MART

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

Children Abducted by Family

Members: National Estimates

and Characteristics

Heather Hammer, David Finkelhor, and 

Andrea J. Sedlak

The words “missing child” call to mind tragic and frightening kidnappings reported in the national news. But a child can be missing for

many reasons, and the problem of missing children is far more complex

than the headlines suggest. Getting a clear picture of how many children become missing—and why—is an important step in addressing

the problem. This series of Bulletins provides that clear picture by summarizing findings from the Second National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children (NISMART–2). The

series offers national estimates of missing children based on surveys of

households, juvenile residential facilities, and law enforcement agencies.

It also presents statistical profiles of these children, including their demographic characteristics and the circumstances of their disappearance.

This Bulletin presents results from the initial analysis of family

abduction data collected by the Second National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children

(NISMART–2), National Household Surveys of Adult Caretakers

and Youth. These surveys were conducted during 1999 and reflect

a 12-month period. Because the vast majority of cases were concentrated in 1999, the annual period referred to in the Bulletin

is 1999.

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
Key Findings

Family abduction is a type of crime and child welfare

problem for which only limited statistical information

has been available. Among the key findings from this

Bulletin are the following:

■ An estimated 203,900 children were victims of a family abduction in 1999. Among these, 117,200 were

missing from their caretakers, and, of these, an estimated 56,500 were reported to authorities for assistance in locating the children.

■ Forty-three percent of the children who were victims of

family abduction were not considered missing by their

caretakers because the caretakers knew the children’s

2

NISMART

whereabouts or were not alarmed by the circumstances

(see “Conceptualizing the Problem,” below).

■ Forty-four percent of family abducted children

were younger than age 6.

■ Fifty-three percent of family abducted children were

abducted by their biological father, and 25 percent

were abducted by their biological mother.

■ Forty-six percent of family abducted children were

gone less than 1 week, and 21 percent were gone

1 month or more.

■ Only 6 percent of children abducted by a family

member had not yet returned at the time of the

survey interview.

Conceptualizing the Problem

Family abducted children are typically thought of as

simply one subcategory of missing children; yet, in reality, family abductions are part of a larger problem. It is

possible for a child to have been unlawfully removed

from custody by a family member, but for that child’s

whereabouts to be fully known. Thus, a child can be

abducted, but not necessarily missing. (See sidebar on

defining family abduction.) An example would be a

situation in which a child is abducted by a noncustodial

father and taken to the father’s home in a different State,

at an address well known to the custodial mother, and

the father simply refuses to return the child.

NISMART–2 estimated the number of children who

were abducted by a family member in the course of a

year; the number of such children who were missing to

their caretakers (“caretaker missing”), in that the child’s

whereabouts were unknown, causing the caretaker to

be alarmed for at least an hour and to look for the child;

and the number of family abducted children who were

“reported missing,” meaning that the caretaker contacted the police or a missing children’s agency to help

locate a child whose whereabouts were unknown.

In considering the estimates of family abducted children,

several issues should be kept in mind. First, the Household Survey respondents were predominantly female

caretakers of children. Second, it was generally the aggrieved caretaker who provided all of the information

about custodial rights and privileges and other elements

Defining Family Abduction

For the purposes of NISMART–2, family abduction was

defined as the taking or keeping of a child by a family

member in violation of a custody order, a decree, or

other legitimate custodial rights, where the taking or

keeping involved some element of concealment, flight,

or intent to deprive a lawful custodian indefinitely of custodial privileges.

Some of the specific definitional elements are as follows:

• Taking: Child was taken by a family member in violation of a custody order or decree or other legitimate

custodial right.

• Keeping: Child was not returned or given over by

a family member in violation of a custody order or

decree or other legitimate custodial right.

• Concealment: Family member attempted to conceal

the taking or whereabouts of the child with the intent

to prevent return, contact, or visitation.

• Flight: Family member transported or had the intent

to transport the child from the State for the purpose

of making recovery more difficult. 

• Intent to deprive indefinitely: Family member indicated an intent to prevent contact with the child on

an indefinite basis or to affect custodial privileges

indefinitely.

• Child: Person under 18 years of age. For a child 15

or older, there needed to be evidence that the family

member used some kind of force or threat to take

or to detain the child, unless the child was mentally

disabled.

