MART

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

National Estimates of Missing

Children: An Overview

Andrea J. Sedlak, David Finkelhor,

Heather Hammer, and Dana J. Schultz

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.

October 2002

National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children

J. Robert Flores

OJJDP Administrator

Access OJJDP publications online at ojjdp.ncjrs.org
The first such study, NISMART–1 (Finkelhor, Hotaling, and Sedlak, 1990), conducted almost 15 years ago, addressed this

mandate by defining major types of missing child episodes and estimating the number of children who experienced episodes

of each type in 1988. At that time, the lack

of a standardized definition of a “missing

child” made it impossible to provide a single estimate of missing children. This Bulletin describes the NISMART–2 efforts to

fill this gap and presents the results: unified estimates of the number of missing

children in the United States.

Overview of the NISMART–2

Studies

The unified estimates of the number of

missing children are derived from data

collected by the four complementary

NISMART–2 studies (see table 1 and the

sidebar on NISMART–2 study descriptions).1 These studies were designed to

provide a comprehensive picture of the

population of children who experienced

qualifying episodes, with study components focusing on different aspects of

the missing child population. The four

NISMART–2 studies used to estimate

the number of missing children are:

■ National Household Survey of Adult

Caretakers.

■ National Household Survey of Youth.

■ Law Enforcement Study.

■ Juvenile Facilities Study.

The two Household Surveys covered all

types of episodes for children living in

households. The Juvenile Facilities Study

obtained information about children who

ran away from the institutional settings

where they lived. The Law Enforcement

Study was designed to provide precise

estimates and case characteristics for a

rare form of nonfamily abduction, the

stereotypical kidnapping.

NISMART

NISMART–2 Study Descriptions

National 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.

2
3

NISMART

The NISMART–2 studies spanned

the years 1997 to 1999. All data

in the individual component

studies were collected to reflect

a 12-month period.2 Because the

vast majority of cases were from

the studies concentrated in 1999,

the annual period being referred

to in this Bulletin is 1999.

Conceptualizing the 

Missing Child Problem

Although the concept of a missing child may seem readily understandable, especially in cases that

come to media attention, a careful examination shows that the

notion is actually quite complex.

A child can become missing because of a variety of circumstances, such as running away, being abducted, or

being delayed by a mishap on the way home. Even simple misunderstandings about schedules and miscommunications about plans and activities can cause a child

to be missing. The situations that can cause a child to

become missing stem from different sources and require

different means of resolution.

Fundamentally, whether a child is “missing” depends

on the knowledge and state of mind of the child’s caretaker, rather than the child’s actual condition or circumstance. From the caretaker’s point of view, the child is

not where the caretaker expects the child to be, the caretaker does not know the child’s location, and these circumstances raise concern about the child’s well-being.

Despite this concern, a missing child may not be in any

peril whatsoever, as in the case where the child and

parent have had a miscommunication about the time 

the child is expected to arrive home.

The term “missing children” is also used to mean children who are being sought by the police and missing 

children’s agencies. This conception of missing children

relates to the resources needed by organizations, both 

public and private, to locate children. The subset of children reported missing by their caretakers for the purpose

of locating them provides one measure of the demand on

law enforcement because, like reported crimes, missing

person reports contribute to the volume of cases the

police must deal with. Contacting the police to report a

missing child does not necessarily measure the seriousness of the episode itself. Rather, it measures the caretaker’s assessment of the need for law enforcement 

assistance. 

Defining and Counting Missing Children

Thus, NISMART–2 defined a missing child in two ways:

first, in terms of those who were missing from their caretakers (“caretaker missing”); and second, in terms of those

who were missing from their caretakers and reported to

an agency for help locating them (“reported missing”). 

NISMART–2 counts a child as missing from the caretaker’s perspective when the child experienced a qualifying episode during which the child’s whereabouts were

unknown to the primary caretaker, with the result that

the caretaker was alarmed for at least 1 hour and tried to

locate the child. For an episode to qualify, the child had

to be younger than 18 and the situation had to meet the

specific criteria for one of the following NISMART–2

episode types (summarized in the sidebar on page 4):

■ Nonfamily abductions (including a subcategory,

stereotypical kidnappings).

