MART 

July 2005 

Access OJJDP publications online at 

Benign Reasons 

Heather Hammer 

tics of two groups of children not frequently recognized in the literature on missing children: those involuntarily missing because they 

were lost, injured, or stranded and those missing for benign reasons. 

nents of the Second National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ojjdp 

National Estimates of Children 

Missing Involuntarily or for 

By Andrea J. Sedlak, David Finkelhor, and 

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 numbers and characterisThe estimates reported in this Bulletin are derived from two compoRunaway, and Thrownaway Children (NISMART–2): the National 

Household Survey of Adult Caretakers and the National Household 

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

Office of Justice Programs 

Partnerships for Safer Communities 

www.ojp.usdoj.gov 

J. Robert Flores, Administrator 
NISMART

NISMART–2 Definitions of Episode 

Types 

Missing Involuntary, Lost, or Injured (MILI) 

A missing involuntary, lost, or injured episode occurs 

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

caretaker, who either contacts law enforcement or a 

missing children’s agency to locate the missing child or 

becomes alarmed for at least 1 hour and tries to locate 

the child, and one of the following conditions applies: 

(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 (defined as physical harm 

that required medical attention or resulted in injuries that 

were evident the next day, e.g., cuts, bruises, or sprains); 

or (2) the child was too young to know how to return 

home or make contact with the caretaker. 

Missing Benign Explanation (MBE) 

A missing benign explanation episode occurs when a 

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

who either contacts law enforcement or a missing children’s agency to locate the missing child or (1) becomes 

alarmed for at least an hour, (2) tries to locate the child, 

and (3) contacts the police about the episode for any reason, as long as the child was not lost, injured, abducted, 

victimized, or classified as runaway/thrownaway. 

Survey of Youth. These surveys were conducted during 

1999 and reflect the experiences of children in the United 

States over a 12-month period. Because the vast majority 

of cases were concentrated in 1999, the annual period the 

Bulletin refers to is 1999. 

Key Findings 

■ In 1999, an estimated 204,500 children were involuntarily missing from their caretakers because they were 

lost, injured, or stranded; 68,100 of these children 

were reported to authorities (for assistance in locating 

them).1 

■ An estimated 43,700 children were missing because 

they were injured; 10,200 of these children were 

reported to authorities (for assistance in locating 

them). 

■ An estimated 340,500 children missing from their caretakers and reported to authorities for purposes of being 

located were missing as a result of benign circumstances and miscommunications that resulted in no 

harm to the child. These children constituted 43 percent of the children reported missing in all categories. 

■ Children missing involuntarily because they were lost 

or injured were disproportionately white, male, and 

older. They disappeared most frequently in wooded 

areas or parks and from the company of their caretakers. 

■ Children missing as a result of benign circumstances 

and miscommunications were disproportionately 

teenagers who failed to come home or were gone 

longer than expected. 

Conceptualizing the Problem 

Conducted in 1988, the First National Incidence Studies 

of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children, NISMART–1 (Finkelhor, Hotaling, and Sedlak, 

1990) brought attention to a number of missing children 

who could not be classified as “abducted,” “runaway,” 

or “thrownaway.” These children were classified as 

“lost, injured, and otherwise missing” in NISMART–1. 

Based on that study, the designers of NISMART–2 distinguished two subsets of missing children within this 

group: (1) children who were involuntarily missing and 

in potential danger because they became lost, injured, or 

stranded; and (2) children who were missing for benign 

reasons such as miscommunications and mistaken 

expectations. 

The notion that children become missing because they get 

lost and cannot make their way back to their caretaker (for 

example, in a wilderness environment) is readily understood. However, a more serious reason that could prevent 

children from making their way back to their caretaker or 

home is an injury that impedes their mobility, such as a 

broken leg or a fall that renders them unconscious. Sometimes the need for immediate emergency medical attention requires taking these children to the hospital without 

notifying their families. In NISMART–2, these children 

are classified together into a new category called “missing 

involuntary, lost, or injured” (MILI). 

