combat CSE.
In addition to developing the national strategy, DOJ will, for the first time, house a data
management system for law enforcement agencies and ICAC task forces that investigate and
prosecute CSE cases involving the Internet. Congress is concerned about the role of the Internet
in facilitating crimes against children. Of the reports made to NCMEC’s tipline for online child
sexual exploitation, nearly all involve child pornography. About 40% of child pornography
reports are substantiated. The number of substantiated reports has increased in recent years, due
Congressional Research Service
2

.
CRS Issue Statement on Missing or Sexually Exploited Individuals

likely to heightened public awareness about child exploitation and better reporting by Internet
providers. The economic stimulus package enacted in February 2009, known as the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA, P.L. 111-5), provides funding for the database, known
as the National ICAC Data System (NIDS). Lawmakers will likely want to oversee how
effectively these efforts address, as well as reduce the number of, CSE cases.
Sex Offenders
The Center for Sex Offender Management (CSOM), a federally-funded resource center, defines
sexual abuse or assault of children or adults as: sexual contact between an adult and a minor;
unwanted sexual contact initiated by a youth toward an adult; unwanted sexual contact between
two or more adults or two or more minors; or sexual contact involving two minors whose ages
differ significantly. Sex crimes include physical (unwanted sexual touching) or no physical
contact (use of the Internet). According to CSOM, about 67% of all victims of reported sexual
abuse are below the age of 18 and more than half of these victims are below the age of 12. An
estimated one in every five girls and one in every seven boys is sexually abused by the time they
reach adulthood. Further, one in six adult women and one in every 33 adult men are subject to
sexual abuse in their lifetime.
Although sexual abuse as defined by CSOM appears to be widespread, sex offenses represent less
than 1% of all arrests. The Federal Bureau of Investigation reports that in 2004, law enforcement
agencies made 26,000 arrests for forcible rape and nearly 91,000 arrests for other sexual crimes in
the U.S., of which males accounted for about 95% of the arrests. According to CSOM, there is no
“typical” profile of a sex offender, as they can be of various ages and education levels; be married
or single; have weak or strong ties to their communities and families; and may not necessarily
have previous criminal records. In the case of child sexual abuse, abusers are often relatives,
friends, babysitters, or persons in positions of authority over the child. The underlying causes of
sexual offending are not fully understood, although researchers have identified some factors that
may increase the tendency of perpetrators of sexual crimes to offend.
Congress enacted the Adam Walsh Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-248, AWA) in an attempt to better
protect the public from sex offenders. Major provisions of AWA address mandatory registration
for adult and juvenile sex offenders; a national sex offender registry and website; periodic in-
person verification of registration information; a community notification program; and federal
assistance in managing sex offenders and identifying and locating those who fail to register. In
addition, AWA provides for the treatment and management of sex offenders through the federal
Bureau of Prisons and for civil commitment of dangerous sex offenders upon their release from
prison. The act further authorizes studies to examine the control, prosecution, treatment, and
monitoring of sex offenders, as well as reports on enforcement of registration requirements.
AWA originally required all states to be in compliance with certain AWA provisions by July 27,
2009; this has since been extended by DOJ to May 26, 2010. As jurisdictions begin to implement
these provisions, a number of issues have surfaced. A major concern is the adequacy of federal
funding for things like managing and registering offenders, particularly in light of declining state
revenues. A state that is not in compliance by the deadline will lose 10% of its Byrne grant funds.
However, some analyses show that it would cost much more for some states to implement the
requirements than to lose a percentage of DOJ Byrne grant funds. States have also expressed
concern about the retroactivity provisions of AWA, which require sex offenders whose
convictions predate the enactment or implementation of the law to register as offenders. Some
Congressional Research Service
3

.
CRS Issue Statement on Missing or Sexually Exploited Individuals

claim that implementation of this provision may subject states to expensive constitutional
challenges.
Another issue is the extent to which sex offenders are actually rehabilitated. Persons committing a
sex offense are convicted and sent to prison, sometimes with the expectation that upon release
they will have changed, when in fact they may not. Imprisonment does not necessarily address
the offenders’ attraction to children or improve their ability to resist acting on unacceptable sexual
feelings. There is substantive medical evidence that some sex offenders suffer from mental
disorders, often with biomedical underpinnings.
Finally, states also have concerns about the provision of AWA that requires registration of
adjudicated juveniles ages 14 and older who have committed sexual assaults. DOJ has stated that
the AWA guidelines only require registration of older juveniles who have been convicted of
crimes such as rape. Still, for some states, this requirement may be inconsistent with their laws,
which emphasize rehabilitation of children who have been convicted of crimes. In addition, some
argue that placing juveniles on a public registry with their personal information puts them at risk
of becoming a target for adult sexual offenders. Other concerns about juvenile sex offenders have
focused on where they ought to be educated when they are released from prison. Some
jurisdictions enroll them in traditional neighborhood schools; others home school them; and still
others place them in schools for children with special needs. For these reasons, Congress may
wish to revisit the issue of registration of adjudicated juveniles who are sex offenders.
Missing Adults
Unlike children, adults have the legal right to go missing under most circumstances. Adults may
leave their home and have no intentions of returning; others may be abducted or become lost and
unable to return home. While away from home, missing adults may be vulnerable. For example,
they may be accompanied by dangerous individuals or be without food, water, and prescription
medicine.
As discussed above, several federal programs provide assistance in recovering missing children.
In addition, federal law requires law enforcement agencies to report missing children and young
adults under the age of 21 to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) National Crime
Information Center (NCIC), a federal database of crime and missing person information.
Reporting missing adults to the database is voluntary. As a result, families of missing adults may
receive limited assistance from state and local law enforcement entities in recovering their loved
ones, although some federal support has been available. The federal Missing Alzheimer’s Disease
Patient Alert grant assists in identifying missing individuals with Alzheimer’s disease and other
forms of dementia by funding the Alzheimer’s Association to carry out educational and other
programming. The Alzheimer’s Association’s Safe Return program provides a MedicAlert
bracelet or other form of identification to enrolled individuals that includes a toll-free, 24-hour
emergency response number to call if the person is found wandering or lost. Separately, Congress
provided funding from FY2002 through FY2006 for the Kristen’s Act grant program, which
funded a national clearinghouse and resource center, the National Center for Missing Adults
(NCMA). (NCMA has since merged with another non-profit organization for missing persons,
and continues to provide services to law enforcement and families of missing adults.)
As the nation prepares for an aging population and likely increase in the number of individuals
living in the community with cognitive impairment or other forms of disability, Congress may
want to consider whether there is a role for the federal government in helping to prevent missing
Congressional Research Service
4

