J. Robert Flores, Administrator June 2004

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

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

Prostitution of

Juveniles: 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. 

Little statistical and research information

exists about the prostitution of juveniles

in its various forms. However, the emerging National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) provides a new opportunity

for analyzing incidents of this problem

that come to the attention of police. In the

absence of other sources of information,

the data about a limited number of cases

from the 76 agencies in 13 states that are

represented in NIBRS suggest some patterns of possible utility for those trying to

identify and respond to the prostitution of

juveniles.1

The following are highlights of the analysis

presented in this Bulletin:

◆ Juvenile prostitution as encountered

by police is more likely than adult

prostitution to involve multiple offenders and more likely to occur indoors

and in large urban areas.

◆ Police report more contacts with male

juvenile prostitutes than with female

juvenile prostitutes.

◆ Male juvenile prostitutes tend to be

older than female juvenile prostitutes

and more likely to operate outdoors.

◆ Police are less likely to arrest juvenile

prostitutes than adult prostitutes, but

more likely to arrest male juveniles

than female juveniles, and more likely

A Message From OJJDP

The human degradation inherent in

prostitution is always unacceptable

but the victimization of children that

takes place in juvenile prostitution is

particularly disturbing. This Bulletin

broadens our understanding of the

problem by examining the prostitution

of juveniles as it is known to law enforcement. Analyzing data from the

FBI’s National Incident-Based Reporting System, the authors provide a profile of juvenile prostitution, noting its

distinctions from its adult counterpart.

Compared with adult prostitution, the

prostitution of juveniles is more likely

to occur in large cities and less likely

to result in arrest. Juveniles involved

in prostitution are more likely to work

in groups than are adult prostitutes.

There are also gender differences

among juvenile prostitutes, with boys

tending to be older than girls and more

likely to operate outdoors. Understanding such differences can help us to

develop more effective strategies to

end the prostitution of juveniles.

The social and legal status of juveniles involved in prostitution is somewhat ambiguous. On the one hand,

they are offenders involved in illegal

and delinquent behavior. On the

other, they are children who are being

victimized by unscrupulous adults.

Clearly, these youth are being harmed

emotionally and are in considerable

physical danger. Accordingly, from

both a child protective and law enforcement strategy, our goal should

be the same—the eradication of the

sexual exploitation of youth.

Office of Justice Programs • Partnerships for Safer Communities • www.ojp.usdoj.gov
2

to refer female juveniles to other

authorities, such as social services

agencies.

◆ Police are more likely to categorize

juveniles involved in prostitution as

offenders than as crime victims, but

those categorized as victims are more

likely to be female and young.

◆ Law enforcement agencies and policymakers need to engage in more analysis, planning, and coordination about

how to respond to and record episodes

of juvenile prostitution.

◆ Given the limitations of NIBRS data and

the current lack of systematic information about the prostitution of juveniles, considerable additional research

is needed.

Background

The prostitution of juveniles within the

United States has proven a difficult problem to confront, whether by social welfare

agencies, law enforcement organizations,

or private social reform groups. This is

due to the social and legal complexity

of the problem and is compounded by

a scarcity of reliable information on its

nature and extent (Estes and Weiner,

2002; Fassett and Walsh, 1994; Flores,

1996; Klain, 1999; National Center for

Missing and Exploited Children, 1992;

The Hofstede Committee Report, 1999;

Whitcomb, De Vos, and Smith, 1998). 

The prostitution of juveniles occurs in a

variety of contexts. Both international

rings and interstate crime operations 

traffic young girls to distant places with

promises of employment and money

(Flowers, 2001). Parents advertise and

prostitute their children over the Internet

(The Hofstede Committee Report, 1999).

Runaway and homeless youth on city

streets are recruited by pimps or engage

in “survival sex.” Drug pushers force

addicted teenagers to prostitute themselves as a condition for receiving drugs

or a place to stay (Klain, 1999). As part of

initiations, gangs may require members to

engage in sex for money or other services

(The Hofstede Committee Report, 1999).

But also, acting on their own initiative or

in the company of friends, young people

may engage in casual or even frequent

prostitution for money or for adventure

(Rasmusson, 1999).

Juvenile prostitutes may be preadolescent

children or older teenagers nearly indistinguishable from their adult counterparts.

They may work individually or in groups,

independently or under the control of

pimps, parents, or other operators. The

literature has tended to focus on girls,

but male juvenile prostitutes have drawn

increasing attention (Flowers, 2001).

Knowledge about the backgrounds of juvenile prostitutes and the association of

juvenile prostitution with child maltreatment, sexual abuse, and running away is

better established than information on

how these youth are dealt with by the 

justice and child welfare systems.

Part of the complexity of this problem

relates to the social and legal status of the

juveniles involved. Juvenile prostitutes

can be viewed primarily as victims in the

control of unscrupulous adults and commercial vice, but they can also be viewed

as willing participants in an illegal trade

and objectionable activity. Welfare and

reform organizations tend to approach

these juveniles as victims of specific exploiters and/or more general social conditions. The police, on the other hand, are

more likely to view them as criminal offenders (Fassett and Walsh, 1994). In fact,

the legal system can treat them as both

offenders and victims.

