MART

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

Nonfamily Abducted Children:

National Estimates and

Characteristics

David Finkelhor, Heather Hammer, 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 nonfamily abduction data collected by the Second National Incidence

Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children (NISMART–2). The NISMART–2 studies spanned the years

1997 to 1999.1 All data in the individual component studies were

collected to reflect a 12-month period. Because the vast majority

of cases were from the studies concentrated in 1999, the annual

period referred to in this 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

■ During the study year, there were an estimated 115

stereotypical kidnappings, defined as abductions perpetrated by a stranger or slight acquaintance and

involving a child who was transported 50 or more

miles, detained overnight, held for ransom or with

the intent to keep the child permanently, or killed.

■ In 40 percent of stereotypical kidnappings, the child

was killed, and in another 4 percent, the child was

not recovered.

■ There were an estimated 58,200 child victims of nonfamily abduction, defined more broadly to include

all nonfamily perpetrators (friends and acquaintances

as well as strangers) and crimes involving lesser

amounts of forced movement or detention in addition

to the more serious crimes entailed in stereotypical

kidnappings.

■ Fifty-seven percent of children abducted by a nonfamily perpetrator were missing from caretakers for

at least 1 hour, and police were contacted to help

locate 21 percent of the abducted children.

■ Teenagers were by far the most frequent victims

of both stereotypical kidnappings and nonfamily

abductions.

■ Nearly half of all child victims of stereotypical kidnappings and nonfamily abductions were sexually

assaulted by the perpetrator.

Conceptualizing the Problem

The controversy and confusion that have plagued efforts

to estimate the number of children abducted by nonfamily perpetrators stem in part from ambiguities regarding the meaning of the term “abduction.” Because the

media focus on notorious crimes, such as the kidnappings of Samantha Runnion, Polly Klass, and Adam

Walsh, child abduction is conventionally thought of as

a life-threatening crime of substantial duration and distance involving strangers. However, as legally defined,

an abduction can occur when a person is held against his

or her will for a modest amount of time or moved even a

short distance, which often occurs in the commission

of other crimes. Estimates based solely on the legal definition of abduction would be unlikely to satisfy those

2

NISMART

wanting to know about the risk and nature of stereotypical kidnappings, nor would the stereotypical kidnapping

estimates alone satisfy those concerned about the phenomenon of abductions in general.

To satisfy both needs, NISMART–2 provides information about nonfamily abductions using two definitions.

The narrower concept of stereotypical kidnapping pertains to the more serious type of abduction perpetrated

by a stranger or slight acquaintance in which a child is

taken or detained overnight, transported a distance of

50 or more miles, held for ransom or with the intent to

keep the child permanently, or killed. The broader concept of nonfamily abduction includes stereotypical kidnappings but also includes less serious nonfamily abductions involving the movement of a child using physical

force or threat, the detention of a child for a substantial

period of time (at least 1 hour) in a place of isolation

using threat or physical force, or the luring of a child

Defining Nonfamily Abduction and

Related Terms

• Nonfamily abduction: (1) An episode in which a

nonfamily perpetrator takes a child by the use of

physical force or threat of bodily harm or detains

the child for a substantial period of time (at least

1 hour) in an isolated place by the use of physical

force or threat of bodily harm without lawful authority or parental permission, or (2) an episode in

which a child younger than 15 or mentally incompetent, and without lawful authority or parental permission, is taken or detained or voluntarily accompanies a nonfamily perpetrator who conceals the

child’s whereabouts, demands ransom, or expresses

the intention to keep the child permanently.

• Stereotypical kidnapping: A nonfamily abduction

perpetrated by a slight acquaintance or stranger in

which a child is detained overnight, transported at

least 50 miles, held for ransom or abducted with

intent to keep the child permanently, or killed.

• Stranger: A perpetrator whom the child or family do

not know, or a perpetrator of unknown identity.

• Slight acquaintance: A nonfamily perpetrator whose

name is unknown to the child or family prior to the

abduction and whom the child or family did not know

well enough to speak to, or a recent acquaintance who

the child or family have known for less than 6 months,

or someone the family or child have known for longer

than 6 months but seen less than once a month.
3

NISMART

younger than 15 years old for purposes of ransom,

concealment, or intent to keep permanently. (Nonfamily

abduction and related terms are defined more fully in

the sidebar on page 2.) 

