The Missing and Exploited Children’s (MEC) Program: Background and Policies

June 19, 2007 – July 15, 2021 RL34050

The Missing and Exploited Children’s (MEC)
Program: Background and Policies
Updated July 15, 2021
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
RL34050

The Missing and Exploited Children’s (MEC) Program: Background and Policies

Summary
Beginning in the late 1970s, highly publicized cases of children who were abducted, sexual y
abused, and sometimes murdered prompted policymakers and child advocates to declare a
missing children problem. At that time, about 1.8 mil ion children were annually reported to the
police as missing. More recent data indicate that the number of children who go missing has
declined. A survey from 2013 provides the most recent and comprehensive information on
missing children. About 238,000 children (3.1 per 1,000 children) were reported to law
enforcement by their caretakers that year as missing 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. The drop was largely driven by the decline in the
rate of children missing due to benign reasons. Researchers speculate that the increased use of
cel phones has improved communication, and therefore fewer children are reported as missing.
As a policy issue, missing children are often included in discussions of sexual victimization.
Children who go missing—as wel as children who are not missing—may be sexual y exploited.
A study that examined the prevalence of children’s exposure to violence in 2008 found that 1 in
16 (6.1%) surveyed children were sexual y victimized in the past year and nearly 1 in 10 (9.8%)
were sexual y victimized at some point over their lifetimes.
Recognizing a need for greater federal coordination of local and state efforts to recover and
support missing and exploited children, Congress passed the Missing Children’s Assistance Act
(P.L. 98-473) in 1984. The act directed the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ’s) Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to establish a national resource center to
respond to cases of missing and exploited children, among other related activities. The Missing
Children’s Assistance Act has been amended multiple times, most recently by the Missing
Children’s Assistance Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-267). Activities authorized under the Missing
Children’s Assistance Act and selected other laws are collectively referred to as the Missing and
Exploited Children’s (MEC) program. The program includes the following components:
 The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC): Since 1984,
NCMEC has served as the national resource center and has carried out many of
the objectives of the Missing Children’s Assistance Act in collaboration with
OJJDP. NCMEC case managers provide support to law enforcement and families
of missing children. Most children reported missing to NCMEC have run away.
 The Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Force program: This program
assists state and local enforcement cyber crime units in investigating online child
sexual exploitation. It was authorized under the PROTECT Our Children Act of
2008 (P.L. 110-401), as amended.
 AMBER (America’s Missing: Broadcast Emergency Response) Alert support:
AMBER Alerts publicly broadcast bulletins in the most serious child abduction
cases. The AMBER Alert program is authorized under the PROTECT Act (P.L.
108-21), and, as administered, provides training and technical assistance to law
enforcement and other stakeholders about issuing and disseminating such alerts.
 Other initiatives: These include training and technical assistance on investigating
and preventing child victimization. They also include support to membership-
based nonprofit missing and exploited children’s organizations. These initiatives
are authorized by the Missing Children’s Assistance Act, as amended.
Actual funding for the MEC program was $79.7 mil ion for FY2020 and enacted funding was $94
mil ion for FY2021.
Congressional Research Service

link to page 26 link to page 26 The Missing and Exploited Children’s (MEC) Program: Background and Policies

Contacts
Author Information ....................................................................................................... 22
Acknowledgments......................................................................................................... 22

Congressional Research Service

The Missing and Exploited Children’s (MEC) Program: Background and Policies

Introduction
The Missing and Exploited Children’s (MEC) program—administered by the Department of
Justice’s (DOJ’s) Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) in the Office of
Justice Programs (OJP)—seeks to prevent cases of missing and sexual y exploited children and to
support communities in responding to such cases. The program is composed of activities that are
grouped in four main areas. Multiple laws provide funding authority for these activities, which
are funded together under the MEC program appropriation.1 In FY2020, actual funding for the
MEC program was $79.7 mil ion.2 Enacted FY2021 appropriations are $94 mil ion; DOJ has not
yet finalized funding for each component of the MEC program.
 The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) is a nonprofit
organization in Alexandria, VA, that serves as a resource center for law enforcement
agencies working on cases of missing and exploited children, the families of child
victims, and the public more broadly. NCMEC personnel take reports of missing and
exploited children through a hotline and online portal. Most of the children reported
missing have run away. NCMEC also provides technical assistance to locate abductors
and recover missing children, and helps with identifying child victims of sexual
exploitation. Funding for NCMEC was $34.4 mil ion in FY2020.
 The Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Force program funds state and local
law enforcement agencies in investigating online child sexual exploitation. The program
also includes the National ICAC Data System (NIDS), which is used by law enforcement
agencies to coordinate information about perpetrators who sexual y abuse children on the
internet and to recover these children. Funding for the ICAC program was $33.7 mil ion
in FY2020.
 Under the AMBER Alert (America’s Missing: Broadcast Emergency Response) program,
DOJ supports a grantee, Fox Val ey Technical College, that provides technical assistance
to states and localities in alerting the public when children are abducted and believed to
be in imminent danger. AMBER Alert technical assistance was funded at $4.4 mil ion in
FY2020.
 The MEC program also provides grants for training and technical assistance on child
victimization and related supports. Training and technical assistance is delivered via a
grantee (Fox Val ey Technical College) that provides assistance through classroom
instruction, web-based learning, and in-person support. These grants can vary from year
to year, and funding was $7.2 mil ion in FY2020.
This report covers selected aspects of policies and research concerning missing and exploited
children. It begins with background on federal involvement in missing children’s issues. The next

1 Grants for NCMEC, training and technical assistance, and related supports are authorized under the Missing
Children’s Assistance Act (P.L. 98-413), as amended (34 U.S.C. §11293 et seq.; Chapter 111, Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention). The ICAC T ask Force program is authorized under the PROT ECT Our Children Act of 2008
(P.L. 110-401), as amended (34 U.S.C. §§21112-21117; Chapter 211, Combating Child Exploitation). The AMBER
Alert program is authorized under the PROT ECT Act (P.L. 108-21), as amended (34 U.S.C. §20501; Chapter 205,
AMBER Alert).
2 FY2020 appropriations for the MEC program were $87.5 million. In addition to the $79.7 million in funding for
program activities, another $7.7 million was reprogrammed for management and administration, research, and peer
review costs. Numbers total to $87.4 million due to rounding. Congressional Research Service correspondence with the
U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs (OJP), Office of Communications, October 2020.
Congressional Research Service