The National Incident-Based Reporting System

The U.S. Department of Justice is replacing its long-established Uniform Crime

Report (UCR) system with a more comprehensive National Incident-Based

Reporting System (NIBRS). While 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, and 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 aggregated

in turn at the state and national levels. For a crime to be counted in the system, it

simply 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. Its implementation by the FBI began in 1988, and participation by states and local agencies is

voluntary and incremental. By 1995, jurisdictions in 9 states had agencies contributing data; by 1997, the number was 12; and by the end of 2000, jurisdictions

in 19 states submitted reports, providing coverage for 14 percent of the nation’s

population and 11 percent of its crime. Only three states (Idaho, Iowa, South Carolina) have participation from all local jurisdictions, and only three cities with a

population greater than 500,000 (Austin, TX, and Memphis and Nashville, TN) are

reporting. The crime experiences of large urban areas are thus particularly underrepresented. The system, therefore, is not yet nationally representative nor do its

data represent national trends or national statistics. Nevertheless, the system is

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

about juvenile offending and victimization 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 more than

2,819,000 crime incidents, with at least 267,164 involving an identified juvenile

offender. Nevertheless, these patterns may change as more jurisdictions join the

system.

More information about NIBRS data collection can be found at these Web sites:

(1) www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm, (2) www.search.org/nibrs/default.asp, and

(3) www.jrsa.org/ibrrc/.

* Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts,

Michigan, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah,

Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia.
3

Uncertainty within law enforcement agencies on how to respond to the prostitution of juveniles and how to treat juvenile

prostitutes has in turn contributed to a

scarcity of reliable, consistent information

about the problem. The variable status of

a juvenile prostitute (victim or offender?)

may discourage officers, especially if they

are inexperienced in working with child

welfare and juvenile justice systems, from

recording a prostitution offense at all, or

may lead them to charge the juvenile

instead with another offense altogether

(Fassett and Walsh, 1994; Klain, 1999). In

the absence of resources to keep them off

the streets, some police believe charging

juveniles with a crime may be the only

way to place them in a secure location.

One of the tools that may prove helpful 

in guiding law enforcement initiatives

about the problem of juvenile prostitution

is the FBI’s NIBRS. This growing system,

designed to replace the present Uniform

Crime Report (UCR) system, allows, for

the first time, the tracking of prostitution

incidents involving juveniles across a large

number of law enforcement jurisdictions.

Although NIBRS data are far from nationally

representative, they provide broad-based,

uniform reports of juvenile prostitution

activities that overcome many of the data

limitations that have plagued past analyses of this problem.2 Consequently, the

cases recorded in NIBRS merit careful examination to see what they might reveal

about the problem as it is presently

known to police, and how they might be

used to help clarify the nature of the

problem.

Prostitution Incidents

Known to Police

Prostitution offenses are relatively scarce

in police reports. Although 14,230 prostitution incidents are recorded in NIBRS

data from 1997 through 2000, they represent only 0.17 percent of all crime incidents known to police. That is, about 2

out of every 1,000 incidents known to

police involved prostitution. 

As noted, in NIBRS juveniles can be associated with prostitution crimes as both

offenders and victims. How these two categories differ is not entirely clear because

NIBRS does not provide coding guidelines

to police on this matter. Ambiguity exists

because when a juvenile has sex with an

adult in exchange for money, the juvenile

may have committed a prostitution offense

and may also be victim of a statutory or

Using NIBRS Data To Examine the Prostitution of

Juveniles

The information presented in this Bulletin on juvenile involvement in prostitution

is based on data collected by the National Incident-Based Reporting System

(NIBRS) for 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000 (see discussion of the National IncidentBased Reporting System on p. 2). NIBRS is presently the only available source of

geographically diverse and uniformly collected crime data that provides detailed

descriptions of prostitution incidents, including the identity of individual prostitution

offenders in terms of age and other personal characteristics. The prostitution incidents recorded by NIBRS represent only those that come to the attention of police.

The basic unit of data organization in NIBRS is the crime incident. An incident is

defined as “one or more offenses committed by the same offender, or group of

offenders acting in concert, at the same time and place.” Thus, a single incident

can be characterized by multiple offenses, multiple offenders, and, for those types

of offenses for which NIBRS collects victim information, multiple victims.

The present analysis examines prostitution incidents that contain at least one of

two types of prostitution offenses identified by NIBRS. The offenses are defined as

(1) prostitution (“to unlawfully engage in sexual relations for profit”) and (2) assisting or promoting prostitution (“to solicit customers or transport persons for prostitution purposes; to own, manage, or operate a dwelling or other establishment for

the purpose of providing a place where prostitution is performed; or to otherwise

assist or promote prostitution”). Either or both can occur in a single NIBRS incident. While this Bulletin treats any incident that contains either of these offenses

as a prostitution incident, at times during data analysis it will be useful to distinguish between those where only “prostitution” occurred and those where “assisting prostitution” was recorded.

NIBRS records personal data on identified prostitution offenders, but treats prostitution offenses as “crimes against society” (rather than crimes against persons or

property crimes) and provides no option for identifying or collecting data on individual victims of prostitution. It is important to note that the offenders identified for

prostitution offenses in NIBRS are only those persons engaged in prostitution, not

its patrons. Offenses such as “patronizing a prostitute” or “patronizing a house of

prostitution” are categorized in NIBRS as “Type B, All Other Offenses,” and offender information is only recorded if an arrest was made. Unfortunately, prostitution

patrons cannot be distinguished from other, nonprostitution offenders who are

also recorded in this NIBRS category (which includes those charged with a wide

range of crimes, such as unlawful assembly, bigamy, contempt of court, criminal

libel, harassment, invasion of privacy, jury tampering, littering, obstructing justice,

perjury, reckless endangerment, sedition, smuggling, tax law violations, and illegal

wiretapping).

In spite of these and other limitations set by data collection protocols, NIBRS

allows two types of juvenile involvement with prostitution offenses to be identified.

First, it reveals the presence of juvenile offenders in prostitution incidents. Because

a NIBRS incident can include a “group of offenders acting in concert,” multiple

offenders identified in an incident are considered to be associated with all offenses occurring in the incident. When there are multiple offenses and multiple offenders, this leaves some uncertainty as to the exact role each offender played in each

recorded offense. However, in most prostitution incidents with juvenile offenders

(84 percent), either only a prostitution offense alone occurred or only a single offender was identified, thus removing any ambiguity as to the link between the

offender and the offense. Thus, it is clear that most juvenile offenders identified

in prostitution incidents in NIBRS were themselves engaged in prostitution.