Despite confusion about the meaning of abduction and

the impression conveyed by notorious cases, an abduction does not necessarily imply that a child is missing.

For example, a child can be abducted on the way home

from school, dragged into a remote area, sexually assaulted, and released without being missed by a caretaker or

reported as missing to any law enforcement agency. Even

in more serious or lengthier stereotypical kidnappings,

the victim will not qualify as a missing child if no one

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

child’s body is the first evidence of the episode. Thus,

the current study counted the child victims of nonfamily abductions who were not missing as well as those

who were. (See Examples of NISMART–2 Nonfamily

Abductions, page 4.)

The term “missing” itself has somewhat different meanings in different contexts. NISMART–2 characterized

two types of missing children: “caretaker missing” children, who were missing from their caretakers whether

or not those caretakers alerted any authority about the

situation, and “reported missing” children, who were

reported to law enforcement for purposes of locating the

child. (Caretaker missing means that the child’s whereabouts were unknown to the child’s primary caretaker,

with the result that the caretaker was alarmed for at

least 1 hour and tried to locate the child.)

Methodology

The NISMART–2 data on the two types of nonfamily

abductions are the product of different methodologies.

Victims of the less serious nonfamily abductions are

numerous enough to be estimated through a householdsampling procedure and were thus identified by interviewing caretakers and youth through a national telephone

survey of households. Victims of stereotypical kidnappings,

however, are rare and therefore difficult to estimate

through household sampling without conducting an

enormous and prohibitively expensive survey. Thus,

a different methodology, one that involved a survey of

law enforcement agencies throughout the United States,

was used to ensure an accurate estimate of the number of

stereotypical kidnapping victims. The research team

assumed that almost all stereotypical kidnappings were

serious enough to be reported to and recorded by law

enforcement. The sidebar on methodology (page 5)

explains how the estimates were derived.

Adult Caretaker and Youth Household Surveys. The

Household Survey interviews were designed to screen

for potentially countable NISMART–2 episodes, collect

demographic data on the household and its members,

conduct indepth followup interviews specific to each

type of episode being researched, and collect data on 

any actual or attempted sexual assaults that may have

occurred during the episode. The Household Surveys

screened for potential family abductions, nonfamily

abductions, runaway/thrownaway episodes, and other

missing child episodes that resulted from children being

lost or injured or from benign misunderstandings.

Respondents were administered a set of 17 episode

screening questions to determine their eligibility for an

indepth followup interview designed to collect detailed

data on each type of episode. The adult episode screening

questions that led to a nonfamily abduction followup

interview are presented in the sidebar on page 6. The

youth version, administered to youth between the ages

of 10 and 18, was essentially the same.

Law Enforcement Study. This study collected information

from a nationally representative sample of law enforcement agencies by interviewing the key investigating officer in each of the qualifying stereotypical kidnapping

cases handled by that agency in 1997. The purposes of the

Law Enforcement Study (LES) were to estimate the number of child victims of stereotypical kidnappings during

the study year, to learn about the investigation burden

of such cases for law enforcement agencies, to describe

the circumstances of these stereotypical kidnappings

and the characteristics of their perpetrators and victims,

and to determine the outcomes.

Results

An estimated 58,200 children were abducted by a nonfamily perpetrator in the study year, including an estimated

115 victims of stereotypical kidnappings (table 1). As

expected, the number of stereotypical kidnapping victims

reported in the Household Surveys was not sufficient to
4

NISMART

Examples of NISMART–2 Nonfamily Abductions

Nonfamily Abduction Examples 

That Are Not Stereotypical Kidnappings

A 17-year-old girl’s ex-boyfriend forced her from her parked

car, threw her into his car, and took her to a shopping mall

parking lot where he detained her by force for 4 hours.

The girl’s mother became alarmed when her daughter’s

employer called to see why the girl had not shown up

for work. Upon receiving the call from the employer, the

mother drove to the girl’s workplace, saw her abandoned

car, then called the police to locate the missing child.

