U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

J. Robert Flores, Administrator December 2004

Office of Justice Programs • Par tnerships for Safer Communities • www.ojp.usdoj.gov

Child Pornography:

Patterns From NIBRS

David Finkelhor and Richard Ormrod

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) is committed to

improving the justice system’s response to crimes against children. OJJDP recognizes

that children are at increased risk for crime victimization. Not only are children the victims of many of the same crimes that victimize adults, they are subject to other crimes,

like child abuse and neglect, that are specific to childhood. The impact of these crimes

on young victims can be devastating, and the violent or sexual victimization of children

can often lead to an intergenerational cycle of violence and abuse. The purpose of

OJJDP’s Crimes Against Children Series is to improve and expand the nation’s efforts

to better serve child victims by presenting the latest information about child victimization,

including analyses of crime victimization statistics, studies of child victims and their special needs, and descriptions of programs and approaches that address these needs. 

Concerns about pornography and child allows for the first time the tracking of

exploitation have increased in recent years crimes that involve pornography and

as new electronic and imaging technology child exploitation. Ultimately, by using

facilitate its production and dissemina­ NIBRS, law enforcement will be able to

tion. Such concerns have led to legisla­ follow the numbers, locations, and chartion, and to additional initiatives involving acteristics of such crimes over time and

federal and local law enforcement, aimed across the nation to monitor their trends

at inhibiting the production, sale, and dis­ and their potentially changing nature.

semination of pornography depicting juve­ Currently, NIBRS data are available from niles. These measures are also directed at only a small fraction of the law enforce­ the dissemination and sale of pornogra­ ment jurisdictions in the country (covering phy to minors (Klain, Davies, and Hicks, about 14 percent of the population). The 2001). system has already cataloged a substanOne of the tools that may help law en­ tial number of pornography offenses; howforcement control this problem is the ever, some questions exist about the accuFederal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI’s) racy and reliability of how police report

National Incident­Based Reporting System child pornography offenses within NIBRS.

(NIBRS). NIBRS, the crime statistics Nonetheless, given the increased interest

system designed to replace the present in this crime and the limited amount of inUniform Crime Reporting (UCR) system, formation currently available from other

Access OJJDP publications online at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ojjdp 

ing System (NIBRS), which could beare not included in the NIBRS dataand noncommercial production of

The related apparent increase in porcodes become more refined, NIBRS

A Message From OJJDP

The validity of research findings often

depends on the quality of the available

data. The redesign of the FBI’s Uniform

Crime Reporting system has resulted

in the National Incident­Based Reportcome a helpful tool in efforts to control

the dissemination and sale of pornography depicting juveniles. By collecting

data on pornography/obscene material

offenses from law enforcement jurisdictions, NIBRS enables researchers

to draw conclusions about the number, locations, and characteristics of

these crimes.

NIBRS data suggest that approximately 2,900 crime incidents of pornography with juvenile involvement were

known to state and local police in

2000; these offenses most often were

committed by a lone adult male offender, occurred in a residence, and did

not involve a computer. Data from two

major investigators of Internet crime,

the FBI and the U.S. Postal Service,

base. Thus, evidence from NIBRS

may be skewed toward family abuse

pornography.

nography crime involving children may

indicate more offenses, greater awareness, or better recordkeeping. Currently, NIBRS data represent about

14 percent of the population. As more

jurisdictions support uniform reporting

of accurate data to NIBRS and as its

will become even more useful in identifying and tracking trends in child

pornography.
1

join the system.

1

The National Incident­Based Reporting System

The U.S. Department of Justice is replacing its long­established Uniform Crime

Reporting (UCR) system with a more comprehensive National Incident­Based

Reporting System (NIBRS). Whereas UCR monitors only a limited number of

index crimes and gathers few details on each crime event (except in the case of

homicide), NIBRS collects a wide range of information on victims, offenders, and

circumstances for a greater variety of offenses. Offenses tracked in NIBRS include

violent crimes (e.g., homicide, assault, rape, robbery), property crimes (e.g., theft,

arson, vandalism, fraud, embezzlement), and crimes against society (e.g., drug

offenses, gambling, prostitution). Moreover, NIBRS collects information on multiple

victims, multiple offenders, and multiple crimes that may be part of the same

episode.