Children missing because of a miscommunication or 

mistaken expectation are usually not in serious danger, 

despite the anxiety their absence causes their caretakers. 

NISMART–2 classified such situations as “missing benign 

explanation” (MBE). Classifying a child as “missing” for 

benign reasons is a new concept in the missing children 

field and therefore merits additional discussion. Today’s 

complex world, where family members have hectic 

schedules and often are out of touch with one another for 

large parts of any given day, presents many opportunities 

2 
NISMART

for children to become missing for benign reasons. 

Unforeseeable circumstances (e.g., a flat tire, missing a 

ride, or helping a friend) can cause a child to be late for 

an appointment or arrival home. Miscommunications 

also occur among family members (e.g., the father picks 

up the child, not knowing that the mother planned to do 

so an hour later). Caretakers and children can have different expectations (e.g., a teenager may think it is alright to 

stay out an hour or two past curfew without calling or 

leaving a note, when this is not the caretaker’s view). In 

such circumstances, caretakers can become alarmed to 

the point of calling the police. However, the hallmark of 

these episodes is that the child was not harmed, lost, or 

stranded and did not qualify for any other category of 

episode that the NISMART–2 study targeted (i.e., nonfamily abductions, family abductions, and runaway/ 

thrownaway episodes). 

The NISMART–2 definition of “missing” extended beyond 

the caretaker’s lack of knowledge about where the child 

was. Parents frequently do not know exactly where their 

children are, especially older children, and may regard 

this as normal. To classify a child as “missing,” the study 

also required either that the caretaker had contacted law 

enforcement or a missing children’s agency to locate the 

child or that the child’s unknown whereabouts had 

caused the caretaker to be alarmed for at least 1 hour and 

to look for the child. Classification as an MBE episode 

required caretaker contact with law enforcement or a 

missing children’s agency in all cases. The purpose of the 

contact could be to report the child as missing, to recover 

the child from a known location, or any other reason 

related to the episode, as long as the child was not lost, 

injured, abducted, victimized, or classified as runaway/ 

thrownaway. See the sidebar on page 4 for examples of 

MILI and MBE episodes. 

Methodology 

MILI and MBE estimates are based on the NISMART–2 

National Household Surveys of Adult Caretakers and 

Youth. The surveys were conducted during 1999, using 

computer-assisted telephone interviewing methodology 

to collect information from a national probability sample 

of households. Some 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 number of 

youth that adult caretakers in the Household Survey 

sample identified was 31,787. Each primary caretaker 

who completed an interview was asked for permission to 

interview a randomly selected member of the household 

between the ages of 10 and 18. Permission was obtained 

for 60 percent of the selected youth, yielding 5,015 interviews and a 95-percent cooperation rate among the youth 

whose caretakers granted permission to conduct an interview. Youth and adult interview data were weighted to 

reflect the census-based population of children. 

The Household Surveys were designed to screen for potentially countable missing child episodes, to collect demographic information about the household and its members, 

to conduct indepth followup interviews specific to each 

type of missing child episode being studied, and to collect 

information about any actual or attempted sexual assaults 

that may have occurred during an episode. The types of 

episodes studied were family abductions; nonfamily abductions; runaway/thrownaway episodes; episodes that involved children who were involuntarily missing because 

they were lost, injured, or stranded; and episodes that 

involved children who were missing for a benign reason 

(e.g., a miscommunication between parent and child). 

Adult caretakers and youth were screened with a set of 

17 questions to determine their eligibility for an indepth 

followup interview pertaining to each type of missing 

child episode. The following three episode screening 

questions in the adult interviews led to the followup 

interview used to identify MILI and MBE episodes: 

■ In the past 12 months, was there any time when this 

child was seriously hurt or injured and as a result 

didn’t come home and you were concerned about 

where the child was? 

■ Was there any time when you were concerned because 

you couldn’t find this child or this child didn’t come 

home? 