• Family member: A biological, adoptive, or foster family

member; someone acting on behalf of such a family

member; or the romantic partner of a family member.
The Household Surveys were designed to screen for

potentially countable NISMART–2 episodes, to collect

demographic information about the household and its

members, to conduct indepth followup interviews specific

to each type of 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, and missing

child episodes that involved a child being lost or injured

or missing due to a benign explanation (e.g., a miscommunication between parent and child).

Respondents 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.

Table 1 presents the five adult screening questions that

led to a family abduction followup interview; the youth

screening questions were essentially identical.

The family abduction estimates reported in this Bulletin

are unified estimates that combine the countable family

abductions described by adult caretakers and youth in

the Household Surveys.1 Any individual child is counted

only once, even if an abduction was reported for the

same child in both the adult and youth interviews. For

details about the unification, weighting procedures,

and variance estimation, see OJJDP’s forthcoming

NISMART–2 Household Survey

Methodology Technical Report.

Results

Table 2 shows that the total

number of children who were

abducted by a family member in

1999 is estimated to be 203,900.

Of these, the number counted as

“caretaker missing” (i.e., the caretaker did not know where the

child was, became alarmed for at

least an hour, and looked for the

child) is estimated to be 117,200

(about 57 percent of all children

who experienced a family abduction), and the number “reported

3

NISMART

Table 1: Household Survey Family Abduction Screening Questions

• Was there any time when anyone tried to take [this child/any of these

children] away from you against your wishes?

In the past 12 months, did any family member outside your household, 

such as a spouse, an ex-spouse, an ex-partner, brother, sister, parent, 

in-law, or any other person you consider a family member or someone 

acting for them, do any of the following things:

• Did any family member or someone acting for them take or try to take [this

child/any of these children] in violation of a custody order, an agreement, or

other child living arrangement?

• Did any family member outside of your household keep or try to keep [this

child/any of these children] from you when you were supposed to have

[him/her/them] even if for just a day or weekend?

• Did any family member conceal [this child/any of these children] or try

to prevent you from having contact with [him/her/them]?

• Has anyone ever kidnapped or tried to kidnap [this child/any of these children]?

of the episode used to decide whether an episode qualified as a family abduction. In family abductions, these

elements typically are a matter of dispute between the

parties involved. NISMART researchers did not attempt

to verify respondent statements.

Methodology

The family abduction 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. 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. 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

obtained for 60 percent of the selected youth, yielding

5,015 youth interviews and a 95-percent response rate

among the youth for whom permission to interview was

granted. Both youth and adult interview data were

weighted to reflect the Census-based population of

children.
Characteristics of Family

Abducted Children

Table 3 indicates that, although

children of any age can be victims

of family abduction, younger children appear to be particularly vulnerable. In 1999, 44 percent of

family abducted children were

younger than age 6. Older teenagers (ages 15–17) accounted for

a small proportion of family

abduction victims; this finding

may reflect the relative independence of teenagers, which makes

it more difficult for parents to

control where they go and stay.

Boys and girls were equally likely

to experience family abductions. 

The racial/ethnic distribution of family abducted children

corresponds to the distribution of children in the general

population. This indicates that family abductions do not

occur disproportionately in any one racial/ethnic group.

Not surprisingly, family abductions were much more

likely to occur in families where children were not living

with both parents—the circumstance that gives rise to

motives for family abduction. Forty-two percent of the

family abducted children were living with one parent,

and another 17 percent were living with one parent

and that parent’s partner. Fifteen percent of children

abducted by family members were abducted from relatives or foster parents. 

Characteristics of Family Abduction Perpetrators

As shown in table 4, a little more than one-third (35 percent) of family abducted children were abducted by multiple offenders (e.g., a father and his girlfriend). The following discussion of perpetrator characteristics refers to the

perpetrator most closely related to the abducted child. 

Table 5 shows that just more than half (53 percent) of

children abducted by a family member in 1999 were

abducted by the biological father. Twenty-five percent

were abducted by the biological mother. Fourteen

percent were abducted by a grandparent, and there were

also some abductions by a sibling, uncle, aunt, and

4

NISMART

missing” (i.e., reported to police or a missing children’s

agency for purposes of being located) is estimated to

be 56,500 (28 percent of all children who experienced a

family abduction). The diagram on this page illustrates the

proportional relationships between all family abducted

children and the subsets of children who were caretaker

missing and reported missing. It also shows that the children who were reported missing are a subset of those who

were caretaker missing. (Note that this Bulletin presents

data on the characteristics of all family abducted children,

not just those who were classified as caretaker missing or

reported missing.)