(Caretaker and reported missing)

A 14-year-old boy was hunting in a park when a strange

man appeared, claiming that the boy was trespassing on

his property. This was not the case. Nonetheless, the “property owner” detained the boy at gunpoint and forced him to

remove his outer garments to see if he had any weapons

other than his shotgun. Then, the “property owner” forced

the boy into the woods at gunpoint. When the boy did not

return home on time, the caretaker became alarmed and

tried to find him. When the boy returned home, the police

and the park warden were contacted. (Caretaker missing)

A 4-year-old boy was taken on a 20-mile joyride by the

schoolbus driver after the rest of the children had been

dropped off at their homes. No force or threat was used

to transport or detain the child; however, the bus driver

concealed the child’s whereabouts. When the child did not

come home at the usual time, the alarmed caretaker called

the school and bus company to locate the child. Then, upon

finding out where the child was, the caretaker contacted

the police to recover the child. This episode lasted 7 hours.

(Caretaker missing)

A babysitter refused to let three children, ages 4, 7, and 10,

go home until she was paid for prior babysitting. The babysitter detained the children against their will and did not

allow the alarmed caretaker to contact the children because

she did not answer the phone. When the babysitter finally

answered the phone, she lied, telling the caretaker that the

children were on their way home. The caretaker called the

police to recover the children from a known location. (Not

missing)

A 17-year-old girl was on a date with a long-term acquaintance (a 17-year-old boy) who took her in a car to a dark,

secluded area on a mountain, where he tried to rape her.

The girl was detained by force and sexually assaulted. In

this case, the caretaker was not concerned nor did she call

the police because she figured the girl would come home.

(Not missing)

A 13-year-old girl was hanging out with “bad kids” (according to her caretaker) and grabbed by a 17-year-old male

friend (not a romantic friend) who tried to sexually assault

her. The perpetrator used threats and force to take her to

his home, where he used force to detain her. The police

were called for a reason other than to locate or recover

the child. (Not missing)

A 9-year-old girl was lured into the perpetrator’s camper

trailer with an offer of candy. The perpetrator, a 35-yearold male, detained the child by force in the trailer for an

hour while he sexually assaulted her. The police were

called for a reason other than to locate or recover the

child, and the perpetrator was arrested. (Not missing)

A 15-year-old girl was lured by a friend into the hallway

at school, then pushed 25 feet into the boys’ bathroom

by some older boys who detained her by force and

sexually assaulted her before she managed to escape

screaming. The school contacted the police to report

the crime and the boys were arrested. (Not missing)

A 10-year-old girl was lured with candy and money by

an 85-year-old male neighbor and long-term acquaintance into his home, where he sexually assaulted the

child. The caretaker did not contact police because she

said she had no concrete evidence and the child was

not injured. (Not missing)

A 17-year-old boy was with a very recent male acquaintance at the perpetrator’s home. The perpetrator detained

the boy for an hour by force and sexually assaulted him.

The police were not called because the caretaker did not

find out about the episode until more than a year later.

(Not missing) 

A 17-year-old girl was forcibly detained and sexually assaulted in a parking lot at a football game by a 25-year-old

male who was an ordinary friend and long-term acquaintance. The police were not called because the girl did not

tell her parents. The respondent in this interview was the

victim’s older sister. (Not missing)

Examples of Stereotypical Kidnappings

A 12-year-old girl left home for a short jog, telling her

mother she would be back in 20 minutes. That was the

last time she was seen alive. The police were called to

report her disappearance. A few weeks later, the body of

the victim was discovered accidentally by a man and his

son, who were walking their dog. Police believed that the

perpetrator used a blitz attack and grabbed the victim

while she was jogging to sexually assault her. (Caretaker

and reported missing)

Two 14-year-old girls were spending the night together.

In the evening, they walked 12 blocks to a store. The girls

were walking back to the house when a car pulled up and

two men jumped out, grabbed them, and forced them into

the car. One perpetrator had a knife, and told the victims

he would kill them. The perpetrators drove to a closed

State park. One of the victims was taken out of the car

and sexually assaulted. When the girls did not return that

night, the police were contacted to report the girls missing. The next morning, a county deputy on a routine

patrol of the closed park noticed the car and investigated.

He rescued the two girls and apprehended one of the perpetrators. (Caretaker and reported missing)
5

NISMART

Methodology

The nonfamily abduction estimates are based on the

combination of nonfamily abduction data collected in

the NISMART–2 Household Surveys and the stereotypical

kidnapping data collected in the Law Enforcement Study

(LES).