Second, although juveniles are not recorded in NIBRS as victims of prostitution

per se, they are sometimes identified as victims of other offenses (crimes against

persons) that occurred in the same incident as a prostitution offense. Thus, juvenile victimizations associated with prostitution activity can be recognized. However, because the juvenile victim is linked to another specific offense in the incident

and because NIBRS does not allow the recording of “child exploitation” as a type 

continued on page 4
4

other sex crime. Presumably, when juveniles are pimped by adults they will tend

to be seen as victims, and when they take

a more active role in soliciting sexual

activities, they will tend to be seen as

offenders. But some of the categorization

may reflect arbitrary features such as the

demeanor of the juveniles, the sympathy

that individual police officers may have

for them, or the policies of the jurisdiction

in which the incident occurred. To help

understand how law enforcement responds

to the prostitution of juveniles, this Bulletin examines the juveniles categorized

as both offenders and victims in prostitution incidents.

Of the 13,814 prostitution incidents in

NIBRS that involved identified offenders

of any age, 200 (1.4 percent) involved

juvenile offenders.3 The numbers showed

little change over the 4-year NIBRS data

period examined in this study (1997–2000).

Although this could suggest that prostitution activity and/or the police practices

that bring those activities to light remained

stable during those years,4 the limitations

of NIBRS data make it unwise to draw any

conclusions about trends without having a

variety of additional sources of information.

In addition to the juvenile offender cases,

juvenile victims were listed in 52 prostitution incidents during the 4-year study

period. As with incidents involving juvenile offenders, the year-to-year numbers

of incidents involving juvenile victims

remained relatively stable.

Altogether, NIBRS data for 1997–2000 identify 241 prostitution incidents with either

juvenile offenders, juvenile victims, or

both (5 percent of incidents). Within these

incidents are found 229 individual juvenile

offenders and 61 individual juvenile victims. These cases span 13 states and 76

law enforcement jurisdictions. Although

this is not a large number of incidents for

typical crime statistical analysis, so few

multijurisdictional analyses exist of police

encounters with the prostitution of juveniles that this limited sample is worthy of

analysis. In addition, the NIBRS system

allows a contrast between the prostitution

of juveniles and adult prostitution.

Using NIBRS Data To Examine the Prostitution of

Juveniles

continued from page 3

of criminal activity associated with prostitution offenses themselves (which it does

for pornography and other selected crimes), the nature of the link between a juvenile victim and the prostitution offense remains ambiguous and must be inferred

from other characteristics of the incident.

This Bulletin explores both patterns of juvenile prostitution involvement recorded

in NIBRS: involvement as an offender and involvement as a victim. For purposes

of analysis, prostitution incidents involving juvenile offenders and prostitution incidents involving juvenile victims are treated as distinct sets of events, even though

a small number of incidents (5 percent of all prostitution incidents involving juveniles) qualify in both categories. When an incident could qualify as a juvenile offender incident and a juvenile victim incident, it was counted in both categories 

for purposes of comparison.

In exploring prostitution incidents involving juvenile offenders, NIBRS data are

used to construct statistical descriptions of the incidents and the offenders involved in them. Characteristics that can be described include offender age, gender, and race; numbers of offenders involved; age and gender mixes of offenders;

times of day of incidents; and type of locations and places where incidents occur.

Comparison of these characteristics with those of other types of crime incidents

recorded in NIBRS (such as juvenile offender incidents that did not include prostitution and prostitution incidents that involved only adult offenders) can highlight

what is distinctive and noteworthy about the prostitution of juveniles.

In addition, this analysis describes the characteristics of those juveniles categorized as victims in prostitution incidents, as well as the dynamics of their victimization. Of particular interest are the personal characteristics of juvenile victims found

in prostitution incidents (e.g., age, gender, race) and how their patterns compare

to those of juvenile prostitution offenders. Also of interest are the specific offenses

committed against these victims, the nature of the offenders who committed them,

the relationship that existed between a victim and an offender, and the conditions

(such as time and place) in which the incident occurred. Once again, comparisons

with other types of incidents and victims recorded in NIBRS can highlight distinctive and noteworthy characteristics of these incidents and the juvenile victims involved. Such comparisons can also provide ideas about how the juvenile victims

found in these incidents are linked to the prostitution offense itself.

Although the number of incidents reported thus far within NIBRS is not large,

NIBRS data is useful nonetheless to analyze for several reasons. First, NIBRS

provides information about a topic on which very little systematic statistical and

research data have been previously available. Second, it aggregates the experiences of a fairly large number of communities and police jurisdictions, avoiding

biases that may be introduced by studies or analyses in single communities. Third,

it provides an anticipatory look at data from a source that will be increasingly

important as it becomes national in scope in the coming years.

Still, patterns from the analysis of NIBRS data in this Bulletin should be regarded

with caution. They are based on a small number of cases from an unrepresentative sample of jurisdictions. In particular, the sample contains few large urban

areas and border cities where such activity may flourish. Moreover, little is known

about how police practices may bias what the statistics reveal (Fassett and Walsh,

1994). In addition, much juvenile prostitution is undoubtedly overlooked or fails to

come to the attention of law enforcement. All this points to the need for more and

better data and research on the prostitution of juveniles.
5

Prostitution Incidents

With Juvenile Offenders

Prostitution incidents with juvenile offenders were distinctive in a number of ways

from prostitution in general. (The contrasts

are presented first, and discussion of their

implications occurs later in the Bulletin.)