Estimates of Family Abducted Children

Table 2: Estimates of Family Abducted Children

Estimated Number

Category (95% Confidence Interval)* Percent

All family abductions 203,900 100

(151,700–256,100)

Caretaker missing† 117,200 57

(79,000–155,400)

Reported missing‡ 56,500 28

(22,600–90,400)

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.

† Whereabouts unknown to caretaker, caretaker alarmed and tried to locate child. Includes reported missing cases.

‡ Reported to police or a missing children’s agency for purposes of locating the child. This is a subset of

caretaker missing cases.

* Whereabouts unknown to caretaker, caretaker alarmed and tried to 

locate child.

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

the child.

All family 

abducted children

Caretaker

missing*

Reported

missing†
5

NISMART

Table 3: Characteristics of Family Abducted Children

Percent of

U.S. Child

Child Estimated 95% Confidence Percent 95% Confidence Population†

Characteristic Number Interval* (n = 203,900) Interval* (N = 70,172,700)

Age

0–2 43,400 (11,000–75,700) 21 (7–35) 16

3–5 47,100 (22,800–71,400) 23 (13–34) 16

6–11 71,000 (42,100–100,000) 35 (23–46) 34

12–14 35,200 (14,900–55,500) 17 (8–26) 17

15–17 7,200‡ (<100–15,400) 4‡ (<1–8) 17

Gender

Male 100,300 (60,500–140,100) 49 (36–62) 51

Female 103,500 (69,700–137,400) 51 (38–64) 49

Race/ethnicity 

White, non-Hispanic 119,400 (78,100–160,600) 59 (44–73) 65

Black, non-Hispanic 23,900‡ (8,200–39,600) 12‡ (4–19) 15

Hispanic 40,600 (7,900–73,300) 20 (5–34) 16

Other 16,200 (3,400–29,000) 8 (2–14) 5

No information 3,800‡ (<100–11,200) 2‡ (<1–12) —

Family structure

Two parents 7,200‡ (<100–15,700) 4‡ (<1–8) —

Single parent 85,500 (51,400–119,600) 42 (26–58) —

One parent and partner 35,300 (15,700–54,900) 17 (7–27) —

One parent, partner 

unknown 800‡ (<100–2,500) <1‡ (<1–1) —

Relative or foster parent 30,300 (<100–62,100) 15 (1–29) —

No parent 3,700‡ (<100–8,700) 2‡ (<1–4) —

No information 41,000 (12,300–69,700) 20 (8–32) —

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.

† Age, gender, and race for the U.S. population were based on the average monthly estimates of the population ages 0–17 for 1999 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000).

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

mother’s boyfriend.2 Given the likelihood of being

abducted by the biological father, it is not surprising

that 66 percent of the family abducted children were

abducted by a male. The age distribution in table 5

shows that 45 percent of the family abducted children

were abducted by perpetrators in their 30s. 

Characteristics of Family Abduction Episodes

Location and season. Table 6 shows that children abducted by a family member usually were in their own

home or yard (36 percent) or in someone else’s home or

yard (37 percent) just prior to the abduction. Removal

from school or daycare was relatively infrequent (7 percent). Sixty-three percent of children abducted by a family
6

NISMART

member were with the abductor, under lawful circumstances, immediately prior to the abduction. Some seasonal variation in family abductions is evident. Thirty-five

percent of children were abducted in the summer (June

through August), probably because children tend to spend

time with noncustodial parents in the summer, thus

increasing opportunities for abduction.

Duration. Table 6 also shows that the vast majority of

children abducted by a family member had been returned

at the time of the interview (91 percent). Forty-six percent of all family abducted children were gone less than 1

week, and 23 percent were gone less than 1 day. The proportion gone for 1 month or longer was 21 percent, and

6 percent were gone for 6 months or longer. Only 6 percent had not yet returned at the time of the survey interview; all of these children had, however, been located.3

(Seventy-eight percent of the children who had not

returned had been gone 6 months or more; the remaining

22 percent had been gone at least 1 month but less than

6 months. These figures are not shown in the table.)