■ Family abductions.

■ Runaway/thrownaway episodes.

Table 1: NISMART–2 Study Sources, by Episode Type

Episode Type Study Source

Nonfamily abduction Household Survey of Adult Caretakers

Household Survey of Youth

Law Enforcement Study 

(stereotypical kidnappings only)

Family abduction Household Survey of Adult Caretakers

Household Survey of Youth

Runaway/thrownaway Household Survey of Adult Caretakers

Household Survey of Youth

Juvenile Facilities Study

Missing involuntary, lost, or injured Household Survey of Adult Caretakers

Household Survey of Youth

Missing benign explanation Household Survey of Adult Caretakers

Household Survey of Youth
4

NISMART

■ Missing involuntary, lost, or injured events.

■ Missing benign explanation situations.

A caretaker missing child was considered to be reported

missing if a caretaker contacted the police or a missing

children’s agency to locate the child. Note that the

category “reported missing” does not include children

who were reported to the police for reasons other than

locating the missing child, e.g., to report an incident as

a crime or simply to recover a child whose whereabouts

were known.

Not all children who experience qualifying NISMART–2

episodes can be classified as caretaker missing. For

example, when a child is abducted by a family member,

the caretaker may know very well where the child is

but may be unable to retrieve the child. The parent of

a runaway child may not know the child’s whereabouts

but may not be alarmed or try to find the child. These

children would not be counted among the caretaker

missing children in NISMART–2 because they fail to

meet one or more of the three criteria noted above: the

child’s whereabouts must be unknown, the caretaker

must be alarmed for at least 1 hour, and the caretaker

must attempt to locate the child. In addition, to ensure

that minor misunderstandings would not inflate the

estimates, those who became missing because of benign

reasons were only considered to be missing if police

were contacted about the episode. 

To summarize, NISMART–2 conceptualizes children

in terms of three nested classes: The largest set comprises all children with a qualifying NISMART–2 episode

who may or may not be missing (e.g., a child runs away

from home).3 Within that group, some children meet

the additional criteria that classify them as caretaker

missing children (the runaway child’s parent notices the

child is gone, does not know where the child is, becomes

alarmed for at least an hour, and tries to find the child).

Finally, within that group of caretaker missing children,

a subset meets the further requirement that qualifies the

children as reported missing (the parent calls the police

or a missing children’s agency to help locate the child).

Results

Table 2 presents the unified estimates of the number

of children who are counted as caretaker missing children. These figures are annual estimates, reflecting the

NISMART–2 Definitions of Episode Types

Nonfamily Abduction

A nonfamily abduction occurs when a nonfamily perpetrator

takes a child by the use of physical force or threat of bodily

harm or detains a child for 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 when a child who

is younger than 15 years old or is mentally incompetent, without lawful authority or parental permission, is taken or detained by 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 stereotypical kidnapping occurs when a stranger or slight

acquaintance perpetrates a nonfamily abduction in which the

child is detained overnight, transported at least 50 miles, held

for ransom, abducted with intent to keep the child permanently, or killed.

Family Abduction

A family abduction occurs when, in violation of a custody order,

a decree, or other legitimate custodial rights, a member of

the child’s family, or someone acting on behalf of a family

member, takes or fails to return a child, and the child is concealed or transported out of State with the intent to prevent

contact or deprive the caretaker of custodial rights indefinitely

or permanently. (For a child 15 or older, unless mentally incompetent, there must be evidence that the perpetrator used physical force or threat of bodily harm to take or detain the child.)

Runaway/Thrownaway

A runaway incident occurs when a child leaves home without

permission and stays away overnight; or a child 14 years old

or younger (or older and mentally incompetent) who is away

from home chooses not to return when supposed to and stays

away overnight; or a child 15 years old or older who is away

from home chooses not to return and stays away two nights.

A thrownaway incident occurs when 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; or 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.

Missing Involuntary, Lost, or Injured

A missing involuntary, lost, or injured episode occurs when 

a child’s whereabouts are unknown to the child’s caretaker

and this causes the caretaker to be alarmed for at least 1

hour and try to locate the child, under one of two conditions:

(1) the child was trying to get home or make contact with the

caretaker but was unable to do so because the child was lost,

stranded, or injured; or (2) the child was too young to know

how to return home or make contact with the caretaker.