Under the new system, as with the old, local law enforcement personnel compile

information on crimes coming to their attention, and this information is then aggregated at the state and national levels. For a crime to be counted in the system, it

only needs to be reported and investigated. The incident does not need to be

cleared or an arrest made, although unfounded reports are deleted from the record.

NIBRS holds great promise, but it is still far from a national system. The Federal

Bureau of Investigation began implementing the system in 1988; participation by

states and local agencies is voluntary, and the pool of agencies contributing data to

NIBRS has increased each year. By 1995, jurisdictions in 9 states were contributing

data; by 1997, 12 states were contributing data; and by the end of 2000, jurisdictions in 19 states submitted data, thus providing coverage for 14 percent of the

nation’s population and 11 percent of its crime. Participation by all local jurisdictions occurs in only 3 states (Idaho, Iowa, and South Carolina), and only 3 cities

with populations greater than 500,000 (Austin, TX; Memphis, TN; and Nashville,

TN) are reporting. Thus, the crime experiences of large urban areas are particularly underrepresented. The system, therefore, is not yet nationally representative nor

do its data represent national trends or national statistics. Nevertheless, NIBRS

is assembling large amounts of crime information and providing a richness of

detail about juvenile victimizations that was previously unavailable. The patterns

and associations these data reveal are real and represent the experiences of a

large number of youth. For 2000, the 19 participating states reported a total of

2,115,980 crimes against individuals, with at least 215,030 of these crimes occurring against juveniles. However, these patterns may change as more jurisdictions

Using NIBRS to analyze child pornography has limitations because NIBRS is not

truly national and excludes federal agencies that are active in pursuing this crime.

However, there have been few other sources of statistical information about child

pornography. Moreover, NIBRS includes a number of offenses involving pornography and juveniles from a considerable variety of jurisdictions; for this reason, and

because NIBRS will eventually become a national system, it is useful as a tool for

analysis at its current stage of development.

More information about NIBRS data collection can be found at the following 

Web sites: www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm, www.search.org/nibrs/default.asp, and

www.jrsa.org/ibrrc/.

Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nebraska, 

North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia.

sources, these cases merit examination 

to provide a rudimentary profile of the

nature and extent of this crime as known

to police.

NIBRS data for 1997–2000 on 2,469 crime

incidents involving pornography1 reveal

that: 

❒	 Approximately 2,900 (based on extrapolations from the data) nationwide crime

incidents of pornography with child/

juvenile2 involvement3 were known to

state and local police in 2000.

❒	 The proportion of all pornography incidents with child/juvenile involvement

increased from 15 percent in 1997 to 26

percent in 2000.

❒	 A lone adult offender most often committed pornography offenses with

child/juvenile involvement.

Inthe seduction of a child.

ment.

presume an arrest, indictment, or

page 4.

Terminology

Adult pornography. Incidents involving obscene pornography but not child

pornography and not in conjunction

with any identified crime against a

juvenile.

Child exploitation pornography.

Incidents primarily involving the possession or distribution of pornography that depicts underage juveniles.

Juvenile victim pornography.

cludes the production of child pornography and the use of pornography in

Pornography with juvenile involveEither child exploitation pornography or juvenile victim pornography.

Known to police. The offenses being

counted are those that have been

reported to the police or discovered

by the police as part of an investigation or routine policing. They do not

conviction for the crime.

For more information, see sidebar on

❒	 Of the juvenile victims identified in

conjunction with pornography crimes,

62 percent were female, 25 percent

were members of the offender’s family,

59 percent were teens (12–17 years

old), 28 percent were elementary

school age (6–11 years old), and 13

percent were preschoolers (younger

than 6 years old).

Better national data on child pornography

are needed to analyze trends and characteristics. NIBRS, with improved local

1 The offense category in NIBRS is called “pornography/

obscene material.” Normally, pornography is only

criminal when it is deemed obscene. In this Bulletin

the term “pornography” is generally used to mean

obscene pornography or material that is criminal. 

See discussion in footnote 2.