1

The Missing and Exploited Children’s (MEC) Program: Background and Policies

section includes definitions and approximate numbers of children who are missing and sexual y
exploited. The report then provides information about each component of the MEC program. The
report does not include information about the broader federal response to sexual y exploited
children.3
Background
Congress has long been concerned about missing children. In the early 1970s, Congress held
hearings about a subset of these children—those who had run away from home. Testimony
focused on the interaction that runaway youth had with police and their increasing reliance on
social service agencies for support. These hearings and related activity led to the enactment of the
Runaway Youth Act of 1974 as Title III of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquenc y Prevention Act
(P.L. 93-415). The act, as amended, authorizes assistance to runaway and homeless youth through
shelters and other services.4
Beginning in the late 1970s, highly publicized cases of children who were abducted, sexual y
abused, and sometimes murdered prompted policymakers and child advocates to declare a
missing children problem. 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.5 Testimony at congressional hearings about missing children
further reinforced the perception of a missing children problem. Witnesses testified that as many
as 1.8 mil ion children were missing. They also highlighted the accompanying sexual exploitation
that children often experienced during missing episodes.6 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.
Congress responded by passing two bil s, both of which were enacted. The Missing Children Act
of 1982 (P.L. 97-292) directed the Attorney General to keep records on missing children in the
National Crime Information Center’s (NCIC’s) Missing Persons File, maintained by the Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and to disseminate those records to state and local agencies.7 That
law neither created new federal jurisdiction over missing children’s programs nor required federal
law enforcement officials to coordinate missing children efforts. Two years later, the Missing
Children’s Assistance Act (P.L. 98-473) was enacted. It directed OJJDP to lead federal efforts to
recover missing children and establish a national resource center on missing children. NCMEC
has served as the resource center since 1984.
The Missing Children’s Assistance Act has been amended multiple times to further specify the
responsibilities of OJJDP and NCMEC in responding to missing and exploited children. (The

3 For a broader perspective, see DOJ, The National Strategy for Child Exploitation and Prevention: A Report to
Congress, April 2016. See also, CRS Report RL33785, Runaway and Homeless Youth: Dem ographics and Programs;
CRS Report R41878, Sex Trafficking of Children in the United States: Overview and Issues for Congress; CRS Report
R44101, Dark Web; and CRS Report RL34616, Missing Adults: Background, Federal Program s, and Issues for
Congress.
4 For further information, see CRS Report RL33785, Runaway and Homeless Youth: Demographics and Programs.
5 Martin L. Forst and Martha-Elin Blomquist, Missing Children (New York: Lexington Books, 1991), pp. 56-66.
6 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, DC: GPO, 1984).
7 34 U.S.C. §41308. T he NCIC is a digital index of information on crimes and criminals used by federal, state, and
local law enforcement officials.
Congressional Research Service

2

link to page 23 The Missing and Exploited Children’s (MEC) Program: Background and Policies

Appendix provides a description of the original act and its amendments.) The Missing, Exploited,
and Runaway Children Protection Act (P.L. 106-71) amended the act to shift the award to operate
a resource center for missing children from a competitive grant to a grant specifical y for
NCMEC. Most recently, the Missing Children’s Assistance Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-267) extended
authorization for the Missing Children’s Assistance Act. It provides authorization of $40 mil ion
for each of FY2014 through FY2023 for OJJDP to fund activities carried out under the act. Of
this amount, up to $32.2 mil ion is to be al otted to NCMEC.8 P.L. 115-267 also revised the
purpose areas to add that each year tens of thousands of children run away or are abducted or
removed from their parents; and adds a definition of parent: “a legal guardian or other individual
who may lawfully exercise parental rights with respect to the child.” P.L. 115-267 also states that
NCMEC is to carry out specified activities, some of which were already carried out by the
organization before the law was enacted. Such activities include responding to foster care
children who are missing from state child welfare agencies by coordinating with such agencies
and courts handling juvenile dependency matters; and identifying, locating, and recovering child
victims of, and at risk for, sex trafficking.
The federal government has since provided additional resources in support of missing and
exploited children. Selected activities have been subsumed under the MEC program. DOJ first
funded the ICAC Task Force program in 2008 to support state and local law enforcement
agencies in combatting online enticement of children and the proliferation of child pornography.
The PROTECT Our Children Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-401) formal y authorized the program. This
law provided two authorizations for the ICAC Task Force program—one for $60 mil ion for
FY2009-FY2013 for ICAC activities general y, including grants for ICAC task forces, and one
for $2 mil ion for each of FY2009-FY2016 for the National ICAC Data System, which facilitates
online law enforcement investigations of child exploitation. The Child Protection Act of 2012
(P.L. 112-206) authorized annual appropriations of $60 mil ion for the ICAC Task Force program
general y (including the data system and the National Strategy for Child Exploitation Prevention
and Interdiction, discussed later in this report) through FY2018. The Providing Resources,
Officers, and Technology to Eradicate Cyber Threats to Our Children Act of 2017 (PROTECT
Our Children Act of 2017, P.L. 115-82) extended annual authorizations of $60 mil ion for the
ICAC Task Force program through FY2022.
Separately, OJP first provided funding ($10 mil ion in discretionary appropriations) in 2002 for
states and localities to develop AMBER Alert programs. The Prosecutorial Remedies and Other
Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003 (PROTECT Act, P.L. 108-21),
directed the Attorney General to create a national AMBER Alert program, including appointing a
coordinator and developing standards for issuing an alert.9 P.L. 108-21 also authorized funding in
FY2004 for activities to support states in developing AMBER Alert communication plans and
technologies. As discussed in more detail later in this report, DOJ has used continuous
appropriations for the MEC program since FY2004 to provide technical assistance to states’
AMBER Alert plans and in responding to child abductions. The Ashlynne Mike Amber Alert in
Indian Country Act (P.L. 115-166), enacted in 2018, directs DOJ to carry out AMBER Alert
grants to tribes for developing and enhancing their AMBER Alert systems and integrating these

8 NCMEC coordinates and is involved with several federal activities relating to missing and exploited children. Some
of these activities are funded from sources other than the MEC program, though it provides the largest share of federal
funds for NCMEC.
9 34 U.S.C. §20501.
Congressional Research Service

3

The Missing and Exploited Children’s (MEC) Program: Background and Policies

systems into regional and state systems. In May 2019, DOJ submitted a report to Congress on
implementation of the act, which was required by the act.10
Demographics of Missing and Exploited Children
Overview
Missing children and sexual y 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. Although the
Missing Children’s Assistance Act does not define child sexual exploitation, both criminal and
civil federal statutes 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.11 The actual number of children who are currently missing or sexual y exploited is
unknown; however, studies have estimated the rate of children who are missing or sexual y
exploited (as discussed in more detail below).
Missing Children
The Missing Children’s Assistance Act requires OJJDP triennial y 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.12 Since the act’s
enactment in 1984, DOJ has supported three national incidence studies, known as the National
Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children (NISMART- 1, 2,
and 3). NISMART-1 was conducted in 1988, NISMART-2 was conducted in 1999, and
NISMART-3 was conducted in 2011. DOJ has issued findings from NISMART-3 in two reports.13