The Household Surveys were conducted during 1999

using computer-assisted telephone interviewing methodology to collect information from a national 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 included in the Household Survey of Adult Caretakers was 31,787. Each primary caretaker who completed an

interview was asked for permission to interview one randomly selected youth in the household ages 10–18. Permission was granted to interview 60 percent of the randomly

selected youth, and 95 percent completed an interview,

yielding 5,015 youth interviews.

Both the adult and youth survey data were weighted to

reflect the Census-based U.S. population of children. (For

details about the weighting procedure and variance estimation, see OJJDP’s forthcoming NISMART–2 Household

Survey Methodology Technical Report.)

The Household Surveys are limited because 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.

The LES sample included all law enforcement agencies

serving a nationally representative sample of 400 counties.

Counties were selected with probabilities proportional to

the size of their child populations. There were 400 county

sheriff departments and 3,765 municipal police departments serving these counties, for a total sample of 4,165

law enforcement agencies.

Data were collected in two phases. In the first phase, a

mail survey was sent to all law enforcement agencies in

the sample. This questionnaire asked whether the agency

had any stereotypical kidnappings open for investigation

during the 1997 calendar year. The response rate for the

mail survey was 91 percent. Agencies that reported any

stereotypical kidnappings in the mail survey were contacted again in the second phase of data collection, and

an extensive followup telephone interview was conducted

with the key investigating officer for each case. Data collection was completed for 99 percent of the cases targeted for

followup interviews.

Incorporating both phases of the LES, the combined

response rate for the study was 91 percent. LES case

weights were developed to reflect the probability of the

agency and case having been included in the sample and

to adjust for nonresponse and refusals.

Data from the Household Surveys and LES were integrated to construct unified estimates of the number of

child victims of nonfamily abductions. Two key principles

guided this integration:

Principle 1: To combine episode data within a

study, each sampled child could be counted

only once in the unified estimate.

Principle 2: To unify episode data across studies, a given subgroup of children could be represented by the data from one study only.

Beginning with the data from the Household Survey of

Adult Caretakers, children who qualified as having been

victims of nonfamily abduction on the basis of any countable episode other than a stereotypical kidnapping were

entered into the unified estimate of nonfamily abducted

children. In accordance with the first principle previously

described, children who were reported as victims of nonfamily abduction in both the adult and youth interviews

were counted only once in the unified estimate. In accordance with the second principle previously described, only

the LES data were used as the source for the stereotypical

kidnapping estimates because no reliable estimate could

be developed from the Household Surveys for this rare

subset of nonfamily abducted children.

As noted at the beginning of the Bulletin, the NISMART–2

Household Surveys and Law Enforcement Study spanned

the years 1997–99, and all data in each of the individual

component studies were collected to reflect a 12-month

period. The study years are 1999 for the Household Surveys and 1997 for the Law Enforcement Study. Because

the vast majority of nonfamily abducted children were

from the studies concentrated in 1999, the annual period

referred to in this Bulletin is 1999. 

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

Methodology Technical Report, and details on the findings

of the LES are provided in OJJDP’s forthcoming Research

Report, Stereotypical Kidnappings: National Estimates and

Case Profiles. 
6

NISMART

Household Survey of Adult

Caretakers: Nonfamily Abduction

Episode Screening Questions

The Household Survey of Adult Caretakers episode

screening questions used to determine whether a

nonfamily abduction followup interview would be

conducted are presented below. 

• Was there any time when anyone tried to take [this

child/any of these children] away from you against

your wishes?

• Was there any time when anyone tried to sexually

molest, rape, attack, or beat up [this child/any of

these children]?

• In the past 12 months, has anyone attacked or threatened [this child/any of these children] in any of these

ways:

– With any weapon, for instance, a gun or knife?

– With anything like a baseball bat, frying pan,

scissors, or stick?

– By something thrown, such as a rock or bottle?

– Including any grabbing, punching, or choking?

– Any rape, attempted rape, or other type of

sexual attack?

– Any face-to-face threats?

– Any attack or threat or use of force by anyone

at all?

Something that happens to some children these days

is that adults or other youth try to force or trick them

into doing something sexual. This includes trying to

touch the child’s private parts or trying to make the

child touch or look at the other person’s private parts.

Children report that these kinds of things happen

with people they know well or trust, such as teachers

or relatives.