2 With regard to child pornography, state statutes vary

in their age definitions of a “child” or “juvenile,” with

some states designating younger than 18 years old,

younger than 17 years old, or even younger than 16

years old as their thresholds (U.S. Department of

Health and Human Services, National Clearinghouse

on Child Abuse and Neglect Information, and National

Center for Prosecution of Child Abuse, 1999). In this

Bulletin the terms “child” and “juvenile” refer to legally underage people.

3 Possession, distribution, or production of child

pornography or use of pornography in the seduction

of a child.

2
Adult

Child exploitation

Juvenile victim

N=2,469 Incidents

73%

23%

4%

Types of Pornography Incidents

Reported by NIBRS

training and participation, could be an

important source of these data. 

Pornography Offenses

Known to Police

Pornography offenses come to police attention infrequently, comprising less than

0.03 percent of all crimes known to police

during 1997–2000. In only 4 percent (111)

of the 2,469 incidents containing a pornography offense was there an identifiable juvenile victim (see figure). However, “child

exploitation” was coded in an additional

23 percent (566) of these incidents, indicating that the pornography likely involved

depictions of juveniles. The remaining 73

percent of pornography incidents known to

police (those that did not involve a juvenile

victim or record child exploitation, i.e.,

adult pornography) concerned the illegal

possession, manufacture, sale, or distribution of non­child­related forms of obscene

that approximately 8,900 pornography offenses were known to state and local police

nationwide in 2000; approximately 2,900 of

these incidents would have involved juvenile victims or child exploitation (Federal

Bureau of Investigation, 1997–2000).

Because NIBRS is expanding, accurately

gauging real increases in the pornography

problem across time is not feasible. However, for those law enforcement agencies

that reported NIBRS data for both 1997

and 2000, the total number of crime offenses recorded decreased 2 percent from

1997 to 2000, while pornography offenses

increased 68 percent and juvenile victim/

child exploitation pornography offenses

jumped 200 percent. In addition, the proportion of all pornography offenses involving child exploitation or juvenile victims

increased from 15 percent in 1997 to 26

percent in 2000. (The increase occurred

regardless of whether jurisdictions that

were added to NIBRS during the 3­year

period were included in or excluded from

comparisons.) This disproportionate increase supports the notion that more such

crimes are coming to police attention.

However, the increase does not necessarily mean that there is more of such criminal

activity (for example, as a result of the

Internet) because such an increase could

stem simply from more aggressive police

efforts against these crimes or from the

improvement of recordkeeping within

NIBRS. For example, the late 1990s saw

the inauguration of the CyberTipline and

the Internet Crimes Against Children task

forces, whose goals included increased

law enforcement activity against child

pornography found on the Internet

(Medaris and Girouard, 2002). 

By the end of 2003, the CyberTipline was

receiving more than 1,500 reports on child

pornography per week (National Center

for Missing & Exploited Children, retrieved

2004 from the Web). However, in the absence of more recent NIBRS data, the effect

of these reports on the number of cases

known to state and local police cannot be

determined. Much of what is reported to

the CyberTipline involves Web sites or

communications of uncertain origin and

results in referrals to federal rather than

local law enforcement agencies.

Pornography Incidents

With Juvenile

Involvement

Two types of pornography episodes involved juveniles (see sidebar on page 4).

Juvenile victim pornography offenses (primarily the production of child pornography) tended to be different from other

pornography incidents, including pornography offenses with child exploitation only

(those that had no identifiable juvenile victim, i.e., possession and distribution). For

example, all juvenile victim pornography

incidents included other offenses in addition to illegal pornography; the great majority of them were sexual or violent offenses

(see table 1). Adult pornography incidents

Table 1: Pornography Offense and Any Accompanying Offense,

by Incident Type

Type of Incident (%)

Juvenile Victim  Child Exploitation  Adult 

Accompanying  Pornography Pornography Pornography 

Offense (n=111) (n=566) (n=1,792)

material (Federal Bureau of Investigation,

1997–2000). 

NIBRS is far from a nationally comprehensive data set, and the jurisdictions covered

exclude most major urban areas of the

United States. Nonetheless, it is possible

and useful to make some preliminary extrapolations based on NIBRS in light of the

virtual absence of information about the

scope of the problem. In 2000, NIBRS was

estimated to include jurisdictions containing about 11 percent of all national crime.