10 Department of Justice DOJ, OJP , Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), Implementation of
the Ashlynne Mike AMBER Alert in Indian Country Act of 2018: A Report to Congress, May 2019. (Hereinafter, DOJ,
OJP, OJJDP, Im plem entation of the Ashlynne Mike AMBER Alert in Indian Country Act of 2018: A Report to
Congress.)
11 For example, T itle 18 of the U.S. Code includes multiple crimes involving the sexual exploitation of children, such
as commerce in child pornography; 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. Most
federal criminal statutes on child sexual exploitation are in Chapters 71, 77, 109A, 109B, 110, and 117. In addition,
T itle 42 of the U.S. Code, at 42 U.S.C. §5106 g, provides definitions related to child sexual abuse for purposes of
defining “child abuse and neglect” in selected federal child welfare law. T itle 34 of the U.S. Code requires individuals
convicted of specified crimes against children or sexually violent crimes to register their addresses.
12 34 U.S.C. §11293(c). 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.”
13 Due to challenges with fielding NISMART -3, DOJ made a competitive award with FY2017 funding to improve data
collection of missing children more generally under a new iteration of the study, NISMART -4. DOJ, Office of Justice
Programs (OJP), Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), Grant Solicitation, OJJDP FY 2017
National Incidence Studies of Missing Children Reported to Law Enforcem ent, 2017. DOJ awarded funds to
researchers to collect data on child victims of stereotypical kidnappings kn own to law enforcement agencies and
develop and evaluate strategies to collect information from law enforcement agencies about children who are reported
missing to them. T he funding was awarded to Westat , Inc., a policy research organization, which has partnered with the
University of New Hampshire’s Crimes Against Children Research Center.
Congressional Research Service

4

The Missing and Exploited Children’s (MEC) Program: Background and Policies

One of the reports includes findings from a telephone and online survey of households.14 As with
NISMART-2, NISMART-3 includes five categories of missing children:
 abductions by a family member;
 abductions by a nonfamily member perpetrator;
 run away or thrown away children;15
 missing because they were lost, stranded, or injured; or
 missing for benign reasons (e.g., a misunderstanding about a child’s schedule).
The study classifies missing children cases as “caretaker missing” and “reported missing.” 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. A “caretaker missing” child was considered “reported missing” if a caretaker
additional y contacted the police or a missing children’s agency to locate the child.
The NISMART-3 household survey indicates that the rates of children who were caretaker
missing and reported missing declined since the NISMART-2 study. There was a decrease of 32%
for caretaker missing cases (from 9.2 per 1,000 in 1999 to 6.3 per 1,000 in 2013) and a decrease
of 52% for reported missing cases (from 6.5 per 1,000 in 1999 to 3.1 per 1,000 in 2013). The drop
was largely driven by the decline in the rate of children who were missing due to benign reasons.
Researchers speculate that the increased use of cel phones has improved communication between
parents and their children, and therefore fewer children were perceived or reported as missing.16
The second NISMART-3 report focused on stereotypical kidnappings based on cases known to
law enforcement in 2011.17 Such kidnappings refer to nonfamily abduction in which a slight
acquaintance (not defined) or stranger moves the child at least 20 feet or holds the child at least
one hour. In addition to these criteria, the child has to be detained overnight, transported at least
50 miles, held for ransom, abducted with the intent to keep the child permanently, or kil ed. The
report indicates that 105 children were victims of stereotypical kidnappings in 2011.
Sexually Exploited Children
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 over which the data were collected, and how exploitation is defined. Nonetheless,
one federal study, the National Survey of Children’s Exposure to Violence, conducted by the

14 Andrea J. Sedlak, David Finkelhor, and J. Michael Brick, “ National Estimates of Missing Children: Updated
Findings From a Survey of Parents and Other Primary Caretakers,” Juvenile Justice Bulletin, DOJ, OJP, OJJDP , June
2017, https://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/250089.pdf. T he report includes definitions of these terms. Some children reported
in NISMART -3 were missing, but their caretakers may not have been alarmed or contacted authorities; these children
were identified as “non-missing.”
15 “T hrownaway” refers to a child whom an adult household member tells to leave or p revents from returning home and
(1) does not arrange for adequate alternative care and (2) the child is gone overnight.
16 T he methodology for NISMART -3 did not reach a representative sample of the population. This is because the
sampling methodology of random digit dialing landline phones, which was used for the study, has less reliability due to
a growing share of households having only cell phones (from 11% of all households and 12% of households with
children in 2006 to 47% of all households and 55% of households with children in 2015).
17 Janis Wolak, David Finkelhor, and Andrea J. Sedlak, “Child Victims of Stereotypical Kidnappings Known to Law
Enforcement in 2011,” DOJ, OJP, OJJDP , Juvenile Justice Bulletin, June 2016.
Congressional Research Service

5

link to page 11 The Missing and Exploited Children’s (MEC) Program: Background and Policies

University of New Hampshire with support from OJJDP, provides some insight into the
prevalence of sexual exploitation.18 The study shows that in 2008, a significant number and share
of children under age 18 had been sexual y victimized.
In the study, researchers interviewed a national y 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 various types of victimization, including
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, and consensual sexual conduct with an adult. The study found that 1 in 16 (6%)
surveyed children and youth were sexual y victimized in the past year and nearly 1 in 10 (10%)
were sexual y victimized at some point over their lifetimes. Girls were more likely than boys to
report that they had been sexual y victimized, with 7% of girls reporting sexual victimization
within the past year and 12% reporting victimization over their lifetimes. Female adolescents ages
14 to 17 had the highest rate of victimization. Nearly 8% had been sexual y victimized within the
past year and 19% had been sexual y victimized over their lifetimes.
Funding for the MEC Program
The MEC program was initial y funded at $4 mil ion in FY1985 and has received funding
increases in most years since 1991. Table 1 shows actual total funding and funding for each of
the program’s components from FY2010 through FY2020, and enacted appropriations for
FY2021. Funding increased again—from approximately $47 mil ion in FY2008 to $70 mil ion in
FY2009—following reauthorization of the program. Also in FY2009, Congress appropriated
funding for the program under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA, P.L. 111-
5). ARRA provided funding for myriad federal programs and initiatives to address the economic
recession that began in December 2007 and extended through June 2009. Specifical y, the ICAC
program received $48.6 mil ion in ARRA funds. NCMEC has general y received the most
funding; however, in recent years, funding for the ICAC Task Force program has been about even
with funding for NCMEC. The next highest level of funding support has been al ocated for
activities that include training and technical assistance on missing and exploited children, support
services for missing children’s organizations, and grant programs that can vary from year to year.
In addition, some funding is made available for program management and administration.
Total FY2020 appropriated funding was $87.5 mil ion, and actual funding was $79.7 mil ion
(another $7.7 mil ion was reprogrammed for management and administration, research, and peer
review costs). The FY2020 omnibus appropriations law (P.L. 116-93) did not specify the level of
funds for each of the program’s components, and DOJ al ocated funding for each component.