For one thing, juvenile prostitution offenders known to police were more often male

(61 percent) than female (39 percent), a

greater disproportion than among adult

prostitution offenders (53 percent male

and 47 percent female) (table 1). Second,

juvenile prostitution offenders were most

commonly encountered in multiple offender groups (59 percent of incidents). This

contrasts with the adult offender pattern,

which is composed overwhelmingly of

single offender incidents (89 percent). 

Although a majority (68 percent) of prostitution incidents involving juvenile offenders took place at an outside location (such

as a highway, road, alley, field, woods, or

parking lot), this was less frequent than

for adult offenders, and juvenile incidents

were considerably more likely to occur at

homes and residences.

In terms of geographic context, the prostitution of juveniles was more a large city

phenomenon than adult prostitution.

Twenty-seven percent of all prostitution

incidents involving juvenile offenders

occurred in large cities compared to 10

percent of adult prostitution incidents.5

Finally, arrests were less likely to be made

in prostitution incidents involving juvenile

offenders than in incidents involving adult

offenders (74 percent and 90 percent of

incidents, respectively). 

In other ways, the prostitution of juveniles

did not differ considerably from adult

prostitution (table 1). Both juvenile and

adult offenders were predominantly white

(71 percent and 68 percent, respectively).

They both tended to be encountered by

police in the evening (6 p.m. to midnight).

And both followed a stronger seasonal

pattern than crime in general, with prostitution occurring more frequently during

the warmer months (May through September, see figure 1). The seasonal pattern in

police-reported prostitution activity was

even more pronounced for those jurisdictions located in states with colder winters. 

Table 1: Comparison of Prostitution Incidents Involving Juvenile Offenders 

and Adult Offenders

Prostitution Incidents (%)

Juvenile Offender(s) Adult Offender(s) Only

Offender attribute (n=229 juvenile offenders) (n=16,905 adult offenders)

Gender

Male 61 53

Female 39 47

Race

White 71 68

Black 28 30

Other 1 2

Incident attribute (n=200 incidents) (n=13,705 incidents)

Number of offenders

Single 41 89

Multiple 59 11

Location type

Outside 68 84

Home/residence 14 4

Hotel/motel 7 5

All other 11 8

Time of day

Evening (6 p.m.–12 p.m.) 61 63

Rest of day 39 37

Large city (pop. >500,000)

Yes 27 10

No 73 90

Arrest in incident

Yes 74 90

No 26 10

Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1997–2000.

0

5

10

15

Adult prostitution 

incidents

All crime incidents Juvenile prostitution 

incidents*

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul

Month

Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Percent of Incidents**

Figure 1: Seasonal Pattern of Crime Incidents

* Shown as 3-month running average for smoothing.

** Percentages calculated separately for each group.

Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1997–2000.
6

Variation in the

Prostitution of

Juveniles

Prostitution incidents involving different

types of juvenile offenders may vary a

great deal in their character. For example,

girls have been portrayed as most often

working for pimps (either male or female

adults), whereas boys are described as

usually working alone or in small groups

without pimps (Flores, 1996; Klain, 1999;

Whitcomb, De Vos, and Smith, 1998). The

prostitution incidents recorded in NIBRS

are consistent with such patterns, but cannot confirm them directly. One indicator

of the presence of a pimp in an incident is

the offense category “assisting or promoting prostitution,” which includes soliciting

customers or transporting persons for

prostitution purposes. Unfortunately, this

offense can also represent activities by

other, nonpimping offenders—for example,

the soliciting performed by a single prostitute working alone. Another indicator in

NIBRS that can suggest the presence of a

pimp working with a juvenile prostitute is

the identification in the incident of both

adult and juvenile offenders. It is plausible

that an adult offender, particularly one a

number of years older than the juvenile

offender(s), signifies the presence of a

pimp. However, the adult could be another

prostitute and not a pimp. 

To explore these patterns, the incidents

were first divided into groups based on

offender age (i.e., juvenile-only incidents

and mixed-age incidents, see figure 2).

These groups were further subdivided by

the gender of the juvenile offender (male

Figure 2: Offender Patterns in Prostitution Incidents Involving 

Juvenile Offenders

Juvenile-Only Incidents Mixed-Age Incidents

Male juvenile 50 Incidents 67 Incidents

offenders only Lone male offender 43 With adult male offender(s) 55

Multiple male offenders 7 With adult female offender(s) 3

With adult male and female 

offenders 9

Female juvenile 44 Incidents 36 Incidents

offenders only Lone female offender 39 With adult male offender(s) 15

Multiple female offenders 5 With adult female offender(s) 7

With adult male and female 

offenders 14

Both male and 2 Incidents 1 Incident

female juvenile One male and With adult male and 

offenders one female offender 2 female offenders 1

Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1997–2000.

Table 2: Characteristics of Prostitution Incidents Involving Juvenile Offenders, by Type of Incident 

and Gender of Juvenile Offender

Incidents (%)

Juvenile-Only Mixed-Age 

Male Juvenile Female Juvenile Male Juvenile Female Juvenile

Offenders Only Offenders Only Offenders Only Offenders Only

(n=50 incidents) (n=44 incidents) (n=67 incidents) (n=36 incidents)

Type of prostitution offense

“Assisting or promoting” prostitution 42 14 19 39

“Prostitution” only 58 86 81 61

Age of juvenile offenders (% of offenders)

<12 years 0 0 0 8

12–13 years 10 10 0 3

14–15 years 21 31 14 35

16–17 years 69 59 86 54

Location type

Outside 72 66 82 42

Hotel/motel 2 7 6 11

Home/residence 10 14 8 30

All other 16 13 4 17

Arrest in incident

Yes 66 66 90 67

No 34 34 10 33

Additional offense in incident

Yes 6 14 21 31

No 94 86 79 69

Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1997–2000.
7

juvenile offenders only, female juvenile

offenders only, and both male and female

juvenile offenders). Finally, further subgroups were identified, where possible,

based on additional offender gender and

offender number mixes.