If pornography offenses are assumed to 

be distributed in rough proportion to

other crimes, the implication would be

Any accompanying 

offense?

Yes 100 4 4

No 0 96 96

Total 100 100 100

Any violent or

sexual offense?

Yes 95 1 1

No 5 99 99

Total 100 100 100

Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation. 1997–2000. National Incident­Based Reporting System.

Computer file. Compiled by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Department of Justice. Ann

Arbor, MI: Inter­University Consortium for Political and Social Research (producer and distributor).

3
1

sons (individual victims) can occur in the same incident in

2

specifically identified (and thus recorded as a victim with a

❒ 

❒ 

ual victims3

❒ 

4

1

2 For these cases, a juvenile is any person younger than 18 years old.

3

4

Much pornography is not criminal and is protected by the first

amendment to the Constitution. Its possession, production,

distribution, or sale only becomes criminal when the pornography is considered obscene. Obscene pornography involves

more extreme depictions of sexual activity, generally described

in statutory language with the following criteria: (1) to the average person, applying contemporary statewide standards, it

appeals to the prurient interest; (2) taken as a whole, it depicts

or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way; and

(3) it lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value

(e.g., California Penal Code, section 311). Because of statutory vagueness and because community standards and law

enforcement practices vary, the definition of “obscene” pornography may differ considerably from community to community. It

can involve depictions of bestiality, incest, sadomasochistic

practices, or many other things. When law enforcement acts

on pornography, the National Incident­Based Reporting System (NIBRS) has a category—pornography/obscene material

offenses—for such crimes.

Pornography that depicts actual juveniles has a very different

status under the law than other types of pornography. It is not

subject to first amendment protection and the more contentious

standards that apply to other types of pornography (Klain,

Davies, and Hicks, 2001). It is also regarded as having victims—the children who are depicted. Although such material

is usually referred to as “child pornography,” the criminalization

applies to depictions of all underage juveniles, including

teenagers.

NIBRS treats child pornography within its general category of

pornography offenses that are deemed crimes against society

(rather than crimes against persons or property), and there is

no option in the system to designate individual pornography

victims. However, NIBRS collects incident information that

enables two types of juvenile involvement with pornography

offenses to be recognized.

First, police can code several types of criminal activities incorporated in the pornography offense, one of which is child

exploitation. In NIBRS, “child exploitation” denotes pornography in which children are depicted, including commercially

distributed magazines, home videos, personal photographs,

and computer images. In principle, this category of child

exploitation includes the sexual depiction of any underage

juvenile; however, it is probably skewed toward depictions of

preadolescents and young adolescents because judgments

about precise age and hence criminality are more difficult in

portrayals of older teens.

Second, NIBRS allows the coding of multiple offenses that are

part of the same criminal incident. Thus, crimes against perwhich a pornography offense was recorded. For these crimes,

NIBRS collects victim information that can reveal the presence of juvenile victims in a pornography incident.

The authors have labeled the latter cases—those in which a

pornography offense is reported to NIBRS in conjunction with

another criminal offense against a juvenile—as “juvenile victim

pornography” incidents. Such incidents can include several

types of criminal circumstances; for example, pornography

involving a child is being produced and the child can be

specified age and relationship to the offender), or pornography is being used as part of the seduction and molestation of

a child. A variety of other complex crimes can also be included in this category, such as a child molester (or a child abuser) who, on arrest, is found to be in possession of criminal

pornography, even though the pornography may not be directly involved in the offense against the child.

For purposes of analysis, this Bulletin distinguishes three

types of pornography incidents, two of which involve juveniles:

Juvenile victim pornography incidents. These incidents, described above, include an identifiable victim.

Cases involving the production of child pornography

using identifiable children are included in this category

(the child victimization is usually regarded as sexual

abuse and is recorded in NIBRS as a forcible sex

offense).

Child exploitation pornography incidents. This category involves pornography incidents in which child

exploitation is recorded but additional offenses against

specified juvenile victims are not included. It is assumed

that these pornography offenses involve the depiction of

juveniles who cannot be identified or recorded as individ­

—for example, the confiscation of a magazine

containing sexual depictions of children or a computer

with such images downloaded from the Internet. This

category includes most incidents involving the possession, distribution, and sale of child pornography. (When

an incident is recorded in NIBRS as child exploitation

and also includes victimization against an identifiable

juvenile victim, it is counted as “juvenile victim pornography” and not as “child exploitation pornography.” The latter category is reserved for child exploitation alone with

no identifiable victim.) 