Missing Benign Explanation

A missing benign explanation episode occurs when a child’s

whereabouts are unknown to the child’s caretaker and this

causes the caretaker to (1) be alarmed, (2) try to locate the

child, and (3) contact the police about the episode for any 

reason, as long as the child was not lost, injured, abducted,

victimized, or classified as runaway/thrownaway.
NISMART

number of children who became

missing at some time during the

study year. The sidebar on this

page explains how the estimates

were derived.

The total number of children who

were missing from their caretakers

in 1999, including children who

were reported missing and those

who were not, is estimated to be

1,315,600. Because this estimate is

based on samples, sampling error

qualifies its statistical precision.

The 95-percent confidence interval

indicates that if the study were to

be repeated with the same methodology 100 times, 95 of the replications would produce an estimate

between 1,131,100 and 1,500,100.

The total estimate of a little more

than 1.3 million reflects an annual

rate of 18.8 children per 1,000 in

the general population of children

nationwide.4 The number of missing children who

were reported missing in 1999 (i.e., reported to police

or missing children’s agencies in order to locate them)

NISMART–2 Unified Estimate Methodology

5

Information from all four NISMART–2 studies (see descriptions of studies on page 2) was integrated to construct unified estimates of the number of missing children. Two key

principles guided this integration:

Principle 1: To combine episode information within a

survey, each sampled child could only be counted once

in the unified estimate.

Principle 2: To unify episode information across surveys,

a given subgroup of children could be represented by

information from one survey only.

Beginning with the information from the Household Survey

of Adult Caretakers, children who qualified as missing on the

basis of any countable episode other than a stereotypical kidnapping were entered into the unified estimate. In accordance

with the first principle above, children who were missing on

different occasions, because of multiple episodes, were only

counted once in the unified estimate. In accordance with the

second principle, those with stereotypical kidnappings were

excluded at this point, because the Law Enforcement Study

data were used to represent these children.

Next, Household Survey children not yet included in the

unified estimate were added to it if their responses to the

Household Survey of Youth showed that they met the criteria

for a missing child. Again, children who were missing solely

because of a stereotypical kidnapping were not added at this

point and children who were missing in multiple qualifying

episodes were only added once.

At the third stage, the runaways from institutions who were

identified in the Juvenile Facilities Study were added, but only

if they did not also run away from a household during the

study year. This restriction was necessary because runaways

from households were already represented in the Household

Survey data.

Finally, children who were missing because of stereotypical

kidnappings were added from the Law Enforcement Study

data. The Law Enforcement Study was used as the data source for

this rare subset of nonfamily abducted children because no reliable

estimate could be developed from the Household Surveys.

A more detailed description of the unified estimate methodology is provided in OJJDP’s forthcoming Unified Estimate

Methodology Technical Report.

Table 2: Unified Estimates of Caretaker Missing Children and Reported

Missing Children

Rate per 1,000 in U.S. 

Estimated Total Child Population

Category (95% Confidence Interval)* (95% Confidence Interval)* 

Caretaker missing 1,315,600 18.8

children† (1,131,100–1,500,100) (16.1–21.4)

(reported and 

not reported)

Reported missing 797,500 11.4

children‡ (645,400–949,500) (9.2–13.5)

Note: All estimates are rounded to the nearest 100.

* The 95-percent confidence interval indicates that if the study 

were repeated 100 times, 95 of the replications would 

produce estimates within the ranges noted.

† Child’s whereabouts were unknown, caretaker was alarmed and

tried to locate the child.

‡ Reported to police or a missing children’s agency for 

purposes of locating the child.

The diagram illustrates the proportional relationship

between the total number of caretaker missing children

and the subset of children who were reported missing.

Reported

missing

Caretaker 

missing children
NISMART

was estimated to be 797,500, which is equivalent to a

rate of 11.4 children per 1,000 in the U.S. population.