• In the past 12 months, has there been a time when

an older person, such as an adult, an older teenager,

or a babysitter, deliberately touched or tried to touch

your child’s private parts or tried to make your child

touch or look at their private parts when your child

did not want it?

• [Has/have] [this child/any of these children] been

forced or coerced to engage in unwanted sexual

activity by someone [he/she/they] did not know

before, a casual acquaintance, or someone [he

knows/she knows/they know] well?

• Has anyone ever kidnapped or tried to kidnap [this

child/any of these children]?

Table 1: Estimates of Nonfamily Abducted

Children

95% Confidence 

Category Estimate Interval* Percent

All nonfamily 

abduction 

victims 58,200 (24,100–92,400) 100

Caretaker 

missing† 33,000 (2,000–64,000) 57

Reported 

missing‡ 12,100§ (<100–31,000) 21

Stereotypical 

kidnapping 

victims 115 (60–170) 100

Caretaker/reported 

missing¶ 90 (35–140) 78

Note: Estimates for caretaker missing and reported missing should not

be summed because the categories are not mutually exclusive.

* 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 was alarmed and tried

to locate child.

‡ Missing children whose parents or caretakers have reported them to

authorities in order to help locate them.

§ Estimate is based on an extremely small sample of cases; therefore,

its precision and confidence interval are unreliable.

¶ Stereotypically kidnapped children were classified as reported missing

if the police were notified by someone who discovered the child was

missing or someone who witnessed the abduction. Among the stereotypical kidnapping victims, caretaker missing children are the same children as those reported missing.

All nonfamily 

abducted children

Caretaker

missing

Reported

missing

The diagram illustrates the proportional relationship

between the total number of nonfamily abducted children

and the number of these children who were caretaker 

missing and reported missing. It also shows that children

who were reported missing are a subset of those who were

caretaker missing.
7

NISMART

produce a reliable

estimate of their incidence from that

source; therefore, all of

the data on this subset

of victims come from

the LES. In the following discussion, which

describes all nonfamily

abducted children and

the subset of child victims of stereotypical

kidnappings, those

who experienced

stereotypical kidnappings are such a small

part of the overall category that they barely

influence the aggregate

patterns.

According to the

NISMART–2 definitions, an estimated 57

percent of all child

victims of nonfamily

abduction (approximately 33,000 children) were missing

from their caretakers

in the study year.

(See table 1 and the

accompanying diagram.) Moreover,

an estimated 21 percent of all nonfamily abducted children (approximately

12,100) were also reported to law enforcement as missing. (Unfortunately, both of these numerical estimates

are quite imprecise and could actually be quite a bit

smaller or larger because they are based on very small

numbers of cases.) Stereotypically kidnapped children in

this study were considerably more likely to be caretaker

missing and reported as missing compared with nonfamily abducted children overall, with 78 percent of victims

of stereotypical kidnappings reported missing. Because

the estimates are based entirely on cases reported to law

enforcement, the estimate for the number of stereotypically kidnapped children who were missing from their

caretakers does not include any children who were

kidnapped and not reported to the police. Such children

may exist; however, given the seriousness of stereotypical kidnapping episodes, they are presumed to be

extremely rare.

Recent, notorious nonfamily abductions have often involved quite young children, such as 5-year-old Samantha Runnion of Orange County, CA. However, young

children, despite the publicity accorded their abduction,

are not the most frequent victims of nonfamily abduction. Eighty-one percent of nonfamily abducted children

and 58 percent of stereotypical kidnapping victims were

Table 2: Characteristics of Nonfamily Abducted Children

All Nonfamily Stereotypical Percent of Abduction Kidnapping U.S. Child Victims (n = 58,200) Victims (n = 115) Population*

Characteristic of Child Percent Estimate Percent Estimate (N = 70,172,700)

Age (years)

0–5 7† 4,300† 19 20 33

6–11 12† 6,800† 24 25 34

12–14 22† 13,000† 38 45 17

15–17 59 34,100 20 20 17

Gender

Male 35† 20,300† 31 35 51

Female 65 37,900 69 80 49

Race/ethnicity

White, non-Hispanic 35 20,500 72 80 65

Black, non-Hispanic 42† 24,500† 19 20 15

Hispanic 23† 13,200† 8† 10† 16

Other <1† <100† 2† <5† 5

Region

Northeast <1† <100† n/a‡ n/a 18

Midwest 33 19,300 n/a n/a 23

South 38† 21,900† n/a n/a 35

West 29† 16,900† n/a n/a 24

No information <1† 100† 100 115 —

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

* Age, gender, and race for the U.S. population were based on the average monthly estimates of the population ages 0–17

years for 1999 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000a). The regional distribution of the population was computed from State-by-State

estimates of the population ages 0–17 as of July 1, 1999 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000b).