Adult pornography incidents. These pornography

offenses do not indicate juvenile involvement (either as

identifiable victims or with the code for child exploitation). They include cases of obscene pornography and

may include violations of “harmful to minors” laws found

in many states that make it illegal to provide pornography to minors, even though the material may be legal for

adults.

Pornography Involving Child Exploitation and Juvenile Victims

Child exploitation is also used in other contexts to refer to children involved in prostitution. Here it refers only to children involved in sexual depictions.

New graphic technology as used in pornography permits the creation of simulated children who may be difficult to distinguish from real children. Such images

were previously criminalized by the federal Child Pornography Prevention Act, but those provisions have been invalidated by the Supreme Court. Authorities are

uncertain about the amount of child pornography that may have involved such simulated images but believe it is not extensive. NIBRS has no provision for distinguishing such simulated child pornography from other child pornography.

Juvenile recipients of such materials would not be identified as victims unless they were the targets of another crime, such as sexual molestation.

4
These categories reflect, but do not systematically record,

some of the different ways in which pornography crimes are

detected. For example, police can conduct undercover operations in which they purchase or obtain illegal pornography

from adult stores, mail order outlets, Internet sites, or Internet

correspondents; suspicious images can be reported to the

police by photo developers, computer repair personnel, abused

spouses, or other private citizens; or victims of sexual abuse,

sexual assault, or prostitution may disclose that they were

photographed in the course of their victimization. In addition,

illegal pornography may be identified when searches are conducted as part of a police investigation of crimes as diverse

as stolen property or securities fraud.

Pornography Involving Child Exploitation and Juvenile Victims (continued)

and child exploitation pornography incidents rarely included additional crimes.

The frequency of arrest for juvenile victim

pornography incidents was substantially

higher than for other pornography incidents; this may be connected to the presence of additional violent offenses. More

than half (55 percent) of these incidents

resulted in an arrest, which is much higher than the arrest frequencies for adult

pornography incidents (24 percent) or

child exploitation pornography incidents

(27 percent). It was also higher than the

typical arrest rate for all violent crimes

against juveniles (32 percent). When sex

offenses occur and there is pornography

that documents them, police may be particularly confident about the crime.

Juvenile victim pornography incidents

occurred in various locations but overwhelmingly in private residences and

homes, which is also where sexual abuse

tends to occur (see table 2). In contrast,

other pornography incidents often occurred outside, in stores, in schools and

colleges, and in other buildings. Child

exploitation pornography incidents were

more residence based than adult pornography incidents, but less so than juvenile

victim pornography incidents.

Since pornography is often sold in stores,

examining the types of commercial establishments associated with pornography

offenses is informative (see table 2). Not

surprisingly, specialty stores and convenience stores accounted for about half of

the adult pornography incidents. The

higher association of child exploitation

pornography incidents with department

and discount stores and supermarkets

may be because such businesses often

have discount film­processing centers,

whose employees can identify and report

suspicious photographs to police.

Pornography incidents of all types were

likely to involve a lone offender, typically

an adult male (see table 3). In contrast,

only a small number of juvenile offenders

and female offenders were included in

each category. In cases where females

participated in child exploitation pornography incidents, however, the incidents

occurred in conjunction with a male offender 45 percent of the time; this was

also the case in 32 percent of the adult

pornography incidents. This collaborative

pattern on the part of female offenders

also appears to be true for juvenile victim

pornography incidents (50 percent), but

there are too few cases (only 16) for a 

reliable conclusion. In addition, in cases

where a juvenile victim was identified,

female perpetrators were more likely to

participate in incidents with family offenders (23 percent of incidents) and less likely to be part of nonfamily incidents (11

percent of incidents) (Federal Bureau of

Investigation, 1997–2000).

A great deal of interest has been focused

on the use of computers and the Internet

in conjunction with pornography offenses

because computers can facilitate both the

dissemination and the detection of such

material (Wolak, Mitchell, and Finkelhor,

2003). NIBRS enables the police to indicate whether computers were used in the

commission of criminal acts, but the data

show that a small minority of all pornography offenses known to police were coded

as involving computer use (see table 4).

