September 2007:
Do you know the difference between the various NISMART (National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children) Reports? Those produced under NISMART-1 and those produced under NISMART-2. Many folks do not know the differences. What follows is a primer to explain the differences and should be read so that there is no confusion when citing reports and statistics. Each report below is separated by a line of "*****."
All together the reports below are a: PRIMER, HIGHLIGHTS, OVERVIEW, FAMILY ABDUCTIONS, NONFAMILY ABDUCTIONS and RUNAWAYS/THROWAWAYS each represents a report of NISMART-2
************************************************
PRIMER: Second Comprehensive Study of Missing Children
April 2000
The Missing Children’s Assistance Act (Title IV of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, as amended) requires the
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to periodically conduct studies of the scope of the problem of missing children in the United States. The purpose of the studies is to determine, for a given year, the actual number of children reported missing, including the number of children who are victims of abduction by strangers, the number of children who are the victims of parental kidnappings, and the number of children who are recovered (Sec. 404(b)(3)).
The first study, originally known by the acronym NISMART (hereafter NISMART 1), was conducted in 1988 with results published in 1990. Thus, what were the best and most comprehensive data available on the incidence of missing children are now 10 years old.
NISMART-1 (1990): National Incidence Study of Missing, Abducted, Runaway and Thrownaway Children in America, by David Finkelhor, Gerald Hotaling, & Andrea Sedlak (Caution: 407 pages 2MB PDF File)
The current National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children (NISMART 2) is the second national study to measure the incidence of each category of missing children.
In NISMART 2, currently (2002) underway, researchers are:
..more.. by Louise Hanson
************************************************
HIGHLIGHTS: Highlights From the NISMART Bulletins
October 2002
The National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children (NISMART) consist of several complementary studies designed to estimate the size and nature of the Nation’s missing children problem. NISMART–2, the second such set of studies (the first, NISMART–1, was conducted in 1988), provides national estimates of missing children based on surveys of households, juvenile residential facilities, and law enforcement agencies.1 The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) is disseminating a series of Bulletins that summarize findings from NISMART–2. This Fact Sheet highlights key findings presented in the first four NISMART Bulletins: National Estimates of Missing Children: An Overview (NCJ 196465), Nonfamily Abducted Children: National Estimates and Characteristics (NCJ 196467), Children Abducted by Family Members: National Estimates and Characteristics (NCJ 196466), and Runaway/Thrownaway Children: National Estimates and Characteristics (NCJ 196469).
Note: Actually if one just wants a few stats to quote, these highlights do a pretty good job.
..more..
************************************************
OVERVIEW: National Estimates of Missing Children: An Overview (NCJ 196465)
October 2002
The words “missing child” call to mind tragic and frightening kidnappings reported in the national news. But a child can be missing for many reasons, and the problem of missing children is far more complex than the headlines suggest. Getting a clear picture of how many children become missing—and why—is an important step in addressing the problem. This series of Bulletins provides that clear picture by summarizing findings from the Second National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children (NISMART–2). The series offers national estimates of missing children based on surveys of households, juvenile residential facilities, and law enforcement agencies. It also presents statistical profiles of these children, including their demographic characteristics and the circumstances of their disappearance.
The National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children (NISMART) were undertaken in response to the mandate of the 1984 Missing Children’s Assistance Act (Pub. L. 98–473) that requires the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to conduct periodic national incidence studies to determine the actual number of children reported missing and the number of missing children who are recovered for a given year.
NISMART–2 Study DescriptionsNational Household Surveys of Adult Caretakers and Youth
The Household Surveys were conducted during 1999, using computerassisted telephone interviewing methodology to collect information on missing child episodes from both adults and youth in a national probability sample of households. A total of 16,111 interviews were completed with an adult primary caretaker, resulting in an 80-percent cooperation rate among eligible households with children, and a 61-percent response rate. The total number of children identified by adult caretakers in the Household Survey sample was 31,787; these data were weighted to reflect the Census-based U.S. population of children age 18 years and younger. Each primary caretaker who completed an interview was asked for permission to interview one randomly selected youth in the household between the ages of 10 and 18. Permission
was granted to interview 60 percent of the selected youth, yielding 5,015 youth interviews and a 95-percent response rate among the youth for whom permission was granted. These youth data were weighted to reflect the Census-based U.S. population of children ages 10–18. All of the adult caretakers and sampled youth in the Household Surveys were screened with a set of 17 questions to determine their eligibility for an indepth followup interview designed to collect detailed information about each type of episode.