■ Was there any time when this child became lost or 

you were unable to locate this child’s whereabouts 

and you became alarmed and tried to find this child? 

These questions applied to all children in the household. 

The responses to the followup interview in turn were 

used to determine if a missing child would be counted as 

MILI or MBE. The episode screening questions used in 

the youth interviews were essentially identical. 

3 
NISMART

Examples of NISMART–2 Missing Involuntary, Lost, or Injured and Missing 

Benign Explanation Episodes 

Missing Involuntary, Lost, or Injured 

A teacher put a 6-year-old boy on the wrong bus home 

on the first day of school. When the bus driver discovered the mistake, he returned the boy to the school, but 

the teacher had left. The only person still there was the 

secretary, who did not have a record of the boy’s home 

phone number. The boy did not know how to contact his 

parents. During the interim, the parents were waiting at 

the bus stop, watching the buses come and go without 

dropping off their son. They became alarmed, called the 

school, and found that their son was unharmed and in 

the principal’s office. The episode lasted an hour. 

An 11-year-old girl was playing in a large wooded area 

behind her home and lost her direction. When the girl did 

not answer her mother’s call for dinner, the mother became alarmed and called the police to help locate the 

missing child. While the police assisted in the search, the 

mother drove around the neighborhood asking if anyone had seen her daughter. It was 4 hours before the 

child found her way out of the woods behind a neighbor’s house and was returned home safely. 

A 16-year-old girl accompanied her friend to the doctor’s 

office, and on the way home their car was involved in 

an accident. An ambulance transported the pair to the 

hospital, where they were examined and the girl was 

treated for a dislocation and a stress-induced asthma 

attack. The girl’s mother became alarmed when she could 

not reach her daughter on her pager and called the girl’s 

father and friends to find the girl. Nobody contacted the 

mother about her daughter’s whereabouts until 5 hours 

after she became alarmed. The child was returned home 

2 hours after she was located at the hospital. The episode 

lasted 7 hours. 

A 2-year-old boy whose mother had taken him to a Christmas parade in a small community wandered into the 

crowd when she left him in the care of a neighbor while 

she went to use a restroom. The mother was alarmed and 

worried that her son might have been abducted. She contacted the police immediately to help locate her missing 

toddler. The police responded quickly and found the boy 

about a block away from where he disappeared. The 

episode lasted 10 minutes, and the child was returned 

to his mother unharmed. 

A 14-year-old girl and her 10-year-old brother were hiking in a park with their father. With his permission, they 

went ahead on the trail and inadvertently got separated 

from him and lost. Losing sight of his children caused 

the father to be very alarmed, and he immediately backtracked the trails in search of them, asked any person he 

came across for help, and flagged down cars to ask 

where the trails ended. While he was searching for the 

children, they were trying to find him, and it took an 

hour before the father found his children unharmed. 

Missing Benign Explanation 

A 13-year-old boy skipped school without permission. 

The school called the police when the boy’s absence was 

discovered, and both the police and the boy’s frantic 

mother searched for him. At the time, the mother was 

convinced that her son was either injured or kidnapped 

because this had never happened before. The boy was 

gone for 3 hours before he returned home safely. 

A 14-year-old boy was at his friend’s house without permission. He failed to come home by his 11 p.m. curfew 

and did not call his parents. The boy’s friend was someone his father knew but did not approve of. The father 

called all of the friends he expected his son to be with, 

and when he could not locate his son, he called the 

police to report the boy missing. The episode lasted 3 

hours. During the interview, the father described the 

reason for the episode as a misunderstanding of what 

was expected. Apparently, the boy thought he did not 

need to come home by his curfew because there was 

no school the next day. 

A 7-year-old boy was supposed to be watching television 

in the living room. His mother called him for dinner and 

discovered he was not there. Instead, the boy had gone 

outside to play and fallen asleep in the corner of the detached garage on their property. It was dark outside, and 

the parents searched for the boy with the assistance of 

their neighbors. When they could not find him, the neighbors called the police to assist in locating the missing 

child. The episode lasted 45 minutes. 