18 David Finkelhor et al., Children’s Exposure to Violence: A Comprehensive National Survey, DOJ, OJP, OJJDP,
October 2009. Other research shows that the lifetime prevalence of sexual abuse or sexual assault was 27% for girls
who were age 17 and 5% for boys who were age 17. See David Finkelhor et al., “ T he Lifetime Prevalence of Child
Sexual Abuse and Sexual Assault Assessed,” Journal of Adolescent Health, vol. 55, no. 3 (September 2014), pp. 329 -
333.
Congressional Research Service

6

link to page 11 link to page 11 link to page 11
Table 1. Actual Funding for the Missing and Exploited Children’s Program, by Component, FY2010-FY2020
and Appropriated Funds for FY2021
(In thousands of dol ars)
Program Component
FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
FY2017
FY2018
FY2019
FY2020
FY2021
NCMEC
$30,500
$30,100
$26,600
$25,500
$26,000
$25,700
$28,300
$28,300
$28,300
$31,000
$34,400
N/A
ICAC Task Force
$29,500a
$30,100
$25,600
$25,000
$27,000
$27,000
$27,600
$27,200
$28,600
$31,300
$33,700
N/A
Program
AMBER Alert Training
$4,000
$4,000
$2,500
$2,300
N/Ab
$2,400
$2,400
$2,400
$3,400
$3,400
$4,400
N/A
and Technical Assistance
Technical Assistance,
$5,000
$4,000
$3,600
$3,400
$7,300
$5,800
$6,600
$7,000
$8,800
$8,500
$7,200
N/A
Research, Otherc
Total Funding
$69,000
$68,200
$58,300
$56,200
$60,300
$60,900
$64,900
$64,900
$69,100
$74,200
$79,700
$94,000
Sources: Congressional Research Service, correspondence with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs (OJP), Office of Communications,
October 2020; Continuing and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 (P.L. 113-6); Rules Committee Print 113-32 on the amendment to H.R. 3547, which was
enacted as P.L. 113-67; Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (P.L. 113-235); Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (P.L. 114-113);
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 (P.L. 115-31); Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (P.L. 115-141); and Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 (P.L. 116-6).
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 available because DOJ has not yet determined funding levels for FY2021. In most years, some funding is reprogrammed to support activities
under OJP. In addition, some funding (general y between $1 and $60,000) is unobligated. The FY2020 appropriation for the MEC program was $87,500,000. Of this
amount, $79,700,000 was al ocated to the components of the program; $7,700,000 was reprogrammed for management and administrative costs, research, and peer
review. Amounts may not sum to totals due to rounding. Also, in most years, additional funds were used to support the MEC program, including funds from prior years,
other Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency (OJJDP) funding streams, and transfers from other agencies (e.g., Secret Service funding for NCMEC) and OJP
components.
a. The ICAC received an additional $48.6 mil ion under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA, P.L. 111-5) to support 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 technolog y and Internet crimes against
children; and (4) the National ICAC Data System. These funds are not shown here.
b. Remaining funds from previous years were carried over to support AMBER Alert activities through FY2014.
c. This includes funding for program management and administration, support services for missing children’s organizations, and grant programs that can vary from year
to year. For example, the FY2018 al ocations included $8,960,308 for program management and administration; $4,196,692 for the MEC tra ining and technical
assistance program, specialized services for victims of child sex trafficking training and technical assistance, specialized services for victims of child sex trafficking
programs, and evaluation of the ICAC program; and $2,500,000 for strength ening investigative tools and technology for combating child exploitation.
CRS-7

The Missing and Exploited Children’s (MEC) Program: Background and Policies

National Center for Missing and Exploited Children
NCMEC is a primary component of the MEC program and has its headquarters in Alexandria,
VA, 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 in the following areas:
 missing children, including those abducted to or from the United States;
 child sexual exploitation;
 education, including training and technical assistance; and
 child safety and prevention.
These activities and services are detailed further in this section.19 Note that some missing children
and exploited children programs are not mutual y exclusive, and this report does not provide an
exhaustive discussion of al services provided by NCMEC.20 In addition to funding through the
MEC program, NCMEC is also funded through private contributions, other DOJ grants, and a
grant from the United States Secret Service (USSS) through the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS). Pursuant to the Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation
of Children Today Act of 2003 (PROTECT Act, P.L. 108-21), Congress authorized the USSS to
provide forensic and investigative assistance in support of any investigation involving missing or
exploited children at the request of any state or local law enforcement agency or NCMEC. In
recent years, funding provided by the USSS has been transferred to OJP to be provided directly to
NCMEC.
Missing Children’s Services
Call Center
NCMEC operates a national 24-hour toll-free hotline (1-800-THE-LOST), which receives cal s
from parents, legal guardians, social service agencies, law enforcement officials, and members of
the public. For FY2020, NCMEC responded to almost 140,000 cal s reporting missing children;
sightings of missing children; and requests for assistance, information, and technical assistance
from families of missing children, law enforcement agencies, and others.21 NCMEC’s Cal Center
also helps intake CyberTipline reports of child sexual exploitation and engages in a range of
activities including sending publications or educational materials to providing technical support
to law enforcement and families about missing children cases. The Cal Center also provides
information to families of missing children about free or low -cost transportation services and
requests transportation for families needing assistance with reunification.
NCMEC is the only nonprofit, non-law enforcement entity to have access to the FBI’s National
Crime Information Center (NCIC) Missing Person File,22 which certain NCMEC staff may

19 Unless otherwise noted, this information is based on correspondence with the National Center for Missing and
Exploited Children, December 2019.
20 For further information about NCMEC, see its website: http://www.missingkids.org/.
21 NCMEC, NCMEC Quarterly Progress Report: July 1, 2020 through September 30, 2021, p. 6 and footnote 20.
22 Other nonprofit organizations, including the National Insurance Crime Bureau, have access to other services within
NCIC.
Congressional Research Service

8

The Missing and Exploited Children’s (MEC) Program: Background and Policies

review for records of missing children added by local and state law enforcement agencies and for
updates of these records. Law enforcement agencies submitting information to NCIC on a missing
child are to notify NCMEC of each report that relates to a child reportedly missing from foster
care, and they must maintain close liaison with NCMEC (and child welfare agencies) to exchange
information and technical assistance about missing children cases general y.23 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 young adults who are between
the ages of 18 and 21.
Case Management
NCMEC enters each missing child case into its database and assigns a case manager in the
Missing Children’s Division to the case. 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 FY2020, NCMEC case managers handled over 30,000 cases (i.e., individual
children).24 Of these, about 28,000 involved children who had run away.
Team Adam
Team Adam, created in 2003, provides onsite technical assistance through deployments on critical
cases and case assistance deployments.25 It is designed to be a rapid, onsite response and support
system that provides investigative and technical assistance to local law enforcement agencies at
no cost to them. Team Adam consultants determine the additional resources or assistance that
would assist in 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 deceased children and young adults believed to have gone missing. The Forensic Imaging Unit
was created in 1990 to “age-progress” images of missing children through software programs
using the most recent picture of the child. The age-progressed image appears in clothing and with
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, and media, and are posted on the
NCMEC website.
Staff on the Biometrics Team provide support and resources for 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 identifying unknown children,
either deceased or living, by facilitating the collection of DNA, dental information, fingerprints,