This may indicate that the majority of

pornography crimes through 2000 had no

computer or Internet connection, or it

Table 2: Location of Pornography Offenses, by Incident Type

Type of Incident (%)

Location

Juvenile Victim

Pornography

Child Exploitation

Pornography

Adult 

Pornography

All  (n=111) (n=566) (n=1,792)

Residence/home 83 61 45

Outside 5 10 17

Store 0 7 12

Other building 3 6 11

School/college 2 7 8

Other/unknown 7 9 7

Total 100 100 100

Stores (n=0) (n=38) (n=206)

Specialty store — 21 30

Department/

discount store — 37 22

Convenience store — 8 19

Grocery/supermarket — 16 11

Drug store/doctor’s 

office/hospital — 10 9

Service station — 5 6

Liquor store — 3 3

Total — 100 100

Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation. 1997–2000. National Incident­Based Reporting System.

Computer file. Compiled by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Department of Justice. Ann

Arbor, MI: Inter­University Consortium for Political and Social Research (producer and distributor).

5
State­to­State Table 3: Offender Patterns in Pornography Offenses, by Incident Type Disparities

Type of Incident (%) There is reason to believe that states and

Offender Pattern

Juvenile Victim 

Pornography

Child Exploitation 

Pornography

Age and number (n=108) (n=428)

Lone adult 71 81

Multiple adults 12 9

Multiple mixed age 3 2

Multiple juveniles 4 1

Lone juvenile 10 7

Total 100 100

Gender and number (n=108) (n=452)

Lone male 75 81

Multiple males 10 5

Multiple mixed gender 7 6

Multiple females 1 0

Lone female 7 8

Total 100 100

Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation. 1997–2000. National Incident­Based Reporting System.

Computer file. Compiled by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Department of Justice. Ann

Arbor, MI: Inter­University Consortium for Political and Social Research (producer and distributor).

Table 4: Computer Use in Pornography Offenses, by Incident Type

Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation. 1997–2000. National Incident­Based Reporting System.

Computer file. Compiled by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Department of Justice. Ann

Arbor, MI: Inter­University Consortium for Political and Social Research (producer and distributor).

Adult 

Pornography

(n=1,201)

76

8

2

3

11

100

(n=1,291)

80

7

4

1

8

100

local jurisdictions may vary a great deal

in the number of pornography offenses

coming to police attention. Factors such

as state statutes,4 community standards,

availability of pornography, and initiatives

undertaken by police and prosecutors all

play a role in explaining these differences.

NIBRS does reveal considerable variability

at the state level (see table 5). For example, South Carolina and Vermont recorded

less than 1 juvenile involvement pornography offense for every 100,000 offenses

of all types reported to NIBRS during

1997–2000. In contrast, Utah recorded

more than 12 such pornography offenses

for every 100,000 offenses reported, and

Idaho, Iowa, and Michigan also had rates

well above the average.

Implications

Crimes involving pornography and juvenile victims or child exploitation are relatively infrequent in the NIBRS data and

comprise a minority of all pornographyrelated crimes. Moreover, the estimated

2,900 incidents in 2000 are dwarfed by

reports of overall sex crimes against juveniles, which can be roughly estimated at

269,000 for the same period. Nonetheless,

the data showing a rise in the numbers of

such crimes between 1997 and 2000 are

consistent with perceptions that more of

these crimes are being uncovered, either

because they are increasing or because

police are cracking down on them, or possibly both. If the Internet was a major factor in such an increase or in greater detection, it was not yet clearly reflected in the

2000 NIBRS data, which showed a small

number of pornography offenses involving

the use of a computer. The rise in juvenilerelated pornography is notable because it

occurred in the context of an overall decline in reported cases of sexual abuse of

children and sex crimes in general that

occurred during the middle and late 1990s

(Finkelhor and Jones, 2004).

The data suggest only a modest association of general pornography crimes with

child victimization. In 73 percent of all

pornography incidents known to police,

4 For example, in some states simple possession of

child pornography is not a crime or is just a misdemeanor, whereas in others it is a felony (Klain, Davies,

and Hicks, 2001).