As shown in figure 2, prostitution incidents involving juvenile offenders fell 

into six principal groups: 

◆ Juvenile-only incidents involving male

offenders only (50 incidents).

◆ Juvenile-only incidents involving female

offenders only (44 incidents).

◆ Juvenile-only incidents involving both

male and female offenders (2 incidents).

◆ Mixed-age incidents involving adult

offenders with male juvenile offenders

only (67 incidents).

◆ Mixed-age incidents involving adult

offenders with female juvenile offenders

only (36 incidents).

◆ Mixed-age incidents involving adult

offenders with both male and female

juvenile offenders (1 incident).

Since two of these groups—juvenile-only

incidents involving both male and female

offenders and mixed-age incidents involving adult offenders with both male and

female juvenile offenders—were nearly

empty (2 and 1 incidents, respectively),

this left four primary arrangements that

accounted for most of the incidents.

One distinctive pattern evident in these

four primary groups is pervasive gender

segregation (figure 2). Most incidents

involved either exclusively male juvenile

offenders (117 incidents) or exclusively

female juvenile offenders (80 incidents).

Furthermore, within the mixed-age incidents, male juvenile offenders were 

primarily associated with male adult

offenders. The major exception to the pattern of gender segregation was found

among female juvenile offenders in

mixed-age incidents. In these cases, female juvenile offenders were most often

(81 percent, or 29 of 36 incidents) associated with male adult offenders, suggesting

the presence of pimps. Nearly half of

these latter incidents (48 percent, or 14 of

29 incidents) included female adult offenders as well. 

These four types of prostitution incidents

included other differences beyond gender contrasts (table 2). For one thing, an

“assisting prostitution” offense occurred

more often in some groups. Among the

mixed-age incidents, those involving

female juveniles had a large percentage

(39 percent) of “assisting” offenses, suggesting that adults are acting as pimps

for female juveniles in these incidents.

Interestingly, among the juvenile-only

incidents, the male offenders, but not the

female offenders, had a large percentage

(42 percent) of “assisting” offenses. This

may mean that male juveniles are pimping

for other male juveniles, or, as suggested

earlier, it can also indicate prostitutes

caught soliciting for themselves.

Further differences distinguished the four

types of incidents categorized in table 2.

For example, mixed-age incidents involving male juveniles more often involved the

oldest juvenile offenders (ages 16 and 17),

were the most likely to occur at an outside location, and were the most likely to

be linked to an arrest. In contrast, mixedage incidents involving female juveniles involved more younger juvenile offenders

(ages 15 and younger), were the least likely to occur outside (more often tied to a

home/residence or a hotel/motel location), and had the highest likelihood of

containing an additional offense beyond

prostitution (typically a drug-related or

sex offense). 

The two types of juvenile-only incidents

(male juvenile offenders only and female

juvenile offenders only) typically fell

between the two types of mixed-age incidents in character, and were somewhat

similar to each other. The most notable

difference between them was the higher

occurrence of “assisting prostitution”

offenses in the incidents involving only

male juveniles, described above. It may be

that this difference reflects how the police

encounter these juvenile offenders in the

course of their investigations or patrols.

If a pimp arranges a meeting between a

female juvenile prostitute and a patron,

the police may only encounter the prostitute and patron but not the pimp. The

offense charged would be “prostitution”

rather than “assisting prostitution.” If, on

the other hand, the police encounter the

pimp in the process of soliciting, but without a prostitute present, the offense

charged would be “assisting prostitution.”

It may be that a number of these pimps

are male juveniles, or it may be that male

juveniles more often solicit for themselves

than do female juveniles.

An additional contrast associated with

offender age and gender differences was

the pattern of prostitution arrests reported in NIBRS. NIBRS not only records the

age and gender of individual offenders

identified in prostitution incidents, but

also collects the same information for

individual arrestees in those incidents.

Since the arrest offense is catalogued for

each arrestee, this allows those arrested

for prostitution to be specifically identified.

Thus, the relative numbers of offenders

and arrestees in prostitution incidents can

be compared in terms of age and gender.

Many fewer of the juvenile offenders were

arrested than adult offenders (59 percent

and 82 percent, respectively) (table 3).

Among the juvenile offenders, males

were arrested somewhat more often than

females (63 percent and 52 percent, respectively). The differential treatment of

male and female prostitutes by law enforcement extended beyond arrest disparities in that most female juveniles (74

percent) arrested for prostitution were

subsequently referred to other authorities,

whereas a majority (57 percent) of male

juveniles arrested for prostitution were

handled within the department (i.e.,

released to parents, released with warning, etc.). In interpreting gender differences, it should be kept in mind that

Table 3: Prostitution Arrest Patterns

Number of Identified Number of Arrestees as

Arrestee/Offender Offenders in Prostitution Percentage of

Group Prostitution Incidents Arrestees Offenders

All juveniles 229 134 59

Male juveniles 140 88 63

Female juveniles 88 46 52

All adults 17,134 14,103 82

Male adults 8,891 7,522 85

Female adults 8,005 6,581 82

Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1997–2000.
8

female offenders were typically somewhat

younger than male offenders, thus differences in the treatment of male and female

juvenile offenders may be influenced by

age and not just gender.

Juvenile Victims in

Prostitution Incidents

As noted earlier, not all juveniles in 

prostitution incidents were identified as

offenders. Juvenile victims also were

reported in some prostitution episodes,

but, as described earlier, the victims in

these episodes are not categorized as victims of prostitution per se, but rather as

victims of other offenses, such as sex

crimes (see figure 3). This means that a

juvenile victim’s actual role in a prostitution incident is not always clear, nor is the

victim’s link to the prostitution offense.