A 1-year-old was out with her aunt, and when they were 

an hour late returning home, the baby’s mother became 

alarmed and called the aunt and other family members 

to find her daughter. After 2 hours of trying to find the 

child, her grandparents called the police for help in 

locating her. Approximately 15–20 minutes after this 

call, the aunt returned the child home safely. During the 

interview, the mother explained that the episode was 

the result of unforeseen circumstances and the aunt’s 

misunderstanding of what was expected. 

A 15-year-old girl took a train to her friend’s house right 

after school and spent the night there. The primary caretaker, who described herself as a friend of the child, 

thought that the girl was somewhere else and became 

alarmed when she did not call or come home later that 

night. The police were contacted to locate the missing 

child, who was found and returned home safely. The 

episode lasted 20 hours. 

4 
NISMART

MILI and MBE estimates reported in this Bulletin are unified estimates that combine the number of countable children who experienced these types of episodes as adult 

caretakers and youth described them in the Household 

Surveys.2 Any child is counted only once, even if the 

same type of episode was reported for the same child in 

both the adult and youth interviews. For details about 

the unification and weighting procedures and the variance estimation, see OJJDP’s forthcoming NISMART–2 

Household Survey Methodology Technical Report and 

NISMART–2 Unified Estimate Methodology Technical 

Report. 

Results 

In 1999, an estimated 204,500 children were involuntarily missing from their caretakers (“caretaker missing”) 

because they were lost, injured, or stranded. Of these, 

68,100 were reported missing to law enforcement or a 

missing children’s agency (see table 1). The estimated 

number of caretaker missing children who were missing 

because they were injured was 43,700 (Sedlak et al., 

2002). The MILI children constituted 16 percent of children missing from caretakers for any reason and 9 percent of all missing children reported to authorities. 

Children missing from their caretakers in circumstances 

with benign explanations totaled 374,700. The caretakers 

of an estimated 340,500 of these children reported them 

missing to authorities.3 MBE children constituted 28 percent of children missing from their caretakers for any 

reason and 43 percent of all missing children reported to 

authorities (Sedlak et al., 2002). 

Children younger than 12 were underrepresented in both 

categories (see table 2). Although children younger than 

12 constituted 66 percent of the child population in 1999, 

they represented only 35 percent of MILI children and 36 

percent of MBE children. Teenagers were overrepresented 

in both categories; however, the disproportionality was 

only significant for MBE episodes. Boys were overrepresented in the MILI category as compared with girls. 

Whites were overrepresented and blacks underrepresented in the MILI category. Further information will be 

needed to explain the significantly higher number of 

MBE children in the Midwest relative to their prevalence 

in the child population. 

Table 1: Estimates of Missing Involuntary, Lost, or Injured and Missing Benign Explanation Children in the 

United States, 1999 

Estimated 95% Confidence 

Type of Missing Child Episode Number of Children Interval Percent 

Missing involuntary, lost, or injured 

(MILI) 204,500 131,300–277,800 100 

Caretaker missing‡ 204,500 131,300–277,800 100 

Caretaker missing due to injury 43,700† 17,700–69,700† 21†,§ 

Reported missing¶ 68,100 24,800–111,300 33§ 

Reported missing due to injury 10,200† 200–20,200† 5†,§ 

Missing benign explanation (MBE) 374,700 284,900–464,400 100 

Caretaker missing‡ 374,700 284,900–464,400 100 

Reported missing¶ 340,500 251,300–429,600 91 

Notes: The estimates provided here for the MILI category are marginally higher than estimates provided in a previous Bulletin, National Estimates of Missing Children: An Overview (Sedlak et al., 2002). The change resulted from the discovery of one child in the survey who had an experience that qualified as a MILI episode 

but who was inadvertently left out of that category because the child also had experienced another, separate missing child episode that came under a different category. The change does not affect the overall estimate of missing children. All estimates are rounded to the nearest 100. 