.
CRS Issue Statement on Missing or Sexually Exploited Individuals

adult episodes and to recover adults who go missing. In recent years, Congress has considered
bills that would authorize federal grants for states to develop what are known as Silver or Senior
Alert systems. These systems are intended to alert law enforcement entities and the public that
adults with impairments or other disabilities are missing and may need assistance. The alerts are
activated on behalf of targeted groups of individuals—such as those with cognitive or mental
impairment (e.g., Alzheimer’s disease and other forms of dementia), developmental disabilities,
or suicidal tendencies—who may be at high risk of going missing and unable to make their way
home or to a safe place. As many as 15 states already have these systems in place.
The federal government currently supports public alert programs, known as AMBER Alerts, for
children who have gone missing and where criminal activity is involved. As it already does with
the AMBER Alert program, the federal government could assist in developing minimum
guidelines for a missing adult alert system as well as provide states with related technical support
and training. Establishing a uniform network of state alert systems in every state could assist
states and localities with any necessary coordination across state lines, and ensure that states have
somewhat uniform criteria for issuing alerts. Nonetheless, the use of any alert system for missing
adults may challenge their right to privacy, particularly if they choose to go missing. Further, it is
not clear how effective state alert systems are in recovering missing vulnerable adults. At least a
few states with the alert systems do not maintain detailed outcomes data on their alerts. And alert
systems may not be useful altogether for certain adults, such as those with Alzheimer’s, who tend
to wander close to home.
Whether federal resources should be devoted to missing person cases may depend on how much
is known about the population. There is no definitive estimate of the number of adults who go
missing, because some individuals are not known to be missing or go unreported to three
federally-supported databases (the NCIC and two others) that contain data on missing persons
and unidentified decedents. Law enforcement agencies are not required to report on missing
adults as they are with children. Even with the requirement on reporting children, no mechanisms
are in place to monitor whether children are entered into federal databases. Further, policymakers
and others have raised the point that the federal databases do not currently populate one another.
This limitation begs the question whether the federal government can and should develop
technology to enable the databases to coordinate. A somewhat related issue is whether law
enforcement agencies ought to be required to enter data on missing adults into these databases.
Any changes to the databases or requirements for entering data would like raises questions about
the privacy of missing individuals, as well as the extent to which funding would be available.

Congressional Research Service
5

.
CRS Issue Statement on Missing or Sexually Exploited Individuals

Issue Team Members

Adrienne L. Fernandes, Coordinator
Patricia Moloney Figliola
Specialist in Social Policy
Specialist in Internet and Telecommunications
afernandes@crs.loc.gov, 7-9005
Policy
pfigliola@crs.loc.gov, 7-2508
Garrine P. Laney
Liana Sun Wyler
Analyst in Social Policy
Analyst in International Crime and Narcotics
glaney@crs.loc.gov, 7-2518
lwyler@crs.loc.gov, 7-6177
Kirsten J. Colello
Luisa Blanchfield
Specialist in Health and Aging Policy
Specialist in International Relations
kcolello@crs.loc.gov, 7-7839
lblanchfield@crs.loc.gov, 7-0856
Kristin M. Finklea
Clare Ribando Seelke
Analyst in Domestic Security
Specialist in Latin American Affairs
kfinklea@crs.loc.gov, 7-6259
cseelke@crs.loc.gov, 7-5229
Nathan James
Shawn Reese
Analyst in Crime Policy
Analyst in Emergency Management and Homeland
njames@crs.loc.gov, 7-0264
Security Policy
sreese@crs.loc.gov, 7-0635
Holly A. Mirchel
Alison M. Smith
Information Research Specialist
Legislative Attorney
hmirchel@crs.loc.gov, 7-5564
amsmith@crs.loc.gov, 7-6054
Linda K. Moore
Charles Doyle
Specialist in Telecommunications Policy
Senior Specialist in American Public Law
lmoore@crs.loc.gov, 7-5853
cdoyle@crs.loc.gov, 7-6968

Congressional Research Service
6