For example, an adult prostitution offender may commit a sex crime against a

child, but not necessarily as part of the

prostitution activity. It is clear, however,

that prostitution incidents involving juvenile victims had their own distinctive patterns and were different in many ways

from prostitution incidents involving juvenile offenders.

First, the juvenile victims in prostitution

incidents were predominantly female 

(72 percent) compared with the juvenile

offenders who were disproportionately

male (61 percent) (table 4). The victims

were also younger, most (77 percent) 15

years old or younger, compared with the

juvenile offenders, 69 percent of whom

were 16 or 17 years old. One factor contributing to these age differences may

be age-of-consent laws, which, in some

states, do not allow juveniles to be considered the victims of statutory sex crimes

after the age of 15 (Klain, 1999).

Prostitution incidents involving juvenile

victims were also different according to

the locales where they occurred. The predominant location (48 percent) was a home

or residence and only 17 percent occurred

outside. By contrast, incidents involving

juvenile offenders occurred predominantly outside (68 percent) and much less

frequently in homes and residences (14

percent). Prostitution incidents involving

juvenile victims tended to occur much

less frequently during the evening than

those involving juvenile offenders (29

percent and 61 percent, respectively).

And prostitution incidents involving juvenile victims were not nearly as often associated with large city environments as

incidents involving juvenile offenders.

Prostitution incidents involving juvenile

victims were also more likely than those

involving juvenile offenders to involve

adult offenders. Fully 90 percent of juvenile victim incidents involved an adult

offender (table 5), compared with only

52 percent of juvenile offender incidents

(104 of 200 incidents, see figure 2). In both

types of incidents, the adult offenders

were almost exclusively male. Specifically,

Table 4: Comparison of Prostitution Incidents Involving Juvenile Offenders 

and Juvenile Victims

Prostitution Incidents (%) 

Involving Involving

Juvenile Offender(s) Juvenile Victim(s)

Victim or offender attribute (n=229 offenders) (n=61 victims)

Gender

Male 61 28

Female 39 72

Age

<12 years 2 15

12–13 years 6 18

14–15 years 24 44

16–17 years 69 23

Race

White 71 74

Black 28 24

Other 1 2

Incident attribute (n=200 incidents) (n=52 incidents)

Location type

Outside 68 17

Home/residence 14 48

Hotel/motel 7 6

All other 11 29

Time of day

Evening (6 p.m.–12 a.m.) 61 29

Rest of day 39 71

Large city (pop. > 500,000)

Yes 27 15

No 73 85

Arrest in incident

Yes 74 35

No 26 65

Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1997–2000.

Violent crime: sexual

Nonviolent crime: sexual

Violent crime: nonsexual

Offense Type

Nonviolent crime: nonsexual

64%

23%

10%

3%

Figure 3: Offenses Committed

Against Juvenile Victims in

Prostitution Incidents

Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation,

1997–2000.
9

94 percent of mixed-age incidents involving a juvenile victim also involved a male

adult offender (table 5), while 90 percent

of mixed-age incidents involving juvenile

offenders also involved at least one male

adult offender (94 of 104 incidents, see 

figure 2).

In spite of the frequent presence of adult

male offenders in prostitution incidents

involving juvenile victims, arrest rates

were relatively low. Arrests were made

in 35 percent of prostitution incidents

involving juvenile victims (table 4), compared with 74 percent of prostitution incidents with juvenile offenders and 90 percent of those with only adult offenders

(table 1). The higher percentage of arrests in juvenile offender cases probably

reflects, at least in part, that police encounter these offenses more often outdoors with the activities in progress and

offenders present. The juvenile victim

cases, which occur less frequently in an

outdoor location, involve more episodes

that come to police attention through victim or third-party reports, so that the

offender is not present, making an arrest

difficult if not impossible.

Most juvenile victims knew their offenders

(64 percent were victimized by acquaintances and 11 percent by family members)

(table 5). And most of the victimizations

suffered by juveniles at the hands of these

offenders were violent crimes (87 percent),

with a majority being forcible sex assaults

(64 percent of all victimizations) (figure 3).

Nonforcible sex offenses were also committed, so altogether forcible and nonforcible sex crimes were present in nearly

three-quarters (74 percent) of the juvenile

victimizations.6 Still, nearly a quarter of

the victimizations (23 percent) consisted

of nonsexual violence. (If the child was

being prostituted in these cases, the

actual sex crime against a child may not

have yet occurred.) Little victim injury

was reported in these victimizations (12

percent of cases) (table 5). The typical

victim in these incidents was a lone 14-

year-old female who was the victim of a

sex offense by an adult male acquaintance

or family member that occurred during

the daytime in a residence or hotel/motel.

Implications

NIBRS data, although limited, suggest that

the prostitution of juveniles is a varied

and complex problem that affects both

male and female juveniles and both older

and younger teenagers. Some of the juveniles appear to be engaged in prostitution

on their own, some in groups with other

juveniles, and some in conjunction with

adults. In a majority of cases, law enforcement appears to treat the juveniles involved in these incidents as offenders,

but in some they appear to regard the

juveniles entirely as victims. 

In NIBRS data, the prostitution of juveniles

differs from adult prostitution in that it is

less likely to be engaged in alone, and

somewhat more likely to be engaged in

indoors and in large urban areas. It is less

likely to result in an arrest. Like adult

prostitution, juvenile prostitution offenses

are more likely to occur in the summer

months and during the evening hours.

Some of the differences from adult prostitution, like its indoor occurrence, may

suggest the need for new law enforcement

strategies for tracking and uncovering

juvenile prostitution.