Children reported missing to police and other missing

children’s agencies represent 61 percent of all children

classified as caretaker missing. The diagram accompanying table 2 illustrates the fact that children who were reported missing are a subset of the caretaker missing

children.

In considering these estimates, it is important to recognize that nearly all of the caretaker missing children

(1,312,800 or 99.8 percent) were returned home alive or

located by the time the study data were collected. Only

a fraction of a percent (0.2 percent or 2,500) of all caretaker missing children had not returned home or been

located, and the vast majority of these were runaways

from institutions who had been identified through the

Juvenile Facilities Study.5 (Details on episode outcomes—whether the child was returned home alive or

located—are presented in the NISMART–2 episodespecific Bulletins.)

Estimates by Type of Episode

Table 3 reports the reasons children became missing. Data

are shown for all caretaker missing children and for those

who were reported missing.

Of all caretaker missing children, nearly one-half (48 percent) were missing because of a runaway/thrownaway

episode. More than one-fourth (28 percent) became missing as a result of benign explanation circumstances (miscommunications or misunderstandings between child

and caretaker). Children who were missing because they

became lost or injured accounted for 15 percent of all

caretaker missing children. Less than one-tenth (9 percent) of caretaker missing children were abducted by

family members, and only 3 percent were abducted by

nonfamily perpetrators. 

Table 3: Reasons Children Became Missing

Rate per 1,000

Children in U.S. 

95% Confidence Population 

Episode Type Estimated Total* Interval† Percent* (N = 70,172,700)

Caretaker Missing Children (n = 1,315,600)

Nonfamily abduction‡ 33,000§ (2,000–64,000) 3§ 0.47§ 

Family abduction 117,200 (79,000–155,400) 9 1.67

Runaway/thrownaway 628,900 (481,000–776,900) 48 8.96

Missing involuntary, lost, 

or injured 198,300 (124,800–271,800) 15 2.83

Missing benign explanation 374,700 (289,900–459,500) 28 5.34

Reported Missing Children (n = 797,500)

Nonfamily abduction‡ 12,100§ (<100–31,000) 2§ 0.17§ 

Family abduction 56,500 (22,600–90,400) 7 0.81

Runaway/thrownaway 357,600 (238,000–477,200) 45 5.10

Missing involuntary, lost, 

or injured 61,900 (19,700–104,100) 8 0.88

Missing benign explanation 340,500 (256,000–425,000) 43 4.85

Note: All estimates are rounded to the nearest 100.

* Estimates sum to more than the total of 1,315,600, and percents sum to more than 100, because children who had multiple episodes are included in every 

row that applies to them.

† The 95-percent confidence interval indicates that, if the study were repeated 100 times, 95 of the replications would produce estimates within the ranges noted.

‡ Nonfamily abduction includes stereotypical kidnapping.

§ Estimate is based on an extremely small sample of cases; therefore, its precision and confidence interval are unreliable.

6
NISMART

A somewhat different picture emerges from the estimates of children who were reported missing to police

or missing children’s agencies. Although runaway/

thrownaway children reflect a substantial minority of

reported missing children (45 percent), nearly as many

children (43 percent) became missing because of benign

reasons. Comparable percentages of reported missing

children were missing because they were lost or injured

(8 percent) and because they had been abducted by a family

member (7 percent). Only a small percentage were

missing because of a nonfamily abduction (2 percent).

Stereotypical kidnappings. In table 3, the estimates for

nonfamily abducted children include primarily crimes

involving a modest amount of forced movement or detention that correspond with the way in which abduction

is legally defined in most State statutes. Such abductions

are rare enough that the estimates of the number of caretaker missing and reported missing children abducted by

a nonfamily perpetrator are not

very reliable and have very large

confidence intervals. Stereotypical

kidnappings are the particular

type of nonfamily abduction that

receives the most media attention

and involves a stranger or slight

acquaintance who detains the

child overnight, transports the

child at least 50 miles, holds the

child for ransom, abducts the child

with intent to keep the child permanently, or kills the child. They

represent an extremely small portion of all missing children. (The

Law Enforcement Study found that

an estimated 115 of the nonfamily

abducted children were victims

of stereotypical kidnappings and

that 90 of these qualified as reported missing.)6

Multiple episodes. In table 3,

children who had multiple types

of episodes are included in every

row that applies to them. Of

the 1,315,600 caretaker missing

children, 36,500 (3 percent) experienced more than one

type of episode during the year. All of these multipleepisode children experienced a runaway/thrownaway