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

‡ Child’s whereabouts unknown to the parents or caretakers, causing them to become alarmed and try to locate the child. Includes children who were reported 

missing. 

§ Percent uses caretaker missing (204,500) as the base.


¶ Subset of caretaker missing children whose parents or caretakers reported them to the police or a missing children’s agency for purposes of locating them.


5 
NISMART


Table 2: Characteristics of Missing Involuntary, Lost, or Injured and Missing Benign Explanation Children in 

the United States, 1999 

MILI (n = 204,500) MBE (n = 374,700) Percent of 

U.S. Child 

Estimated Estimated Population‡ 

Characteristic Number Percent Number Percent (N = 70,172,700) 

Age (years) 

0–2 11,200† 5** 15,200† 4† 15 

3–5 9,500† 5** 41,500 11 17 

6–11 51,900 25 77,100 21* 34 

12–14 73,300 36 117,300 31* 17 

15–17 58,600 29 123,600 33* 17 

Gender 

Male 143,500 70* 229,700 61 51 

Female 61,000 30* 145,000 39 49 

Race/ethnicity 

White, non-Hispanic 158,200 77* 215,100 57 65 

Black, non-Hispanic 14,800† 7** 68,100 18 15 

Hispanic 21,100† 10† 69,200 18 16 

Other 10,400† 5† 20,700† 6† 6 

No information — — 1,600† <1† —§ 

Region 

Northeast 32,600† 16† 59,800 16 18 

Midwest 40,000 20 134,200 36* 23 

South 63,100 31 102,300 27 35 

West 68,900 34 78,300 21 24 

Notes: MILI = missing involuntary, lost, or injured; MBE = missing benign explanation. Because all estimates have been rounded to the nearest integer, percentages 

may not sum to 100. 

* Statistically significant difference. 

** Although the sample is too small to provide a reliable estimate of the exact percentage of missing children in this category, the difference between missing 

children and children in the general population is so great that it is statistically significant. That is, the information from the sample is sufficient to tell that the percentage for missing children is significantly below that for children in the general population in this group, although it is not sufficient to pinpoint the estimate itself 

reliably. 

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

‡ Age, gender, and race for the U.S. population were based on the average monthly estimates of the population ages 0–17 years for 1999 (U.S. Census Bureau, 

2000a). The regional distribution of the population was computed from state-by-state estimates of the population ages 0–17 as of July 1, 1999 (U.S. Census Bureau, 

2000b). 

§ Category does not apply to the census data. 

Most of the MILI and MBE children were gone less than 

6 hours (table 3). Only 3 percent of MILI children and 5 

percent of MBE children were gone for more than 1 day. 

MILI children disappeared primarily in wooded areas and 

parks and were often in the presence of their caretakers 

at the time they disappeared. In contrast, MBE children 

disappeared most often from a home other than their 

own. They did not disappear from their caretaker’s presence as often as they simply failed to contact their caretakers or to come home when they were expected. 

6 
NISMART


Table 3: Characteristics of Missing Involuntary, Lost, or Injured and Missing Benign Explanation Episodes in 

the United States, 1999 

MILI (n = 204,500) MBE (n = 374,700) 