One obvious limitation of the Household Surveys is that they may have undercounted children who experienced episodes but were living in households without telephones or were not living in households during the study period, including street children and homeless families. Although these are not large populations in comparison to the overall child population, they may be at risk for episodes.
Law Enforcement Study
The Law Enforcement Study (LES) sample consisted of all law enforcement agencies serving a nationally representative sample of 400 counties, including the 400 county sheriff departments and 3,765 municipal law enforcement agencies. The selection of counties took into account the size of their child populations.
Data were collected in two phases. In the first phase, a mail survey was sent to all law enforcement agencies in the sample. This questionnaire asked whether the agency had any stereotypical kidnappings (see definition on page 4) open for investigation during 1997. The response rate for the mail survey was 91 percent. Agencies that reported any stereotypical kidnapping cases were then contacted by telephone for an extensive followup interview with the key investigating officer in each case. Data collection was completed for 99 percent of the cases targeted for followup interviews.
Incorporating both phases of the LES, the combined response rate for the study was 91 percent. LES case weights were developed to reflect the probability of the agency and case having been included in the sample and to adjust for nonresponse and refusals.
Juvenile Facilities Study
The Juvenile Facilities Study was developed to estimate the number of runaways from juvenile residential facilities. Respondents were facility staff in a nationally representative sample of 74 facilities, including juvenile detention centers, group homes, residential treatment centers, and runaway and homeless youth shelters. Telephone interviews were conducted to determine the number of children who ran away from each facility in 1997, and details were obtained for the five most recent runaway episodes. All of the selected facilities that were operational participated; the response rate for episode-level interviews was 93 percent. Runaways were assigned weights to reflect the probability of having included the facility and episode in the sample and to adjust for nonresponse.
..more.. by Andrea J. Sedlak, David Finkelhor, Heather Hammer, and Dana J. Schultz
************************************************
FAMILY ABDUCTIONS: Children Abducted by Family Members: National Estimates and Characteristics (NCJ 196466)
Octobr 2002
The words “missing child” call to mind tragic and frightening kidnappings reported in the national news. But a child can be missing for many reasons, and the problem of missing children is far more complex than the headlines suggest. Getting a clear picture of how many children become missing—and why—is an important step in addressing the problem. This series of Bulletins provides that clear picture by summarizing findings from the Second National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children (NISMART–2).
The series offers national estimates of missing children based on surveys of households, juvenile residential facilities, and law enforcement agencies. It also presents statistical profiles of these children, including their demographic characteristics and the circumstances of their disappearance.
This Bulletin presents results from the initial analysis of family abduction data collected by the Second National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children (NISMART–2), National Household Surveys of Adult Caretakers and Youth. These surveys were conducted during 1999 and reflect a 12-month period. Because the vast majority of cases were concentrated in 1999, the annual period referred to in the Bulletin is 1999.
Defining Family Abduction
For the purposes of NISMART–2, family abduction was defined as the taking or keeping of a child by a family member in violation of a custody order, a decree, or other legitimate custodial rights, where the taking or keeping involved some element of concealment, flight, or intent to deprive a lawful custodian indefinitely of custodial privileges.
Some of the specific definitional elements are as follows:
•
Taking: Child was taken by a family member in violation of a custody order or decree or other legitimate custodial right.
•
Keeping: Child was not returned or given over by a family member in violation of a custody order or decree or other legitimate custodial right.
•
Concealment: Family member attempted to conceal the taking or whereabouts of the child with the intent to prevent return, contact, or visitation.
•
Flight: Family member transported or had the intent to transport the child from the State for the purpose of making recovery more difficult.
•
Intent to deprive indefinitely: Family member indicated an intent to prevent contact with the child on an indefinite basis or to affect custodial privileges indefinitely.
•
Child: Person under 18 years of age. For a child 15 or older, there needed to be evidence that the family member used some kind of force or threat to take or to detain the child, unless the child was mentally disabled.
•
Family member: A biological, adoptive, or foster family member; someone acting on behalf of such a family member; or the romantic partner of a family member.