episode and one other type of episode (missing benign

explanation for 86 percent of the children, family abduction for 8 percent, and missing involuntary, lost, or

injured for 5 percent). Of the estimated 797,500 reported

missing children, 31,100 (4 percent) experienced multiple

types of episodes. Every reported missing child with multiple episodes experienced a runaway/thrownaway

episode and a missing benign explanation episode.

Estimates by Age, Gender, and Race/Ethnicity

Tables 4–6 show the demographic characteristics of

missing children. The tables show distributions by age,

gender, and race/ethnicity for caretaker missing children

and for children who were reported missing to police

or missing children’s agencies. The tables also include

demographic distributions for all children in the U.S.

Table 4: Ages of Missing Children

Percent of

95% 95% U.S. Child

Estimated Confidence Confidence Population

Age Total Interval* Percent Interval* (N = 70,172,700)

Caretaker Missing Children

0–5 138,200 (89,600–186,700) 11 (7–14) 33

6–11 175,300 (117,100–233,600) 13 (9–17) 34

12–14 402,400 (292,400–512,500) 31 (23–38) 17

15–17 596,900 (476,700–717,100) 45 (38–53) 17

Total 1,315,600 (1,131,100–1,500,100) 100 100

Reported Missing Children

0–5 96,500 (48,400–144,700) 12 (7–17) 33

6–11 113,400 (61,500–165,300) 14 (8–20) 34

12–14 235,500 (161,300–309,700) 30 (19–40) 17

15–17 349,300 (253,600–444,900) 44 (35–53) 17

Total 797,500 (645,400–949,500) 100 100

Note: All estimates are rounded to the nearest 100. Percents may not sum to 100 because of rounding.

* The 95-percent confidence interval indicates that if the study were repeated 100 times, 95 of the 

replications would produce estimates within the ranges noted.

7
population, providing a basis for assessing the relative

level of risk of becoming caretaker missing (and being

reported missing) for children in each demographic group.

Age. As shown in table 4, the great majority of missing

children were older teenagers (ages 15–17) and young

adolescents (ages 12–14). Together, these age groups accounted for about three-fourths of caretaker missing

children. The age distribution of reported missing children mirrors that of caretaker missing children. The

table also shows that, for nearly all age levels, the percentage in the U.S. child population falls well outside of

the 95-percent confidence interval for the study. This

means that children age 12 and older had a risk of becoming caretaker missing (and of being reported missing) that

was significantly higher than would be expected on the

basis of their representation in the U.S. child population,

whereas the risk for younger children was significantly

lower than would be expected.

Gender. Table 5 shows that, although boys appear to be

somewhat overrepresented among caretaker missing and

reported missing children, the U.S. child population percentages fall within the 95-percent confidence intervals.

This means that the gender distribution for missing

children is not significantly different from the distribution for the U.S. child population.

Race/ethnicity. White children had a significantly lower

risk of being caretaker missing and reported missing

than one would expect based on their representation in

the overall U.S. child population. Although the percentages of minority children among missing children

appear slightly higher than their percentages in the U.S.

child population, no single group of minority children

had a significantly higher risk of becoming missing.

Children Not Classified as Missing

The earlier discussion under “Conceptualizing the

Missing Child Problem” notes that children counted

as “caretaker missing” or “reported missing” in

NISMART–2 were not the only children to experience episodes of interest to the study. Some children

experienced nonfamily or family abduction episodes or

runaway/thrownaway episodes but were neither missing

from their caretakers nor reported missing to authorities. Examples include children who ran away to the

homes of relatives or friends, causing their caretakers

little or no concern; children who were held by family

members in known locations (e.g., an ex-spouse’s home);

and children who were abducted

by nonfamily perpetrators but

released before anyone noticed

that they were missing. These

children experienced episodes

but were not counted as missing

children.