23 34 U.S.C. §41308. Child welfare agencies must report cases of missing or abducted children to NCMEC and to law
enforcement for entry into the NCIC, no later than 24 hours after receiving information on these children. 42 U.S.C.
§671 (a)(B)(35).
24 NCMEC, NCMEC Quarterly Progress Report: July 1, 2020 through September 30, 2021, p. 7 and footnote 20.
25 Onsite assistance was previously handled by members of NCMEC’s Project ALERT program —America’s Law
Enforcement Retiree T eam—which was created in 1992. T his program was merged with NCMEC’s T eam Adam
program in October 2018. NCMEC, NCMEC Quarterly Progress Report: July 1, 2020 through Septem ber 30, 2021, p.
18 and footnotes 85 and 94.
Congressional Research Service

9

The Missing and Exploited Children’s (MEC) Program: Background and Policies

facial 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. NamUs is a program created by OJP to serve as a central
repository and resource center for missing persons and unidentified decedent rec ords. It contains
databases storing detailed information about missing people and unidentified remains and may be
searched for possible matches among cases.26
International Missing Children Cases
NCMEC assists with cases of children abducted to and from the United States.27 From 1995
through May 2008, NCMEC had a Cooperative Agreement with the State Department and OJJDP
to handle incoming cases of international abduction to the United States under The Hague
Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (the “Hague Convention”).28
The State Department is now responsible for handling these cases. NCMEC assists the State
Department with developing and distributing posters for missing children. Signatories to the
Hague Convention pledge to work toward the prompt return of abducted children. Of the 195
official y recognized countries in the world, however, 119 do not have formal civil mechanisms in
place with the United States to facilitate the return of a parental y abducted child.29
NCMEC also coordinates cases of American children abducted abroad, or outgoing cases.
NCMEC provides technical assistance to law enforcement in support of a federal statute that
criminalizes removing a child from the United States “with the intent to obstruct the lawful
exercise of parental rights.”30
NCMEC handles hundreds of prevention and abduction-in-progress matters each year that
involve international abductions. It 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, concerning international parental
abductions.
Response to Child Sexual Exploitation
The PROTECT Act (P.L. 108-21) authorized the United States Secret Service to provide forensic
and investigative assistance in support of any investigation involving missing or exploited
children to NCMEC and state and local law enforcement agencies. NCMEC’s Exploited Children
Division (ECD) was established in January 1997 and consists of two main programs—the
CyberTipline and the Child Victim Identification Program (CVIP). ECD also analyzes data and
forwards requests to appropriate NCMEC divisions and monitors online services, news reports,

26 DOJ, OJP, National Institute of Justice, “NamUs,” http://www.namus.gov/.
27 T he International Centre for Missing and Exploited Children (ICMEC) was formed in 1998 and focuses on policy,
advocacy, and training, and does not perform case work. ICMEC advocates for adoptio n of treaties regarding 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.
28 T he 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.
29 NCMEC, NCMEC Quarterly Progress Report: July 1, 2020 through September 30, 2020 , footnote 56.
30 18 U.S.C. §1204(a). T he 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 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.
Congressional Research Service

10

The Missing and Exploited Children’s (MEC) Program: Background and Policies

and other sources each day for new cases and information relative to the issues of child sexual
exploitation. NCMEC also follows up with law enforcement agencies about cases of exploited
children. The USSS provides funding to support NCMEC’s exploited children programs.
In addition to the Exploited Children Division, NCMEC’s Analytical Services Division, which
oversees NCMEC’s Sex Offender Tracking Team and the Child Sex Trafficking Team, also works
on exploited children issues.
The Child Victim Identification Program (CVIP)
The Child Victim Identification Program (CVIP) began in 2002 after NCMEC analysts repeatedly
saw images of the same child victims in their reviews and began tracking which victims had been
previously identified by law enforcement. CVIP provides information concerning previously
identified child victims, and helps to locate unidentified child victims featured in sexual y abusive
images so that they may be identified and rescued. Law enforcement agencies may submit seized
images to federal law enforcement agents co-located at NCMEC and request that CVIP examine
the images. CVIP analysts use computer software and visual analysis to determine whether any of
the images contain identified child victims. Additional y, CVIP provides training and educational
assistance to law enforcement and attorneys on how child victims of sexual exploitation can be
identified.
CyberTipline
The CyberTipline, created in March 1998, serves as a nationwide centralized reporting system for
the online exploitation of children. The public and electronic communication services or remote
computing service providers (collectively known as electronic service providers or ESPs) can
make reports of suspected child sexual exploitation to the CyberTipline. ESPs are required by law
to report such incidents that they become aware of on their systems.31 Although the CyberTipline
began operating in 1998, NCMEC’s role as its administrator was formal y authorized by the
PROTECT Act.

Under its authorizing law, the CyberTipline is intended to take reports of “internet related and
other instances of child sexual exploitation.” After evaluating the reports and prioritizing them
based on the level of risk to the child, NCMEC makes reports to the CyberTipline (along with
accompanying analysis) available to federal, state, and local and international law enforcement
agencies through a secure web-based system.32
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.

31 34 U.S.C. §11293(b)(1)(P). The CyberT ipline enables ESPs and members of the public to report child sexual abuse
material in eight categories: (1) possession, manufacture, and distribution of child pornography; (2) online enticement
of children for sexual acts; (3) child sex trafficking; (4) child sex tourism; (5) child sexual molestation by someone
other than a family member; (6) unsolicited obscene material sent to a child; (7) misleading domain names; and (8)
misleading words or digital images on the internet. 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).
T he Justice for Victims of T rafficking Act (P.L. 114-22) struck “ child prostitution” and replaced it with “ child sex
trafficking, including child prostitution.”
32 For further information, see U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), Combating Child Pornography: Steps
are Needed to Ensure That Tips to Law Enforcem ent are Useful and Forensic Exam inations are Cost Effective , GAO-
11-334, March 2011, p. 9 (hereinafter, GAO, Com bating Child Pornography).
Congressional Research Service