Episode Estimated Estimated 

Characteristic Number Percent Number Percent 

Duration 

Less than 1 hour 17,200† 

1 hour to 6 hours 158,200 

7 hours to less than 24 hours 17,200† 

24 hours to less than 1 week 5,200† 

1 week to less than 6 months 600† 

Don’t know 6,100† 

8† 58,400 16 

77 256,900 69 

8† 39,800 11 

3† 12,300† 3† 

<1† 7,200† 2† 

3† — — 

Location 

Park or wooded area 113,500 

School or daycare 32,600 

Shopping area or mall 22,600† 

Street 12,100† 

Own home or yard 9,700† 

Other home or yard 6,700† 

Other public area 4,500† 

On vacation 900† 

Parent or caretaker’s car — 

On public transportation — 

Other 1,900† 

Don’t know — 

56 12,300† 3† 

16 8,900† 2† 

11† 40,100† 11† 

6† 34,600 9 

5† 46,000 12 

3† 125,700 34 

2† 40,100† 11† 

<1† — — 

— 29,600† 8† 

— 9,000† 2† 

<1† 24,600† 7† 

— 3,800† 1† 

How caretaker knew child was missing 

Child disappeared from caretaker’s 

supervision 79,600 

Child failed to come home 58,300 

Child was gone longer than expected 18,600† 

Child failed to call caretaker 18,000† 

Other reason 26,800† 

No information 3,300† 

39 43,100 12 

29 122,800 33 

9† 104,200 28 

9† 48,000 13 

13† 56,600 15 

2† — — 

Child was missing due to injury 

Yes 43,700† 21† —‡ —‡ 

Notes: MILI = missing involuntary, lost, or injured; MBE = missing benign explanation. Estimated numbers for episode characteristics may not sum to totals for 

episode type (MILI or MBE) because of rounding. 

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

‡ Category does not apply to missing benign explanation children by definition. 

7 
T 

Episode 

Number Number 

No —‡ —‡ 

§ 

85 ¶ 91 

† 8† † 6† 

Other reason † 8† † 3† 

No information — — † <1† 

† 40† —‡ —‡ 

Did not think police were needed † 19† —‡ —‡ 

Child located without police assistance † 10† —‡ —‡ 

† 4† —‡ —‡ 

† 27† —‡ —‡ 

MILI (n MBE (n 

NISMAR

Table 4: Police Contact for Missing Involuntary, Lost, or Injured and Missing Benign Explanation Children in 

the United States, 1999 

Estimated Estimated 

Characteristic Percent Percent 

Police contact 

Yes 80,400 39 374,700 100 

124,200 61 

Reason for police contact

Locate missing child 68,100 340,500

Recover child from unknown location 6,200 21,700

6,000 11,700

800

Reason police were not contacted 

Child was not gone long enough 50,100

23,100

13,000

School took care of problem 5,000

Don’t know 33,000

Notes: MILI = missing involuntary, lost, or injured; MBE = missing benign explanation. Estimated numbers for episode characteristics may not sum to totals for 

episode type (MILI or MBE) because of rounding. 

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

‡ Does not apply to missing benign explanation children, as police contact was required by definition for this category. 

§ Percents for missing involuntary, lost, or injured children use 80,400, the number of children in this category whose caretakers contacted the police, as the base. 

Percents for missing benign explanation children use 374,700 as the base, as police contact was required for inclusion in this category. 

¶ Of the estimated 340,500 MBE children reported missing, 119,100 (35 percent) were youth who disclosed in the youth interview that their caretakers had contacted the police during an MBE episode. Because the youth interview questionnaire did not ask respondents why the police were contacted, researchers assumed 

that police were contacted in these 119,100 MBE cases to locate the missing child. 

= 204,500) = 374,700) 

Caretakers of 39 percent of MILI children contacted the 

police or a missing children’s agency, mostly for the 

purpose of locating the child (85 percent) (table 4). In 8 

percent of these cases, the contact was to recover a child 

whose whereabouts had been identified in some other 

way, and in 8 percent, the contact was made for some 

other reason. Caretakers who did not contact the police 

explained most frequently that the episode did not last 

long enough to necessitate police involvement. By definition, the caretakers of all MBE children contacted the 

police. As with police contact in MILI cases, the police 

contact in MBE cases was mostly for the purpose of 

locating the child (91 percent). In 6 percent of MBE 

cases, the contact was to recover a child whose whereabouts had been identified in some other way, and in 3 

percent, the contact was made for some other reason. 