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

‡ n/a = not available.
Black children appear to be disproportionately represented among the victims of nonfamily abductions but

not among stereotypical kidnapping

victims. However, this disproportion

is not large enough to exclude the possibility that it is a result of random factors in the sample selection. For similar

reasons, the absence of any nonfamily

abducted children from the Northeast

cannot be considered conclusive evidence of lower rates in that region.

Because kidnapping prevention focuses

on the danger of strangers, it may be

surprising that the majority of nonfamily abduction victims (53 percent)

are abducted by persons known to

the child: 38 percent of nonfamily

abducted children were abducted by

a friend or long-term acquaintance,

5 percent by a neighbor, 6 percent by

persons of authority, and 4 percent

by a caretaker or babysitter (table 3).

Strangers abducted 37 percent of the

nonfamily abduction victims, and

slight acquaintances (considered similar to strangers and including persons

who were known but seen infrequently

or who may have recently befriended

a child or family in order to abduct

the child) abducted 8 percent. Stereotypical kidnappings, consistent with

the most publicized nonfamily abduction cases, are limited by definition

to cases perpetrated by strangers and

slight acquaintances.

About 1 in 5 victims of nonfamily

abductions (21 percent) and almost half the victims of

stereotypical kidnappings (48 percent) were abducted by

multiple perpetrators (table 3). In instances of multiple

perpetrators, episodes were classified according to the

child’s relationship with the most closely related perpetrator. Thus, an abduction by a babysitter and her

boyfriend, who was a stranger to the child, was classified

8

NISMART

age 12 or older (table 2). Nonfamily abduction victims

overall were particularly concentrated among the oldest

groups, with 59 percent being 15–17 years old.

Girls were the predominant victims of nonfamily abductions overall and of stereotypical kidnappings as well

(65 percent and 69 percent, respectively), reflecting the

frequency of sexual assault as a motive for many nonfamily abductions. 

Table 3: Characteristics of Nonfamily Abduction Perpetrators 

Percent of 

Percent of All Stereotypical 

Characteristic of Nonfamily Abduction Kidnapping 

Perpetrator Victims (n = 58,200) Victims (n = 115)

Identity of main perpetrator

Friend 17* —

Long-term acquaintance 21* —

Neighbor 5* —

Authority person 6* —

Caretaker or babysitter 4* —

Stranger 37* 71†

Slight acquaintance 8* 29†

Someone else 3* —

More than one perpetrator

Yes 21* 48

No 79 41

No information <1* 11*

Main perpetrator’s gender

Male 75 86

Female 25* 7*

No information <1* 7*

Main perpetrator’s age (years)

13–19 25* 21

20–29 42* 36

30–39 12* 21

40–49 16* 7*

50–89 5* 4*

No information <1* 10*

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

† By definition, stereotypical kidnappings are limited to cases involving strangers and slight

acquaintances.
as an abduction by a babysitter. Counting only the main perpetrators (and

not the accomplices), 25 percent of the

nonfamily abduction victims and 7

percent of the stereotypical kidnapping

victims were abducted by females. Perpetrators in their twenties were the

main abductors of 42 percent of all

nonfamily abducted children and of 36

percent of children who were stereotypically kidnapped. Teenagers

abducted 25 percent of all nonfamily

abducted children.

Homes or yards were the origination

point in only a minority of the abductions of all nonfamily abducted children (23 percent) and of those who

were stereotypically kidnapped (19

percent) (table 4). Instead, streets,

parks or wooded areas, and other

public areas (i.e., generally accessible spaces) were the places from

which children were typically abducted. While most of the nonfamily

abducted children were moved or

taken, 35 percent were detained in

an isolated location for at least an

hour. The majority of stereotypical

kidnapping victims were detained in

addition to being moved or taken. 