Note: Data are based on incidents with offender information only.

may reflect a lack of police familiarity

with some of the coding options NIBRS

provides. In addition, a considerable

amount of the activity surrounding Internet pornography has occurred within federal agencies such as the FBI and the U.S.

Postal Inspector’s Office, whose data are

not currently included in NIBRS.

Juvenile Victims in

Pornography Incidents

Most pornography incidents with identifiable juvenile victims involved a single victim rather than multiple victims (71 percent of incidents). However, from the

perspective of victims rather than incidents,

half (50 percent) of the victims experienced

incidents that involved additional victims.

Of the juvenile victims identified in pornography incidents, 62 percent were females

and 38 percent were males. For juvenile

victims whose offender could be identified, 25 percent were members of the offender’s family, 64 percent were acquaintances, and 11 percent were strangers.

Fifty­nine percent of the victims were teens

(12–17 years old), 28 percent were elementary school age (6–11 years old), and 13

percent were preschoolers (younger than

6 years old) (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1997–2000).

Type of Incident (%)

Juvenile Victim  Child Exploitation 

Pornography  Pornography 

Computer Use (n=111) (n=566)

Computer used 7 13

No computer used 93 87

Total 100 100

Adult 

Pornography

(n=1,792)

7

93

100

6
about pornography involving juveniles is

Table 5: Pornography Offenses With Juvenile Involvement Reported to clearly, accurately, and uniformly recorded

NIBRS, per 100,000 Offenses of All Types, by State, 1997–2000 in NIBRS as it becomes the major national

source of crime information. Clearer protoState Offenses State Offenses cols and examples of how to report and

Utah* 12.8 West Virginia* 5.5

Michigan* 10.3 Texas‡ 5.3

Idaho† 9.9 Kentucky‡ 4.5

Iowa† 9.7 Connecticut‡ 4.3

Virginia* 9.5 Colorado* 3.9

Ohio‡ 9.4 Nebraska‡ 2.1

North Dakota* 9.4 South Carolina† 0.8

Massachusetts‡ 8.6 Vermont* 0.0

Tennessee* 7.8 All states 7.3

Notes: Arkansas and Kansas are excluded because their recent addition to NIBRS creates uncertainty about the stability of their rates. For all states: total offenses, N=8,794,296; pornography offenses

with juvenile involvement, N=646.

* More than 50 percent of population represented by NIBRS data (as of October 2000).

† One hundred percent of population represented by NIBRS data (as of October 2000).

‡ Less than 50 percent of population represented by NIBRS data (as of October 2000).

Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation. 1997–2000. National Incident­Based Reporting System.

Computer file. Compiled by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Department of Justice. Ann

Arbor, MI: Inter­University Consortium for Political and Social Research (producer and distributor).

there was no child involvement—neither

child pornography nor child victimization.

Even in a majority (92 percent) of the

child exploitation pornography offenses,

police were unable to link the offender

with an identifiable victim. This means

that in most of the cases in which police

were investigating an offender for possession or distribution of child pornography,

they were unable to connect the offender

to a crime against an actual child. Of

course, offenders may have committed

such crimes or may have been at risk to do

so, but police were unable to detect them.

Pornography offenses with juvenile involvement tend to occur in homes and

residences more often than in commercial

establishments; the offenders are usually

lone adult males. When victims are identified, they comprise a slight preponderance of girls and teens with both family

and nonfamily relationships to the offender. The variability in state identification of

crimes involving pornography with juvenile involvement suggests that states could

increase identification of such crimes by

making concerted efforts to do so, such as

establishing special­mission investigative

units and using police and prosecutors

who are specially trained to pursue such

crimes.

Caution needs to be observed when interpreting the conclusions in this Bulletin

because of some uncertainty about the

full reliability of NIBRS data in this crime

domain, in which police information has

not previously been aggregated across

jurisdictions. The data are derived from

a group of jurisdictions that may not be

representative of the nation as a whole.

In particular, they do not include reports

from federal agencies that have been

active in combating child pornography

and that tend to be involved in cases with

a larger scale and more commercial dimensions. It is possible that the cases currently in NIBRS are thus skewed in the direction of family abuse and noncommercial

production. 