Strong gender segregation appears to

occur in the prostitution of juveniles.

According to NIBRS data, the prostitution

of male juveniles appears different from

that of female juveniles. Males tend to be

somewhat older, more likely to operate

outdoors, somewhat more likely to be

arrested, and less likely to be treated by

the police as “victims.” According to the

literature, female juveniles are more likely

to operate in conjunction with pimps, and

the NIBRS data on adult offenders in incidents involving juveniles are consistent

with this observation. However, a considerable number of prostitution incidents

involving female juvenile offenders appear

to have no identified adult or male offender. These incidents are more similar to

incidents involving boys without adult

offenders than they are to incidents

involving girls with adult offenders.

It is primarily boys who have been described as working on their own or with

same age peers (Flores, 1996; Klain, 1999),

so the large number of incidents in the

NIBRS data involving only female juveniles

raises some questions. Girls may be working on their own without adult pimps

more than they have in the past, or the

pimps may be hard for the police to locate. The finding may also reflect something about police practices (i.e., how

police typically find juvenile prostitutes—

by street patrols, complaint investigation,

targeted investigations, etc.). The data do

suggest, however, that the phenomenon of

female juvenile prostitutes working alone

may have been overlooked in discussions

of the juvenile prostitution problem. Law

enforcement may need to make sure that

outmoded stereotypes do not compromise

effective work on this issue.

Table 5: Characteristics of Prostitution Incidents Involving Juvenile Victims

Incidents Involving Juvenile Victims (%) 

Incident attribute (n=52 incidents)

Offender age group

Only adult 79

Adult and juvenile 11

Only juvenile 10

Offender gender

Any male 94

Only female 6

Number of victims

Single juvenile 83

Multiple juvenile 13

Multiple juvenile and adult 4

Victims (%) 

Victimization attribute (n=61 victims)

Offender relationship to victim

Any family member 11

Acquaintance, no family 64

Only stranger or unidentified 25

Any victim injury

Yes 12

No 88

Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1997–2000.
10

Another surprising finding from NIBRS

data is the large percentage of juvenile

prostitution offenders who are male (61

percent), even larger than the percentage

of males in the adult prostitution offender

population (53 percent). This contrasts

with the literature on the prostitution of

juveniles and with intervention efforts,

which have for the most part concentrated on females (Fassett and Walsh, 1994;

National Center for Missing and Exploited

Children, 1992; The Hofstede Committee

Report, 1999). Trend information from the

UCR shows a growing proportion of male

prostitution during the 1990s (Snyder, 2001;

Snyder, Sickmund, and Poe-Yamagata,

1996). This may reflect an increasing visibility of young male prostitutes, or an

increasing law enforcement concern about

this group. But the crime data may also

possibly exaggerate this aspect of the

problem for several reasons. The willingness of young men to operate outdoors

may make them more conspicuous to the

police. Police may be more likely to crack

down on male prostitutes, or they may be

more likely to treat females as victims, as

offenders of other kinds of crimes, or in

ways that do not show up in crime statistics (Fassett and Walsh, 1994). The absence of data in NIBRS from most major

urban areas may, in addition, distort the

gender distribution (e.g., if females are

more common in cities). Moreover, some

of the male juveniles who are listed as

prostitution offenders may be playing

other roles than actually prostituting

themselves, such as pimping or procuring.

Nonetheless, the NIBRS data do suggest

that the role of male juveniles in prostitution, whether as pimps, procurers, or

prostitutes, needs more attention from

practitioners and researchers. However,

before dramatic policy changes are made,

more inquiry is needed from more jurisdictions to confirm these results.

The other important issue raised by the

NIBRS data concerns the nature of law

enforcement treatment of juvenile prostitutes. When discussed as a social problem, juvenile prostitutes are generally

regarded as victims. But in police data on

prostitution incidents, juveniles appear

considerably more often as offenders than

victims. Older teens and males, in particular, are considerably less likely to be categorized as victims. The NIBRS data may

simply reflect the fact that police are not

provided with categories adequate to

code the true nature of the episodes. But

it may also be that in the eyes of law enforcement, juvenile prostitutes are more

often seen as offenders than victims. For

effective intervention in this problem, it

may be important for all of the agencies

involved to arrive at a common analysis.

This suggests the need for both additional

research to clarify the nature of the problem, and forthright discussions in a common forum. 

As this Bulletin demonstrates, NIBRS data

offer new insights into the problem of

juvenile prostitution. Furthermore, the

value of these data can be amplified if

police officers fully report every contact

they have with a prostitution offense. For

this to occur, both NIBRS training practice

and individual agency protocols may need

to emphasize the prostitution of juveniles

as an important social problem in need

of a solution. Data quality, and detail, 

can also be improved by changing some

NIBRS coding practices. For example,

“pimping” could be identified as a distinct

prostitution offense, separate from “assisting or promoting,” and a Type Criminal Activity code (which presently exists

in the system and includes “exploiting

children”) could be permitted for prostitution offenses. Of course, NIBRS data will

automatically become more representative of national patterns as participation

by law enforcement agencies continues 

to expand, and this prospect will make

them more valuable. As NIBRS data become national, they may be very useful

for tracking historical and geographic

trends in juvenile prostitution and for

evaluating the impact of public policy.

However, the potential utility of NIBRS

data does not reduce the need for considerable additional research on the problem

of juvenile prostitution—both short-term

and long-term studies. Such research

should focus on the epidemiology of the

problem, the variety of forms that it takes,

the social and geographic contexts in

which it occurs, and the life histories of

juveniles both before and after their involvement in prostitution. In addition,

considerable research attention needs to

be paid to law enforcement practices,

other interventions directed at the problem, and the consequences of these actions. This information is necessary to

develop an effective public policy that

addresses the prostitution of juveniles.