For each of the five types of

episodes, table 7 shows the total

number of children who experienced an episode, the percentage

who were classified as caretaker

missing, and the percentage who

were classified as reported missing. As the table shows, all children who experienced missing

involuntary, lost, or injured episodes and missing benign explanation episodes were classified

as caretaker missing; this is

because such episodes involve

8

NISMART

Table 5: Gender of Missing Children

Percent of

95% 95% U.S. Child

Estimated Confidence Confidence Population

Gender Total Interval* Percent Interval* (N = 70,172,700) 

Caretaker Missing Children

Male 754,500 (604,200–904,800) 57 (51–64) 51

Female 561,100 (459,000–663,200) 43 (36–49) 49

Total 1,315,600 (1,131,100–1,500,100) 100 100

Reported Missing Children

Male 409,400 (290,400–528,400) 51 (42–61) 51

Female 388,000 (296,900–479,200) 49 (39–58) 49

Total 797,500 (645,400–949,500) 100 100

Note: All estimates are rounded to the nearest 100. Percents may not sum to 100 because of rounding.

* The 95-percent confidence interval indicates that if the study were repeated 100 times, 95 of the 

replications would produce estimates within the ranges noted.
a missing child by definition.

Only a little more than half of the

children who experienced family

and nonfamily abductions and

37 percent of those who experienced runaway/thrownaway

episodes, however, were included

in NISMART estimates of caretaker missing children. For all

types of episodes except missing

benign explanation, between onefifth and one-third of children experiencing episodes were reported

missing. (Benign explanation

episodes, by definition, involve

police contact. The percentage of

children reported missing for this

type of episode is 91 percent, not

100 percent, because some cases

were reported to the police for reasons other than locating the child.)

Summary

By unifying information across

four studies, NISMART–2 provides, for the first time, annual

estimates of the number of missing children. In 1999, an estimated 1,315,600 children met the

criteria for being classified as caretaker missing, i.e., their caretakers

did not know their whereabouts

and were alarmed for at least 1

hour while trying to locate them.

Among these missing children, an estimated 797,500

met the additional criterion for being classified as reported missing, i.e., the caretaker contacted the police or a

missing children’s agency to help locate the child. 

Only a fraction of 1 percent of the children who were

reported missing had not been recovered by the time

they entered the NISMART–2 study data. Thus, the

study shows that, although the number of caretaker

missing children is fairly large and a majority come to

the attention of law enforcement or missing children’s

agencies, all but a very small percentage are recovered

fairly quickly.

Most of the caretaker missing children became missing

because they ran away (48 percent) or because of benign

misunderstandings about where they should be (28 percent). Together, these two reasons accounted for 84 percent of all children who were reported missing. (This

estimated combined percentage was carefully developed

to count each child only once. Because some children

had more than one type of episode, the estimates in

table 3 should not be summed.) This is consistent with

the fact that about three-fourths of those who were

caretaker missing (or reported missing) were young

9

NISMART

Table 6: Race/Ethnicity of Missing Children

Percent of

95% 95% U.S. Child

Race/ Estimated Confidence Confidence Population

Ethnicity Total Interval* Percent Interval* (N = 70,172,700) 

Caretaker Missing Children

White, 

non-Hispanic 752,300 (624,800–879,700) 57 (51–63) 65

Black, 

non-Hispanic 215,000 (140,100–289,900) 16 (11–22) 15

Hispanic 234,500 (149,100–319,800) 18 (12–24) 16

Other 107,200 (50,400–164,000) 8 (4–12) 5

No information 6,700† (<100–15,000) 1† (<1–1) —

Total 1,315,600 (1,131,100–1,500,100) 100 100

Reported Missing Children

White, 

non-Hispanic 428,800 (331,500–526,100) 54 (46–62) 65

Black, 

non-Hispanic 149,700 (90,100–209,400) 19 (12–26) 15

Hispanic 163,900 (88,900–238,900) 21 (13–29) 16

Other 52,100 (19,000–85,200) 7 (3–10) 5

No information 3,000† (<100–6,900) <1† (<1–1) —

Total 797,500 (645,400–949,500) 100 100

Note: All estimates are rounded to the nearest 100. Percents may not sum to 100 because of rounding.