The analysis is also limited by some of the

data categories in NIBRS, which do not

capture distinctions that are generally

considered to be important by researchers

in the field of child pornography. For example, it would help future efforts if the

NIBRS codes could be developed to better

delineate juvenile victims’ exact connection in pornography crimes—as subjects

in images or as victims in sex crimes in

which pornography was used. 

Caution is also warranted because of the

highly variable nature of community standards and law enforcement practices regarding pornography. Perhaps the most

important and practical suggestion at

present is for increased training of law

enforcement officials so that information

code a variety of complicated episodes involving juveniles and pornography could

be very helpful for local law enforcement.

This will certainly enhance NIBRS’s utility

as a tool for identifying and combating

crimes against children in the future.

Finally, the analyses presented in this Bulletin point to the need for more and better

research in regard to child pornography.

The expansion of Internet access has

raised concerns about increasing numbers

and possibly a changing profile of consumers and producers of child pornography, as well as the increased involvement

of child pornography in conventional

child­molesting activities. It is important

for law enforcement to have the tools to

monitor these trends. In addition, many

questions exist about the effect of child

pornography on young people, both those

exposed to and those portrayed in its

imagery. Although research on such

questions raises difficult ethical issues,

thoughtful social scientists, clinicians, and

representatives from the juvenile justice

field should collaborate to see what types

of investigations are possible. These investigations may lead to new approaches to

combating pornography.

References

Federal Bureau of Investigation. 1997–2000.

National Incident­Based Reporting System.

Computer file. Compiled by the Federal

Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Department

of Justice. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter­University

Consortium for Political and Social

Research (producer and distributor).

Finkelhor, D., and Jones, L.M. 2004. Explanations for the Decline in Child Sexual

Abuse Cases. Bulletin. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention.

Klain, E.J., Davies, H.J., and Hicks, M.A.

2001. Child Pornography: The CriminalJustice­System Response. Washington, DC:

American Bar Association Center on

Children and the Law.

Medaris, M., and Girouard, C. 2002. Protecting Children in Cyberspace: The ICAC Task

Force Program. Bulletin. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention.

7
U.S. Department of Justice PRESORTED STANDARD

Office of Justice Programs POSTAGE & FEES PAID

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention *NCJ~204911* DOJ/OJJDP

PERMIT NO. G–91

Washington, DC  20531

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Bulletin NCJ 204911

National Center for Missing & Exploited

Children. CyberTipline Fact Sheet. Retrieved

May 6, 2004, from the Web: www.ncmec.

org/en_US/documents/cybertipline_

factsheet.pdf.

U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services, National Clearinghouse on Child

Abuse and Neglect Information, and

National Center for Prosecution of Child

Abuse. 1999. Child Abuse and Neglect: State

Statutes Elements. No. 30: Child Pornography. Alexandria, VA: National Center for

Prosecution of Child Abuse.

Wolak, J., Mitchell, K., and Finkelhor, D.

2003. National Juvenile Online Victimization Study (N–JOV): Methodology Report.

Durham, NH: University of New Hampshire,

Crimes against Children Research Center.

This Bulletin was prepared under grant number 00–JW–VX–0005 from the Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S.

Department of Justice.

Points of view or opinions expressed in this

document are those of the authors and do

not necessarily represent the official position

or policies of OJJDP or the U.S. Department

of Justice.

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

Want to know more about the issues

:

➡ 

➡ 

➡ Subscribe to OJJDP News @ a Glance,

➡ Link to the NCJRS Abstracts Database

This Bulletin was written by David Finkelhor, Ph.D., Professor of Sociology, and

Director, Crimes against Children Research Center, University of New Hampshire,

david.finkelhor@unh.edu (e­mail); and Richard Ormrod, Ph.D., Research Professor, Crimes against Children Research Center, University of New Hampshire,

rormrod@cisunix.unh.edu (e­mail).

It’s Fast

in this publication or related information?

Log on to www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ojjdp

Browse titles alphabetically, chronologically, or by topic.

Discover the latest OJJDP releases.

JUVJUST (OJJDP’s listserv), and the electronic newsletter JUSTINFO.

to search for publications of interest.

It’s Easy

It’s Free