Indicators of serious episodes. Table 7 shows that the

use of threats, physical force, or weapons was relatively

uncommon in family abductions. Seventeen percent

of family abducted children were moved out of State

with intent to make recovery difficult. Forty-four percent were concealed from the aggrieved caretaker. The

most common serious elements were attempts to prevent contact (76 percent) and intent to affect custodial

privileges permanently (82 percent).

Table 4: Multiple Perpetrators in Family

Abductions

Estimated Number 

of Family Percent

Abducted Children (n = 203,900)

More than one 

perpetrator

Yes 72,400 35

No 123,500 61

No information 8,000* 4*

Number of perpetrators

One 123,500 61

Two 59,800 29

Three 7,200* 4*

Four or more 5,400* 3*

No information 8,000* 4*

Note: All estimates are rounded to the nearest 100. Percents may not

sum to 100 because of rounding.

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

Table 5: Characteristics of Family Abduction

Perpetrators

Estimated Number 

Perpetrator of Family Percent

Characteristic Abducted Children (n = 203,900)

Relationship to child

Child’s father 108,700 53

Child’s mother 50,500 25

Child’s stepfather 3,300* 2*

Child’s sister 1,900* 1*

Child’s uncle 6,000* 3*

Child’s aunt 3,000* 1*

Child’s grandfather 13,700* 7*

Child’s grandmother 13,400* 7*

Child’s mother’s boyfriend 3,200* 2*

Gender

Male 135,000 66

Female 68,900 34

Age

Teens 1,300* 1*

20s 45,000 22

30s 91,400 45

40s 55,200 27

50s 3,000* 1*

60s 1,400* 1*

No information 6,600* 3*

Note: All estimates are rounded to the nearest 100. Percents may not

sum to 100 because of rounding.

* Estimate is based on too few sample cases to be reliable.
Estimated Number

Abduction of Family Percent

Characteristic Abducted Children (n = 203,900)

Child’s location prior 

to episode

Own home or yard 73,800 36

Other home or yard 76,300 37

Public area 15,700* 8*

School or daycare 13,700* 7*

Parent’s or caretaker’s car 5,100* 3*

Street 3,300* 2*

On vacation 3,200* 2*

No information 12,600* 6*

Child with perpetrator 

immediately prior to 

episode

Yes 128,000 63

No 73,900 36

No information 2,000* 1*

Season 

Winter 48,300 24

Spring 29,700 15

Summer 72,300 35

Fall 53,600 26

7

NISMART

Estimated Number

Abduction of Family Percent

Characteristic Abducted Children (n = 203,900)

Duration 

Less than 1 hour 6,300* 3*

1 hour to 6 hours 33,600* 16*

7 hours to less than 24 hours 7,500* 4*

24 hours to less than 1 week 46,600 23

1 week to less than 1 month 48,000 24

1 month to less than 6 months 29,700 15

6 months or more 12,400* 6*

Not returned, but located 12,700* 6*

No information 7,100* 3*

Episode outcome

Child returned 186,400 91

Child not returned, 

but located 12,700* 6*

Child not returned 

and not located <100* <1*

No information 4,800* 2*

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

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

Table 6: Characteristics of Family Abductions

Police Contact

As shown in table 8, aggrieved caretakers contacted

the police regarding 60 percent of the family abducted

children. However, not all of these contacts were for

the purpose of locating the child. Fifty percent of the

contacts were to recover the child from a known location; 42 percent were to locate the child. 

Caretakers did not contact the police regarding 40 percent

of the family abducted children, citing a variety of reasons.

In some cases, they resolved the episode on their own (23

percent) or with a lawyer (6 percent). Some believed that

police assistance was not necessary because they knew the

child’s location (10 percent) or knew that the child would

not be harmed (6 percent). Some caretakers feared the

child would be harmed if they contacted the police (6

percent). Others did not think the police could help (15

percent), were dissatisfied with police response to a previous contact (8 percent), or had been advised by others

not to contact the police (3 percent).