* The 95-percent confidence interval indicates that, if the study were repeated 100 times, 95 of the replications

would produce estimates within the ranges noted.

† Estimate is based on too few sample cases to be reliable.
10

NISMART

adolescents and teenagers (age 12 and older), an age

group with more independent comings and goings than

younger children and more conflicts with parents and

other caretakers. No significant gender differences were

found, but white children were at significantly lower

risk of becoming missing. 

Contrary to the common assumption that abduction

is a principal reason why children become missing,

the NISMART–2 findings indicate that only a small

minority of missing children were abducted, and most

of these children were abducted by family members

(9 percent of all caretaker missing children). Close

to 3 percent of caretaker missing children were abducted by a nonfamily perpetrator; among these, an

extremely small number (90) were victims of stereotypical kidnapping.

Conclusion

The complexity of the concept of a missing child is evident in these data, which show that children become

missing because of a wide range of circumstances. This

complexity has implications at two levels: finding the

individual missing child and developing policies to

address the broader problem. 

An analogy from the medical

domain offers context for understanding the implications at both

levels. The symptom of chest

pain can arise from many different

sources—some relatively minor

(indigestion, muscle sprain), some

potentially very serious (heart

attack, gall bladder attack). Only

with a differential diagnosis is it

possible to know which specialist to consult and how to address

the problem. Similarly, a missing

child can indicate a relatively

innocuous situation (such as a

misunderstanding about where

the child should be) or something

quite serious (a stereotypical kidnapping). Caretakers and others

who are attempting to find an

individual missing child need to know why the child is

missing—the type of episode—in order to resolve the

crisis. Policymakers who are attempting to address the

broader problem of missing children need information

about the relative frequency of the different types of

episodes in order to develop effective strategies for

reducing the problem and design appropriately scaled

interventions. Other Bulletins in this series contribute

to the policymaking effort by providing details from

NISMART–2 about children who experienced each

type of episode.

Endnotes

1. Because of important differences in both definitions

and methodology, the NISMART–1 and NISMART–2

data and findings should not be compared directly.

2. The reference dates for some of the NISMART–2 component studies vary because of a delay caused by pending

Federal legislation that, had it passed, would have made it

impossible to conduct the National Household Survey of

Youth, a key component of NISMART–2. In anticipation

of a quick resolution, OJJDP decided to proceed with the

Law Enforcement Study and the Juvenile Facilities Study

because neither involved interviewing youth. Had these

Table 7: Estimated Total Number of Children With Episodes and

the Percent Who Were Counted as Caretaker Missing and

Reported Missing

Total Number of 

Children With Percent in Row Percent in Row 

Episodes (Missing Counted as Counted as 

Episode Type and Nonmissing) Caretaker Missing* Reported Missing†

Nonfamily abduction 58,200 57 21

Family abduction 203,900 57 28

Runaway/thrownaway 1,682,900 37 21

Missing involuntary, 

lost, or injured 198,300 100‡ 31

Missing benign 

explanation 374,700 100‡ 91

Note: These estimates cannot be added or combined. All estimates are rounded to the nearest 100.

* Whereabouts unknown to caretaker, caretaker was alarmed and tried to locate child.

† Reported to police or a missing children’s agency for purposes of locating the child.

‡ By definition, all children with episodes in this category are caretaker missing.
6. The Law Enforcement Survey classified stereotypically kidnapped children as reported missing only if the

police were notified either by someone who discovered

the child was missing or by someone who witnessed

the abduction. Even in a stereotypical kidnapping, a

child may not be reported missing if no one notices

the child’s absence or if the discovery of the child’s

body is the first evidence of the episode.

Reference

Finkelhor, D., Hotaling, G., and Sedlak, A. 1990. Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children

in America. First Report: Numbers and Characteristics

National Incidence Studies. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office

of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

This Bulletin was prepared under grant number 95–MC–CX–K004 from

the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice, to Temple University.

11

NISMART

1997 studies been postponed until 1999, it is highly unlikely that those estimates would have been statistically

different. 

3. NISMART–2 Bulletins on each of the episode types

will describe the characteristics of all children who

experienced these episodes in addition to presenting

estimates of those who were counted as missing

and reported missing.