..more.. by Heather Hammer, David Finkelhor, and Andrea J. Sedlak
************************************************
NONFAMILY ABDUCTIONS: Nonfamily Abducted Children: National Estimates and Characteristics (NCJ 196467)
October 2002
The words “missing child” call to mind tragic and frightening kidnappings reported in the national news. But a child can be missing for many reasons, and the problem of missing children is far more complex than the headlines suggest. Getting a clear picture of how many children become missing—and why—is an important step in addressing the problem. This series of Bulletins provides that clear picture by summarizing findings from the Second National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children (NISMART–2). The series offers national estimates of missing children based on surveys of households, juvenile residential facilities, and law enforcement agencies. It also presents statistical profiles of these children, including their demographic characteristics and the circumstances of their disappearance.
This Bulletin presents results from the initial analysis of nonfamily abduction data collected by the Second National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children (NISMART–2). The NISMART–2 studies spanned the years 1997 to 1999.1 All data in the individual component studies were collected to reflect a 12-month period. Because the vast majority of cases were from the studies concentrated in 1999, the annual period referred to in this Bulletin is 1999.
Defining Nonfamily Abduction and Related Terms
•
Nonfamily abduction: (1) An episode in which a nonfamily perpetrator takes a child by the use of physical force or threat of bodily harm or detains the child for a substantial period of time (at least 1 hour) in an isolated place by the use of physical force or threat of bodily harm without lawful authority or parental permission, or (2) an episode in which a child younger than 15 or mentally incompetent, and without lawful authority or parental permission, is taken or detained or voluntarily accompanies a nonfamily perpetrator who conceals the child’s whereabouts, demands ransom, or expresses the intention to keep the child permanently.
•
Stereotypical kidnapping: A nonfamily abduction perpetrated by a slight acquaintance or stranger in which a child is detained overnight, transported at least 50 miles, held for ransom or abducted with intent to keep the child permanently, or killed.
•
Stranger: A perpetrator whom the child or family do not know, or a perpetrator of unknown identity.
•
Slight acquaintance: A nonfamily perpetrator whose name is unknown to the child or family prior to the abduction and whom the child or family did not know well enough to speak to, or a recent acquaintance who the child or family have known for less than 6 months, or someone the family or child have known for longer than 6 months but seen less than once a month.
..more.. by David Finkelhor, Heather Hammer, and Andrea J. Sedlak
************************************************
RUNAWAY/THROWAWAYS: Runaway/Thrownaway Children: National Estimates and Characteristics NCJ 196469)
October 2002
The words “missing child” call to mind tragic and frightening kidnappings reported in the national news. But a child can be missing for many reasons, and the problem of missing children is far more complex than the headlines suggest. Getting a clear picture of how many children become missing—and why—is an important step in addressing the problem. This series of Bulletins provides that clear picture by summarizing findings from the Second National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children (NISMART–2). The series offers national estimates of missing children based on surveys of households, juvenile residential facilities, and law enforcement agencies. It also presents statistical profiles of these children, including their demographic characteristics and the circumstances of their disappearance.
This Bulletin provides information on the number and characteristics of children who are gone from their homes either because they have run away or because they have been thrown out by their caretakers. The estimates presented in this Bulletin are derived from three components of the Second National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children (NISMART–2): the National Household Survey of Adult Caretakers, the National Household Survey of Youth, and the Juvenile Facilities Study. The NISMART–2 studies spanned the years 1997 to 1999.1 All data in the individual component studies were collected to reflect a 12-month period. Because the vast majority of cases were from the studies conducted in 1999, the annual period being referred to in these Bulletins is 1999.
Defining Runaways/Thrownaways
A runaway episode is one that meets any one of the following criteria:
• A child leaves home without permission and stays away overnight.
• A child 14 years old or younger (or older and mentally incompetent) who is away from home chooses not to come home when expected to and stays away overnight.
• A child 15 years old or older who is away from home chooses not to come home and stays away two nights.
A thrownaway episode is one that meets either of the following criteria:
• A child is asked or told to leave home by a parent or other household adult, no adequate alternative care is arranged for the child by a household adult, and the child is out of the household overnight.
• A child who is away from home is prevented from returning home by a parent or other household adult, no adequate alternative care is arranged for the child by a household adult, and the child is out of the household overnight.
..more.. by Heather Hammer, David Finkelhor, and Andrea J. Sedlak