Historical Trends

A special analysis of NISMART–1 and NISMART–2 data

was conducted to identify historical trends in family

abduction.4 The analysis suggests that, between 1988

and 1999, the incidence rate of children who were

victims of serious family abductions did not change,

but there may have been a decline in the rate for children who were victims of less serious episodes involving

various forms of custodial interference. Details of this
8

NISMART

Table 7: Indicators of More Serious Family

Abductions

Estimated 

Number

of Family

Abduction Abducted Percent

Characteristic Children (n = 203,900)

Use of threat

Yes 9,000* 4*

No 183,900 90

No information 11,000* 5*

Use of force

Yes 15,000* 7*

No 177,900 87

No information 11,000* 5*

Use of weapon

Yes 2,700* 1*

No 190,200 93

No information 11,000* 5*

Child taken out of State 

with intent to make 

recovery more difficult

Yes 35,200 17

No 168,700 83

Child concealed

Yes 90,600 44

No 113,300 56

Intent to prevent contact

Yes 153,900 76

No 46,900 23

No information 3,000* 1*

Intent to affect 

custody permanently

Yes 166,600 82

No 37,300 18

Note: All estimates are rounded to the nearest 100. Percents may not

sum to 100 because of rounding.

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

Table 8: Police Contact for Family Abductions

Estimated

Number

of Family

Abducted

Children Percent

Police contact

Yes 121,800 60

No 82,100 40

Total 203,900 100

Reason police were 

contacted 

Recover child from 

known location 61,100 50

Locate missing child 50,800 42

Other reason 6,900* 6*

No information 3,000* 2*

Total 121,800 100

Reason police were 

not contacted 

Resolved problem alone 

or with family 19,100* 23*

Did not think police 

could help 12,200* 15*

Knew child’s location 7,900* 10*

Dissatisfied with prior 

police contact 6,300* 8*

Afraid that child would 

be harmed 5,300* 6*

Handled problem with 

lawyer 4,900* 6*

Knew that child would 

not be harmed 4,500* 6*

Advised by others not 

to contact police 2,400* 3*

Other 3,800* 5*

No information 15,700* 19*

Total 82,100 100

Note: All estimates are rounded to the nearest 100. Percents may not

sum to 100 because of rounding.
9

NISMART

analysis will be presented in OJJDP’s forthcoming Bulletin, Historical Change in the Incidence of Missing,

Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children,

1988–1999.

Conclusions and Policy Implications

Family abductions constitute an important peril in the

lives of children, particularly children living in households

without one of their biological parents. The estimated

203,900 children who were victims of a family abduction

in 1999 represent a large group of children caught up in

divisive and potentially disturbing family dynamics. 

Need for Services That Address 

Underlying Conflicts

Fifty-seven percent of the children who were abducted by

a family member were caretaker missing (in the sense that

their caretaker did not know where they were, became

alarmed, and tried to locate them). Family abducted children constituted only 9 percent of all children classified

as caretaker missing and only 7 percent of all children reported missing. In considering these statistics, however,

it is important to remember that the potential for harm

to family abducted children exists whether or not they are

classified as missing. Family abduction is not just a problem of missing children. 

In addition to locating and returning family abducted

children, agencies seeking to help these children must

address the conflicts that produce and prolong the abduction of children by family members. The fact that fully

40 percent of family abductions were not reported to the

police underscores the importance of agencies that can

provide a response to threatened and actual family

abductions over and above the important location and

recovery function performed by law enforcement.

Reality vs. Stereotype

Although the family abductions described in this study

typically had certain disturbing elements such as attempts

to prevent contact or alter custodial arrangements permanently, they did not generally involve the most serious

sorts of features associated with the types of family abductions likely to be reported in the news. Actual concealment

of the child occurred in a minority of episodes. Use of force,

threats to harm the child, and flight from the State were

uncommon. In contrast to the image created by the word

“abduction,” most of the children abducted by a family

member were already in the lawful custody of the perpetrator when the episode started. In addition, nearly half

of the family abducted children were returned in 1 week

or less, and the majority were returned within 1 month.