11

The Missing and Exploited Children’s (MEC) Program: Background and Policies

NCMEC’s Sex Offender Tracking Team, a part of its Analytical Services 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 Analytical
Services Division has developed a standard protocol in response to law enforcement requests for
assistance in locating fugitive sex offenders, which general y includes information obtained
through public databases and publicly available search tools routinely used by NCMEC analysts.
Child Sex Trafficking Team
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
Division. It also provides technical support and analysis to the FBI’s Innocence Lost National
Initiative. The team provides technical assistance to law enforcement agencies working to
identify and recover children in the United States who have been victimized by sex trafficking,
including those involved in the FBI’s Innocence Lost National Initiative. Analysts in the unit
provide reports about offenders who sexual y exploit children through sex trafficking, and they
provide information to law enforcement officials about known missing child cases possibly linked
to sex trafficking.33
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 had or stil have a missing or sexual y exploited child. These volunteers provide peer
counseling to other parents and families of missing children to help them cope during and after
the incident.
Training and Technical Assistance
NCMEC staff provide onsite and offsite training and technical assistance to law enforcement,
criminal and juvenile justice professionals, and healthcare professionals nationwide and
international y. Training involves issues relating to child sexual exploitation and missing-child
cases, identification of victims, investigation, prevention, and forensic imaging.
Partnerships
NCMEC works closely with federal agencies, some of which have agents and analysts who are
co-located at NCMEC part-time or full-time. These analysts follow CyberTipline leads and
provide technical assistance to their law enforcement colleagues relating to missing and exploited
children cases.
NCMEC also works with missing children’s clearinghouses in each state, the District of
Columbia, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Canada.34 These clearinghouses disseminate
information and collect data about missing children, provide technical assistance in cases of
missing and exploited children, and network with other clearinghouses. NCMEC provides

33 NCMEC, “Child Sex T rafficking,” http://www.missingkids.comorg/theissues/trafficking.
34 For further information, see NCMEC, “Missing Child Clearinghouses,” http://www.missingkids.comorg/
Clearinghouses.
Congressional Research Service

12

link to page 19 The Missing and Exploited Children’s (MEC) Program: Background and Policies

clearinghouses with training, technical assistance, and information to assist them in handling
missing-child cases.
Further, NCMEC manages the AMBER Alert Secondary Distribution Program. When law
enforcement issues an AMBER Alert, NCMEC is notified and redistributes the alert to the
appropriate secondary distributors. (See “AMBER Alert Program” for more information).
NCMEC receives AMBER Alerts from state law enforcement and disseminates information about
abductions to authorized secondary distributors, such as hotel chains and internet service
providers, which can target messages to their customers in a specific geographic region. Only law
enforcement can initiate and issue AMBER Alerts for primary distribution to the general public.35
NCMEC also maintains data on the number of children recovered through AMBER Alerts.36
Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Force
ICAC Task Forces37
The ICAC Task Force program is authorized under the PROTECT Our Children Act of 2008 (P.L.
110-401), as amended. The program supports state and local law enforcement task forces in
responding to online enticement of children by sexual perpetrators, child exploitation, and child
obscenity and pornography cases. The program is designed to serve multiple purposes that
include
 increasing the capabilities of state and local law enforcement officers to detect
internet crimes against children and apprehend offenders;
 conducting proactive and reactive internet crimes against children investigations;
 providing training and technical assistance to ICAC task forces and other law
enforcement agencies in the areas of investigation, forensics, prosecution,
community outreach, and capacity-building, using recognized experts to assist in
the development and delivery of training programs;
 increasing the number of internet crimes against children offenses being
investigated and prosecuted;
 enhancing nationwide responses to offenses involving internet crimes against
children; and
 delivering internet crimes against children public awareness and prevention
programs.
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 task forces are in operation, each of which is composed of multiple
affiliated organizations (most of which are city and county law enforcement agencies).38 The task
forces receive leads from CyberTipline analysts at NCMEC and concerned citizens or develop

35 DOJ, OJP, OJJDP, Report to the Congress on AMBER Alert, July 2005, p. 7. (Hereinafter, DOJ, OJP, OJJDP, Report
to the Congress on AMBER Alert.)
36 NCMEC, “Get Help Now: AMBER Alerts,” http://www.missingkids.org/gethelpnow/amber. See also DOJ, OJP,
“AMBER Alert Statistics,” https://www.amberalert.gov/statistics.htm.
37 34 U.S.C. §§21112 et seq.
38 DOJ, OJP, OJJDP, “Program Summary: Internet Crimes Against Children T ask Program,” http://www.ojjdp.gov/
programs/progsummary.asp?pi=3.
Congressional Research Service

13

The Missing and Exploited Children’s (MEC) Program: Background and Policies

leads through proactive investigations and undercover operations. The Attorney General is to
award grants to state and local ICAC task forces using a formula established by DOJ to distribute
75% of the funds; the remaining 25% is to be distributed based on need.
In establishing any formula, DOJ must ensure that each state or local ICAC receives at least 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 conducted by
a task force on child exploitation offenses; and other criteria established by DOJ to demonstrate
the level of need for additional resources.
Pursuant to the law, DOJ established the ICAC Training and Technical Assistance program to
provide assistance to ICAC task forces. Multiple entities have been awarded funds to provide
training on improving investigation, technologies, and prosecutorial capabilities.39
National ICAC Data System (NIDS)
The authorizing law for ICAC directs the Attorney General to establish the National ICAC Data
System (NIDS).40 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, 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 problem of child exploitation.41 The law specified that the
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.
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.42 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.43

39 Ibid.
40 34 U.S.C. §21115.
41 DOJ, 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, DOJ, The National Strategy for Child
Exploitation Prevention and Interdiction: A Report to Congress.)
42 Deconfliction is the coordination and information sharing among law enforcement agencies on multi-jurisdiction
investigations to help ensure officer safety and the effective use of resources. GAO, Com bating Child Pornography.
43 DOJ OJP, OJJDP, Needs Assessment and Development Activities for the National Internet Crimes Against Children
Data System (NIDS), no date, http://www.ojjdp.gov/grants/solicitations/FY2010/ARRA%20NIDS.pdf. In September
2010, OJJDP awarded a grant to the Massachusetts State Police (MASP) and its partners to conduct a national needs
assessment for NIDS. According to DOJ, work on and payment for the grant were suspended due to misconduct
involving a former MASP employee who was investigated by DOJ’s Office of the Inspector General. P.L. 112-206
required DOJ to submit a report to Congress about the status of the data system. See DOJ, OJP, OJJDP, Report on the
National Internet Crim es Against Children Data System (NIDS) Project, Pursuant to the Child Protection Act of 2012
Congressional Research Service

14

The Missing and Exploited Children’s (MEC) Program: Background and Policies

In September 2011, DOJ awarded funds to the West Virginia State Police to develop and
implement the ICAC Deconfliction System (IDS), which was launched in December 2014. It is
used by al ICAC task forces and other registered law enforcement users. IDS enables users to
contribute and access data (e.g., name, alias, email address, IP address of perpetrator and related
information) to resolve case conflicts. Information about a potential perpetrator is compared
against other databases that store information about crimes committed against children. IDS alerts
the user if information has been collected on the potential perpetrator in these other systems, and
informs the user of other law enforcement agencies working on a case involving the perpetrator.44
National Strategy for Child Exploitation Prevention
and Interdiction
The law authorizing the ICAC program also directs the Attorney General to create and implement
a National Strategy for Child Exploitation Prevention and Interdiction.45 The law specifies that
the strategy is to involve establishing long-range, comprehensive goals concerning child
exploitation and that DOJ is to coordinate its programs to combat child exploitation with other
federal programs, as wel as with international, state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies
and the private sector. As part of this strategy, DOJ is 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 in leveraging state and local resources and matching funds. The law
also directs the Attorney General to conduct periodic reviews of the effectiveness of each ICAC
task force, and to submit a report on the strategy to Congress every other year. Two reports have
been issued, one in August 2010 and another in April 2016. Both reports discuss the ICAC Task
Force program, an assessment of threats to children, and the work of federal agencies to combat
child sexual exploitation.46 As of April 2019, DOJ did not have immediate plans to issue a
subsequent report.47
AMBER Alert Program
AMBER (America’s Missing: Broadcast Emergency Response) Alert systems are state-
administered communication systems to inform the public about children who are abducted.