Notes

1. This Bulletin defines prostitution incidents as those incidents that contain at

least one of two types of prostitution

offenses identified by NIBRS. The offenses

are defined as (1) prostitution (“to unlawfully engage in sexual relations for profit”)

and (2) assisting or promoting prostitution (“to solicit customers or transport

persons for prostitution purposes; to own,

manage, or operate a dwelling or other

establishment for the purpose of providing a place where prostitution is performed; or to otherwise assist or promote

prostitution”). Either or both can occur in

a single NIBRS incident. While this Bulletin

treats any incident that contains either of

these offenses as a prostitution incident,

at times during data analysis it will be useful to distinguish between those where

only “prostitution” occurred and those

where “assisting prostitution” was recorded. It is important to note that the offenders identified for prostitution offenses in

NIBRS are only those engaged in prostitution, not its patrons. (See “Using NIBRS

Data To Examine the Prostitution of Juveniles” on page 3 for more information.)

2. Most discussions of the prostitution of

juveniles rely heavily on anecdotal case

studies, often gathered from individual

police officers or derived from interviews

with limited populations of juvenile prostitutes, such as shelter residents or correctional facility inmates. Statistics on the

prostitution of juveniles have often been

based on guesswork (Ennew et al., 1996;

Estes and Weiner, 2002; Rasmusson, 1999).

3. In 416 incidents, offender age was not

specified in NIBRS data.

4. Similar stability is evident in the numbers of juveniles arrested for prostitution

as reported in UCR in recent years (Sickmund, Snyder, and Poe-Yamagata, 1997;

Snyder, 2001; Snyder, Sickmund, and PoeYamagata, 1996).

5. Only 3 percent of NIBRS’s juvenile offenses came from large city locales. This

suggests that if large cities were appropriately represented in NIBRS, which they are

not, the percent of juvenile offender prostitution from those areas would be considerably larger.

6. In NIBRS, a forcible sex offense is defined

as “any sexual act directed at another person, forcibly and/or against that person’s

will; or not forcibly or against the person’s

will where the victim is incapable of giving

consent.” The specific forcible sex offenses are rape, sodomy, sexual assault with

an object, and fondling. A nonforcible sex

offense is defined as “unlawful, nonforcible

sexual intercourse.” The specific nonforcible sex offenses are incest and statutory rape.
11

References

Ennew, J., Gopal, K., Heeran, J., and Montgomery, H. 1996. Children and Prostitution.

New York, NY: UNICEF.

Estes, R.J., and Weiner, N.A. 2002. The

Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania,

School of Social Work, Center for the

Study of Youth Policy. Retrieved May 7,

2003, from the Web: http://caster.ssw.

upenn.edu/~restes/CSEC.htm.

Fassett, B., and Walsh, B. 1994. Juvenile

prostitution: An overlooked form of child

sexual abuse. The APSAC Advisor 7(1):9.

Federal Bureau of Investigation. 1997–

2000. National Incident-Based Reporting

System [computer file]. Compiled by the

U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau

of Investigation. Produced and distributed by the Inter-university Consortium

for Political and Social Research (ICPSR).

Ann Arbor, MI: ICPSR.

Flores, R. 1996. Child Prostitution in the

United States—Forced Labor: The Prostitution of Children. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Labor, Bureau of International Labor Affairs, The Women’s Bureau,

and the U.S. Department of State, Bureau

of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor.

Flowers, R.B. 2001. Runaway Kids and

Teenage Prostitution. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

The Hofstede Committee Report. 1999.

Juvenile Prostitution in Minnesota. St. Paul,

MN: Minnesota Attorney General’s Office.

Klain, E.J. 1999. Prostitution of Children and

Child-Sex Tourism: An Analysis of Domestic

and International Responses. Alexandria,

VA: National Center for Missing and

Exploited Children.

National Center for Missing and Exploited

Children. 1992. Female Juvenile Prostitution: Problem and Response. Alexandria,

VA: National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.

Rasmusson, A. 1999. Commercial Sexual

Exploitation of Children: A Literature Review. Minneapolis, MN: The Alliance for

Speaking Truths on Prostitution and The

Center for Urban and Regional Affairs.

Sickmund, M., Snyder, H.N., and PoeYamagata, E. 1997. Juvenile Offenders and

Victims: 1997 Update on Violence. Statistics Summary. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention.

Snyder, H. 2001. Law Enforcement and

Juvenile Crime. Bulletin. Washington, DC:

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

and Delinquency Prevention. 

Snyder, H.N., Sickmund, M., and PoeYamagata, E. 1996. Juvenile Offenders and

Victims: 1996 Update on Violence. Statistics Summary. Washington, DC: U.S.

Acknowledgments

This Bulletin was prepared by David

Finkelhor, Ph.D., Professor of Sociology and Director, Crimes against

Children Research Center, University

of New Hampshire, and Richard Ormrod, Ph.D., Research Professor,

Crimes against Children Research

Center, University of New Hampshire.

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.

This Bulletin was prepared under grant number

98–JN–FX–0012 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.

Department of Justice, Office of Justice

Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention.

Whitcomb, D., De Vos, E., and Smith, B.

1998. Program To Increase Understanding

of Child Sexual Exploitation. Final Report.

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

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention.

Subscribe to News @ a Glance 

Electronic Edition

OJJDP plans to convert the bimonthly News @ a Glance to 

electronic-only distribution by the end of this year. You’ll still 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

(click on “subscribe” to News @ a Glance in the “Get Information” box).
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

PRESORTED STANDARD

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/OJJDP

PERMIT NO. G–91

Bulletin NCJ 203946

*NCJ~203946*