Historical Trends 

The research team conducted a special comparative analysis of NISMART–1 and NISMART–2 data, using the 

most equivalent definitions and methodology to examine 

possible historical trends in various types of missing 

children episodes.4 This analysis found that, between 

1988 and 1999, the incidence rate of children who experienced what NISMART–1 defined as a “lost, injured, or 

otherwise missing” episode declined (Hammer et al., 

2004:6). (This NISMART–1 category included both MILI 

and MBE children; however, the exact definitions were 

somewhat different.) One possible explanation for the 

decline is the introduction and broad dissemination of 

new communications technologies, such as cell phones, 

car phones, and pagers, between 1988 and 1999. These 

8 
NISMART

devices have enabled family members, including children and youth, to contact each other more readily in 

exactly the types of situations that may have triggered 

alarm about a child being lost or missing in the past. 

Policy Implications 

Children missing involuntarily because they were lost, 

injured, or stranded and those missing for benign reasons 

constitute a substantial number of missing children who 

do not fall neatly into the more conventional categories 

of abducted, runaway, or thrownaway. In 1999, children 

missing for benign reasons constituted a major portion— 

43 percent—of all missing children reported to the 

police, second only in size to those classified as runaway/ 

thrownaway.5 During the same year, an estimated 43,700 

children were missing because they were injured. Yet 

interest in missing children has largely focused on those 

who have been abducted or have run away, and scant 

attention has been paid to children who become missing 

for other reasons. 

Policymakers should recognize that children who 

become missing involuntarily because they are lost, 

injured, or stranded are a significant part of the overall 

missing children problem. MILI cases call for collaboration between law enforcement and a variety of other 

agencies, including the medical and public health community, forest rangers and game wardens, and other civil 

authorities. Agencies that respond to missing children 

cases should be prepared to respond in MILI cases, and 

responders should receive training in how to differentiate 

MILI episodes from other kinds of missing children 

episodes. MBE episodes are equivalent to mistakenly 

triggered burglar or fire alarms. Minimizing the amount 

of time and effort these situations demand from law 

enforcement should be an important policy goal. Public 

education on ways to avoid such mishaps and miscommunications and using successful search strategies for 

resolving such episodes may be helpful. 

The most encouraging news is that the incidence of 

these episodes may have declined over the past decade, 

perhaps, in part, as a result of the introduction and 

dissemination of new communications technologies. 

Because keeping family members in touch with one 

another is an important outgrowth of new technologies, 

continued reductions in the number of children who 

become missing for preventable reasons may be expected. Moreover, technological advances in communications 

may also help reduce the number of children who become missing because they are lost, stranded, or have 

experienced a medical emergency. 

Endnotes 

1. The estimates provided here for the MILI category 

are marginally higher than estimates provided in a 

previous Bulletin, National Estimates of Missing Children: An Overview (Sedlak et al., 2002). The change 

resulted from the discovery of one child in the survey 

who had an experience that qualified as a MILI episode 

but who was inadvertently left out of that category 

because the child also had experienced another, separate 

missing child episode that came under a different category. The change does not affect the overall estimate of 

missing children. 

For Further Information 

This is the sixth Bulletin in the NISMART series and 

the fourth in the series to report NISMART–2 findings 

on specific categories of missing children. The other 

three series Bulletins that report findings from the 

NISMART component studies are Children Abducted 

by Family Members: National Estimates and Characteristics, Nonfamily Abducted Children: National 

Estimates and Characteristics, and Runaway/ 

Thrownaway Children: National Estimates and 

Characteristics. The first NISMART Bulletin, National 

Estimates of Missing Children: An Overview, describes 

the NISMART–2 component studies and estimating 

methodology, defines the types of episodes studied, 

and summarizes NISMART–2 estimates of missing 

children. The fifth Bulletin in the series, National 

Estimates of Missing Children: Selected Trends, 

1988–1999, presents results of a special analysis comparing selected findings from NISMART–2 and its 

predecessor, NISMART–1. 

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. 

All NISMART-related publications are available at


OJJDP’s Web site, www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ojjdp.