(P.L. 112-206), no date.
44 DOJ, OJP, OJJDP, “Award 2011-MC-CX-KO28, Create a National ICAC Deconfliction System for Investigators,”
https://external.ojp.usdoj.gov/SelectorServer/awards/pdf/award/2011-MC-CX-K028/2011-51096-WV-MC/2011; and
CRS correspondence with DOJ, OJP, October 2015 and April 2019.
45 34 U.S.C. §2111. T he law additionally directed the Department of Justice to appoint a senior official to serv e 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.
See GAO, Com bating Child Pornography, pp. 12-13.
46 DOJ, The National Strategy for Child Exploitation Prevention and Interdiction: A Report to Congress, August 2010;
and DOJ, The National Strategy for Child Exploitation and Prevention: A Report to Congress, April 2016. T he first
report identified the following 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. T he second report identified five types of child sexual exploitation: (1) child pornography, (2)
sextortion and live streaming of child sexual abuse, (3) child sex trafficking, (4) child sex tourism, and (5) sex offender
registry violations.
47 Based on CRS correspondence with DOJ, OJP, April 2019. A New York Times article reports that DOJ will write the
reports every four years beginning in 2020. Michael H. Keller and Gabriel J.X. Dance, “ T he Internet Is Overrun With
Images of Child Sexual Abuse. What Went Wrong?” New York Tim es, September 28, 2019.
Congressional Research Service

15

The Missing and Exploited Children’s (MEC) Program: Background and Policies

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 local y in 1996 when fourth-grader Amber
Hagerman was abducted and murdered near her home in the Dal as-Fort Worth area. After the
abduction, law enforcement agencies in North Texas and the Dal as-Fort Worth Association of
Radio Managers developed a plan to send out an emergency alert about a missing child to the
public through the Emergency Alert System (EAS), which interrupts broadcasting. Soon after,
jurisdictions in Texas and other states began to create regional alert programs.
OJP first provided funding ($10 mil ion in discretionary appropriations) in 2002 for states and
localities to develop AMBER Alert programs. The PROTECT Act (P.L. 108-21), enacted in 2003,
directed the Attorney General to create a national AMBER Alert program, including appointing a
coordinator and developing standards for issuing an alert.48 P.L. 108-21 also authorized FY2004
funding for activities to support states in developing AMBER Alert communication plans and
technologies. The AMBER Alert statute was amended by the Ashlynne Mike AMBER Alert Act
(P.L. 115-166), which updated the authorization of appropriations for selected AMBER Alert
activities for FY2019. P.L. 115-166 also directed DOJ to make grants to Indian tribes to develop
and expand their alert systems. In addition, DOJ was required to submit a report to Congress by
April 2019 on the readiness, education, and training needs; technological chal enges; and specific
obstacles encountered by Indian tribes in integrating their communication plans with regional or
state AMBER Alert plans. In June 2019, DOJ provided the report, which delivered information
from surveys of federal y recognized tribes and state AMBER Alert coordinators about the extent
to which tribes have tribal alerting systems or have training on a state AMBER Alert plan, and the
chal enges for tribes in supporting and accessing the plan (e.g., about one-third of tribes do not
have an agreement with the state AMBER Alert plan to al ow access to it).49
AMBER Alert Coordinator and Standards
P.L. 108-21 specified 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 for abducted children throughout the AMBER Alert network;
(3) create voluntary standards for the issuance of alerts, including minimum standards that
address the special needs of the child (such as health care needs), and limit the alerts to a
geographic 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 one; 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. The coordinator 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:

48 34 U.S.C. §20501.
49 DOJ, OJP, OJJDP, Implementation of the Ashlynne Mike AMBER Alert in Indian Country Act of 2018: A Report to
Congress.
Congressional Research Service

16

The Missing and Exploited Children’s (MEC) Program: Background and Policies

 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) Missing Person File.
A new AMBER Alert “flag” was created within the NCIC’s Missing Person File for abducted
children for whom an alert has been issued. In 2005, DOJ submitted a report to Congress that
provided an overview of its strategy to facilitate a national AMBER Alert plan and the criteria
developed for issuing an alert.50 In 2019, DOJ issued (1) a second edition of a guide on best
practices for law enforcement and its partners in preparing for, and responding to, AMBER
Alerts; and (2) a field guide for law enforcement officers in issuing AMBER Alerts.51
AMBER Alert Grant Programs
The AMBER Alert statute provides three authorizations to support states in implementing
AMBER Alert communication plans and technologies: (1) an authorization of $4 mil ion in
FY2019 to DOJ for grants to states and Indian tribes to develop and implement AMBER Alert
communication programs, which al ows states to pursue activities specified in the law (e.g., the
integration of state or regional AMBER Alert communication plans with an Indian tribe); (2) an
additional $5 mil ion in FY2019 to DOJ to provide funding to states to develop and implement
new technologies to improve AMBER Alert communications and to integrate state or regional
AMBER Alert communication plans with those of Indian tribes; and (3) $20 mil ion to the
Department of Transportation (DOT) in FY2004 for grants to states to develop and enhance
notification or communication systems along highways.52
With regard to the DOJ authorization, the law specifies that the department is to provide grants to
states, on a geographical y equitable basis if possible, for developing and enhancing their
AMBER Alert communications plans. The law further specifies that DOJ is to provide no more
than 50% of the costs for carrying out the activities specified in the law related to communication
plans, except that DOJ can determine that an Indian tribe does not have sufficient funds and can
increase the federal share above 50%. DOJ determined that funds would be most efficiently spent
providing training and technical assistance to law enforcement and state officials on abducted
children, including providing assessments of AMBER Alert communication plans.53 This is
instead of funding that is awarded to states to implement communication plans, including the

50 DOJ, OJP, OJJDP, Report to the Congress on AMBER Alert.
51 DOJ, OJP, OJJDP, AMBER Alert Best Practices, 2nd ed., 2019; and DOJ, OJP, OJJDP, AMBER Alert: Field Guide
for Law Enforcem ent Officers, May 2019.
52 P.L. 108-21 originally authorized $5 million for FY2004 under the first two categories.
53 T his information was provided to the Congressional Research Service by DOJ, OJP in May 2007 and updated in
December 2017.
Congressional Research Service