Limitations of the Findings

The fact that family abductions in this study tended to

resolve themselves in time should not lead one to assume

that most family abductions are relatively benign and can

be resolved without the intervention of authorities. The

researchers in this study were not in a position to provide

a full assessment of the types of harm that family abductions inflicted on children or the extent to which intervention by outside authorities facilitated the resolution

of family abductions.5

Focus on Younger Children

This study’s finding that younger children are the ones

at greater risk of family abduction parallels findings

from previous NISMART studies and other studies as

well. Family abduction is one of the few victimization

perils that younger children experience to a greater extent

than older children. Thus, prevention efforts should focus

on younger children, especially those who do not live

with both biological parents. Programs that specifically

promote child well-being and those that address child

safety issues generally may be appropriate forums in

which to raise awareness about family abduction.

The estimate of the number of family abducted children

known to police from this NISMART–2 study, approximately 121,800 in 1999, contrasts with a 1992 estimate

of 30,500 family abductions known to police based on

a survey of law enforcement agencies (Grasso et al.,

2001). The discrepancy could reflect a change in helpseeking patterns during the 1990s in the wake of family

abductions. It may be that victims of family abduction

in NISMART–2 overstated to interviewers their propensity to contact police. But more likely, it reflects the fact

that police do not keep full records of all the individuals

who contact them about family abductions and may not

categorize the episodes as such in their databases.
10

NISMART

An Area in Need of Further Attention

Despite close to 20 years of organized concern about

missing children, and despite the creation of missing

child prevention and intervention programs, the family

abduction problem remains one area where efforts may

be the least developed. Knowledge about the number of

children who experience family abductions should spur

efforts to prevent the occurrence of family abductions

and help children and their aggrieved caretakers recover

from the effects of these abductions when they occur.

Endnotes

1. 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. Other methodological factors, such

as a preponderance of female caretaker interviewees and

a greater likelihood of getting information about children

in their primary residential household, may have resulted

in some undercounting of family abductions perpetrated

by females and caretakers with primary custody.

2. The absence of any stepmother perpetrators does not

mean that there are no such abductions, only that they

were too infrequent to have been detected in this study.

3. The absence of any family abducted children who

were not located does not mean that these children do

not exist, only that they were too infrequent to have

been detected in this study.

4. Because of important differences in both definitions

and methodology, the NISMART–1 and NISMART–2

data and findings should not be compared directly. In

drawing comparisons to identify trends, researchers used

the closest possible approximations of NISMART–1

methodology and definitions.

5. NISMART–1 found that family abduction can result

in psychological harm to the child (Finkelhor, Hotaling,

and Sedlak, 1990). Other studies (e.g., Grasso et al., 2001)

have also found that family abduction cases may not

receive the attention needed from the criminal justice

system and that international family abductions in particular may be more difficult to resolve and often involve

serious characteristics (e.g., concealment, threats).

References

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.

Grasso, K.L., Sedlak, A.J., Chiancone, J.L., Gragg, F.,

Schultz, D., and Ryan, J.F. 2001. The Criminal Justice

System’s Response to Parental Abduction. Bulletin.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of

Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. Monthly Postcensal Resident

Population, by Single Year of Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin (e9899rmp.txt, e9999rmp.txt, and e9900rmp.

txt). Web site: eire.census.gov/popest/archives/national/

nat_90s_detail/nat_90s_1.php.

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.

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.
11

NISMART

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

Acknowledgments

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. David Finkelhor, Ph.D., is Professor of Sociology and Director, Crimes

against Children Research Center, University of New Hampshire, and Advisor to NISMART–2. 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. 

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; Dana J. Schultz, M.P.P., Policy Analyst at Westat, Inc.,

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, Ph.D., Senior Statistician at Westat, Inc.; Svetlana Ryaboy, Statistician at Westat,

Inc.; Monica Basena, Analyst at Westat, Inc.; and Ying Long, Programmer at Westat, Inc.

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.

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.

The first Bulletin in the NISMART

series, National Estimates of Missing

Children: An Overview, describes

the NISMART–2 component studies

and estimating methodology, defines the types of episodes studied—

nonfamily abduction (including stereotypical kidnapping); family abduction;

runaway/thrownaway; missing involuntary, lost, or injured; and missing

benign explanation—and summarizes NISMART–2 estimates of missing

children.

All NISMART-related publications

are available at OJJDP’s Web site,

ojjdp.ncjrs.org.
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 196466

PRESORTED STANDARD

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/OJJDP

PERMIT NO. G–91