9 
NISMART 

2. One obvious limitation to 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, they 

may be at risk for episodes. 

3. The caretaker missing and reported missing estimates are close but not identical because caretaker 

MBEs required, by definition, a report to law enforcement or a missing children’s agency for any reason, and 

9 percent of these reports were for purposes other than 

to locate the missing child. Classification as “reported 

missing” required that the report to law enforcement or 

a missing children’s agency be made for the purpose of 

locating the missing child. 

4. Because of important differences in both definitions 

and methodology, the NISMART–1 and NISMART–2 

data and findings should not be compared directly. For 

details about the comparison, see National Estimates of 

Missing Children: Selected Trends, 1988–1999 (Hammer 

et al., 2004). 

5. For definitions of the NISMART–2 categories, see 

National Estimates of Missing Children: An Overview 

(Sedlak et al., 2002). 

Subscribe to 

News @ a Glance @ a Glance

Electronic Edition 

Beginning with the 

January/February 2005 

issue, OJJDP converted the 

bimonthly News @ a Glance 

to electronic-only dissemination. 

Now get the same convenient overview of news from OJJDP—only faster. Don’t miss a single 

issue. Subscribe today at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ojjdp. 

10 
NISMART

References U.S. Census Bureau. 2000a. Monthly Postcensal ResiFinkelhor, D., Hotaling, G., and Sedlak, A. 1990. Miss- dent Population, by Single Year of Age, Sex, Race, and


ing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children in Hispanic Origin (e9899rmp.txt, e9999rmp.txt, and


America. First Report: Numbers and Characteristics— e9900rmp.txt). Web site: eire.census.gov/popest/archives/


National Incidence Studies. Washington, DC: U.S. national/nat_90s_detail/nat_90s_1.php.


Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office U.S. Census Bureau. 2000b. Population Estimates for the


of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. U.S. and States by Single Year of Age and Sex: July 1,


Hammer, H., Finkelhor, D., Sedlak, A.J., and Porcellini, 1999 (ST–99–10). Web site: eire.census.gov/popest/


L.E. 2004. National Estimates of Missing Children: archives/state/st-99-10.php. 

Selected Trends, 1988–1999. NISMART Bulletin. WashThis Bulletin was prepared under grant number 95–MC–CX–K004 from ington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. DepartPrograms, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency ment of Justice, to Temple University. 

Prevention. Points of view or opinions expressed in this document are those of the 

authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies Sedlak, A.J., Finkelhor, D., Hammer, H., and Schultz, of OJJDP or the U.S. Department of Justice. 

D.J. 2002. National Estimates of Missing Children: An 

Overview. NISMART Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention is a comDepartment of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office ponent of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the 

of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 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. 

Other contributors include Louise Hanson, M.A.S., Senior Project Director at Westat, Inc., and Director of Data Collection 

for the NISMART–2 Household Surveys; Michael K. Barr, M.A., Study Director at the Temple University Institute for 

Survey Research; Dana J. Schultz, M.P.P., Associate Policy Analyst, RAND Corporation, Pittsburgh, PA, Operations 

Manager of the Juvenile Facilities Study and Law Enforcement Study and Analyst for the Unified Estimate; Richard 

Ormrod, Ph.D., Research Professor of Geography at the University of New Hampshire Crimes against Children 

Research Center; G. Hussain Choudhry, M.Sc., Senior Methodologist, Statistics Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; 

Svetlana Ryaboy, M.S., Statistician at Westat, Inc.; Monica Basena, M.A., Analyst at Westat, Inc.; and Ying Long, M.S., 

Programmer at Westat, Inc. 

The authors extend their appreciation to Barbara Allen-Hagen, Senior Social Science 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. 

11 
PRESORTED STANDARD 

POSTAGE & FEES PAID 

DOJ/OJJDP 

PERMIT NO. G–91 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention *NCJ~206180* 

Washington, DC 20531 

Official Business 

Penalty for Private Use $300 

NISMART Bulletin Series NCJ 206180