4. All information concerning the U.S. child population

reflects the average monthly estimate for the population ages 0–17 in 1999, as computed from the U.S.

Census Bureau’s National Monthly Population Estimates (Monthly Postcensal Resident Population, by

Single Year of Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin,

eire.census.gov/popest/archives/national/nat_90s_detail/

nat_90s_1.php).

5. The category included only 40 missing children who

had been stereotypically kidnapped and killed (an estimated 35) or were still missing (approximately 5) at the time

of the study interviews. Information about the child’s

recovery or return was unknown for an estimated 300

children, all of whom were runaways from institutions.

Although individual facilities report their runaways to

the authorities legally responsible for the youth (e.g.,

child welfare, juvenile justice, mental health), these

authorities sometimes place a recovered child in another

facility without notifying the original facility. 

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the

Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the

National Institute of Justice, and the Office for Victims of Crime.

Acknowledgments

Andrea J. Sedlak, Ph.D., is Associate Director of Human Services Research at Westat, Inc.; Project Director of the NISMART–2

Unified Estimate, Juvenile Facilities Study, and Law Enforcement Study; and Advisor to the NISMART–2 Household Survey. David

Finkelhor, Ph.D., is Professor of Sociology and Director, Crimes against Children Research Center, University of New Hampshire,

and Advisor to NISMART–2. Heather Hammer, Ph.D., is a Senior Study Director at the Temple University Institute for Survey

Research, Philadelphia, PA, and Principal Investigator of NISMART–2. Dana J. Schultz, M.P.P., is a Policy Analyst at Westat, Inc.,

Operations Manager of the Juvenile Facilities Study and Law Enforcement Study, and Analyst for the Unified Estimate.

Other contributors include Louise Hanson, M.A.S., Senior Study Director at the Temple University Institute for Survey Research

and Director of Data Collection for the NISMART–2 Household Surveys; Michael K. Barr, M.A., Associate Study Director at the

Temple University Institute for Survey Research; Lorraine E. Porcellini, M.A., Sampling Department Manager at the Temple University

Institute for Survey Research; Richard Ormrod, Ph.D., Research Professor of Geography at the University of New Hampshire Crimes

against Children Research Center; G. Hussain Choudhry, Ph.D., Senior Statistician at Westat, Inc.; Svetlana Ryaboy, Statistician at

Westat, Inc.; Ying Long, Programmer at Westat, Inc.; Karol P. Krotki, Ph.D., Chief Statistician at NuStats; and Karl Landis, Ph.D.

The authors extend their appreciation to Barbara Allen-Hagen, Senior Social Analyst at OJJDP and NISMART–2 Program

Manager, for her support and guidance in every phase of this project. The authors also thank the many individuals who

responded to the NISMART–2 surveys for their cooperation and candor.
U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Washington, DC 20531

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

NISMART Bulletin Series NCJ 196465

PRESORTED STANDARD

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/OJJDP

PERMIT NO. G–91

For Further Information

NISMART Questions and Answers, a fact

sheet, offers a straightforward introduction

to NISMART–2. It answers anticipated

questions—such as What is NISMART?

Have abductions by strangers declined

or increased? and Why can’t I compare

NISMART–1 statistics with NISMART–2

statistics?—to help explain NISMART’s

purpose, methodology, and findings.

Other Bulletins in the NISMART series

provide more detailed information on

the specific types of episodes studied—

nonfamily abduction (including stereotypical kidnapping), family abduction,

and runaway/thrownaway.

All NISMART-related publications are available at OJJDP’s Web site, ojjdp.ncjrs.org.

Want to know more about the issues in this Bulletin or

related information? Log on to ojjdp.ncjrs.org:

➤ Browse titles alphabetically or by topic.

➤ Discover the latest OJJDP releases.

➤ Subscribe to OJJDP’s listserv JUVJUST and the 

electronic newsletter JUSTINFO.

➤ Link to the NCJRS Abstracts Database to search

for publications of interest.

Take the Online Path to

OJJDP Information

It’s Fast ➤ It’s Easy ➤ It’s Free