17

The Missing and Exploited Children’s (MEC) Program: Background and Policies

more narrow activity of developing and implementing new technologies. OJJDP contracts with
Fox Val ey Technical College to provide this technical assistance.54
As noted, the statute authorized $20 mil ion in FY2004 for DOT to fund states in developing and
enhancing communications systems along highways for alerts and other information to assist in
the recovery of abducted children. States are eligible to receive funding (up to $400,000 each) 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.55 The federal share of the cost of these activities is not to exceed 80%,
and federal funds are available until expended. As of November 2020, 40 states and the District of
Columbia had received funding, and approximately $3.1 mil ion was stil available.56
Grant Programs and Technical Assistance
The MEC program provides funding to support other activities related to missing and exploited
children, including training and technical assistance for public and private nonprofit
organizations.57 OJJDP contracts with Fox Val ey Technical College to provide technical
assistance, which focuses on strengthening multi-disciplinary responses in child victimization
cases. Assistance is provided through distance learning, webinars, onsite technical assistance, or
classroom formats. The program additional y supports program administration, printing of
publications for Missing Children’s Day, recognized annual y in May, and grant programs that
vary from year to year. 58

54 DOJ, “AMBER Alert Program, T echnical Assistance,” http://www.amber-net.org/technicalassistance.html.
55 Pursuant to the PROT ECT 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. Im plem entation grants are to be used to support the infrastructure of the
program. Funding authorized under the PROT ECT Act was used exclusively for the implementation of communication
systems to issue AMBER alerts. However, states are eligible to apply for grants of up to $125,000 each, through a
separate DOT appropriation for the Intelligent Transportation Systems program, t o support state departments of
transportation efforts related to AMBER Alert planning. T hese funds are available until expended.
56 Based on CRS correspondence with Department of T ransportation, Federal Highway Administration, November
2020.
57 For further information, see Fox Valley T echnical College, “Missing and Exploited Children,” https://ncjtc.fvtc.edu/
training.
58 See DOJ, OJP, OJJDP, “About Missing Children’s Day,” https://www.ojjdp.gov/missingchildrensday/.
Congressional Research Service

18

The Missing and Exploited Children’s (MEC) Program: Background and Policies

Appendix. The Missing Children’s Assistance Act
of 1984, as Amended
Table A-1. The Missing Children’s Assistance Act of 1984 and Amendments to the Act
Year (Public Law)
Description
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 sexual y exploited;
Directs the Administrator of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention (OJJDP) to

(1) facilitate effective coordination among al federal y funded programs relating to
missing children,

(2) establish and operate a national tol -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 periodical y 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 al agencies and organizations with responsibilities related to
missing children;

Authorizes the 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 col ect 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 mil ion 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 the 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 coordination among al 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 the OJJDP Administrator to disseminate information about free or low-
cost legal, restaurant, lodging, and transportation services available for the families
of missing children, as wel as information about the lawful use of school records
and birth certificates to identify and locate missing children;

Requires the OJJDP Administrator to establish annual research, demonstration, and
service program priorities for making grants and contracts, and criteria based on
Congressional Research Service

19

The Missing and Exploited Children’s (MEC) Program: Background and Policies

Year (Public Law)
Description
merit for making such grants and contracts; limits a grant or contract to $50,000
unless the grant is competitive; and

Provides funding authorization at such sums as necessary for FY1989 through
FY1992.
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 (NCMEC) 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 NCMEC.
1999 (P.L. 106-71)

Provides an annual grant to NCMEC to carry out the activities original y designated
to the OJJDP Administrator, including the fol owing:

(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
periodical y 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 NCMEC at $10 mil ion 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 NCMEC at $20 mil ion for FY2004 through
FY2005; and

Provides that NCMEC 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 NCMEC at $20 mil ion 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 NCMEC at $40 mil ion 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 OJJDP 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

20

The Missing and Exploited Children’s (MEC) Program: Background and Policies

Year (Public Law)
Description
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 mil ion for each of FY2014 through FY2018
for OJJDP to fund activities carried out under the act. Of this amount, up to $32.2
mil ion is to be used for NCMEC. 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.
2018 (P.L. 115-267)

Provides funding authorization of $40 mil ion for each of FY2014 through FY2023
for OJJDP to fund activities carried out under the act, of which up to $32.2 mil ion
is to be used for NCMEC;

Revises the purpose areas to add that each year tens of thousands of children run
away or are abducted or removed from their parents;

Adds a definition of parent: “a legal guardian or other individual who may lawful y
exercise parental rights with respect to the child;”

Adds that the grant to NCMEC is to be used to carry out specified activities, some
of which were already carried out by the organization before the law was enacted,
and includes

(1) responding to foster care children who are missing from state child welfare
agencies in coordinating with such agencies and courts handling juvenile
dependency matters;

(2) identifying, locating, and recovering child victims of, and at risk for, sex
trafficking;

(3) utilizing emerging technology to provide additional outreach and educational
materials to parents and families;

(4) annual y providing reports to DOJ and the public on children reported missing
to NCMEC, including specifying the number of victims of non-family and family
abductions, and the number who are recovered; and

(5) tracking the number of attempted child abductions to identify links and patterns,
and to provide this information to law enforcement and, as appropriate, the public.
Source: Compiled by the Congressional Research Service (CRS).
Notes: This compilation only includes amendments to the Missing Children’s Assistance Act, which outlines the
duties of OJJDP and NCMEC. The act is codified at 34 U.S.C. §§11293 et seq. (Chapter 111, Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention). In addition to funding for NCMEC and selected other activities, the Missing and
Exploited Children’s program supports the Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Force program a nd
the AMBER Alert program. The ICAC Task Force program is codified at 34 U.S.C. §§21112-21117 (Chapter 211,
Combating Child Exploitation) and was authorized under the PROTECT Our Children Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-
401, as amended). The AMBER Alert program is codified at 34 U.S.C. §20501 (Chapter 205, AMBER Alert) and
was authorized under the PROTECT Act (P.L. 108-21, as amended). The Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act of
2015 (P.L. 114-22) made a change to one of the CyberTipline categories, which was subsequently changed by P.L.
115-267.

Congressional Research Service

21

The Missing and Exploited Children’s (MEC) Program: Background and Policies

Author Information

Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara
Emily J. Hanson
Specialist in Social Policy
Analyst in Social Policy

Acknowledgments
Isaac Nicchitta, CRS Research Assistant, provided invaluable support with updating this report.

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should n ot be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
RL34050 · VERSION 48 · UPDATED
22

Download PDF

Download EPUB

Revision History

Jul. 15, 2021

HTML · PDF

Jul. 22, 2019

HTML · PDF

3% changed

Feb. 8, 2018

HTML · PDF

12% changed

Mar. 1, 2017