When children were moved, the most

common modes of conveyance were

carrying the child, taking the child in

a vehicle, and walking with the child

(table 5). Most children were taken

into vehicles (45 percent) or to the

perpetrator’s home (28 percent) (table

5). Fourteen percent of the stereotypically kidnapped children were moved

more than 50 miles.

9

NISMART

Table 4: Characteristics of Nonfamily Abductions 

Percent of 

Percent of All Stereotypical 

Characteristic of Nonfamily Abduction Kidnapping 

Episode Victims (n = 58,200) Victims (n = 115)

Child’s location prior to 

episode

Own home or yard 5* 16

Other home or yard 18* 3*

Street, car, or other vehicle 32* 40

Park or wooded area 25* 14*

Other public area 14* n/a†

School or daycare 5* 2*

Store, restaurant, or mall <1* 8*

Other location <1* 9*

No information <1* 8*

Other episode characteristics

Child was taken or moved 70 95

Child was detained 35* 83

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

† n/a = not available.

Table 5: Details Related to the Movement of Nonfamily Abducted

Children

Percent of All Percent of

Nonfamily Stereotypical 

Characteristic of Abduction Kidnapping 

Episode Victims (n = 40,600)* Victims (n = 105)*

How child was taken or moved 

Carried 37† n/a‡

By vehicle 28† n/a

Walked 35† n/a

No information <1† 100

Where perpetrator took child

Vehicle 45† n/a

Perpetrator’s home 28† n/a

Building 13† n/a

Outside area 11† n/a

Other 2† n/a

No information <1† 100

Child was moved more 

than 50 miles

Yes <1† 14†

No 100 86

* Percentages are computed from a baseline of the number of children who were moved.

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

‡ n/a = not available.
Weapons were involved in abducting

40 percent of all nonfamily abduction

victims and 49 percent of stereotypical

kidnapping victims. Knives and guns

were both frequently used. Ransom

was demanded for 4 percent of all nonfamily abducted children and 5 percent

of the subset who were stereotypically

kidnapped.

A considerable quantity of information

on the exact duration of the episodes

was missing (32 percent of all nonfamily abducted children and 18 percent

of stereotypical kidnapping victims)

(table 7). Among those children with

data on episode duration, 29 percent experienced nonfamily abductions that lasted 2 hours or less, and 10 percent

had abductions that lasted 24 hours or more (table 7).

Stereotypical kidnappings were defined as episodes lasting

overnight (unless there was a homicide, a ransom, or an

intent to keep or transport the child 50 miles or more), so

it is noteworthy that only 10 percent of stereotypical kidnapping victims had episodes lasting

24 hours or more. Only a very small

minority (4 percent) of victims of the

most serious stereotypical kidnappings

had abductions that were not resolved

at the time of data collection. 

Nonetheless, 40 percent of stereotypical kidnapping victims were killed,

in addition to the 4 percent who were

still missing. An additional 32 percent

of children who were stereotypically

kidnapped received injuries requiring

medical attention.

For 53 percent of all nonfamily abduction victims, police were not contacted

about the episode for any reason, not

even to report the crime (table 8). The

reasons for not reporting suggest that

some portion of these nonfamily abductions were not thought to involve serious threats to the child.

10

NISMART

Criminal assaults were a motive in most of the nonfamily abductions (table 6). Close to half of all nonfamily abduction victims and stereotypical kidnapping victims were sexually assaulted, while about a third were

otherwise physically assaulted. Seven percent of the

nonfamily abduction victims and 20 percent of the

stereotypical kidnapping victims were robbed.

Table 6: Additional Crime Elements in Nonfamily Abductions

Percent of

Percent of All Stereotypical 

Characteristic of Nonfamily Abduction Kidnapping 

Episode Victims (n = 58,200) Victims (n = 115)

Perpetrator sexually 

assaulted child 46 49

Perpetrator physically 

assaulted child 31* 33

Perpetrator robbed child 7* 20

Perpetrator used a weapon 40* 49

Perpetrator demanded ransom 4* 5*

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

Table 7: Duration and Outcome of Nonfamily Abductions 

Percent of

Percent of All Stereotypical 

Characteristic of Nonfamily Abduction Kidnapping 

Episode Victims (n = 58,200) Victims (n = 115)

Duration of episode (hours)*

2 or less 29† 8†

3 to less than 24 62† 83

24 or more 10† 10

Episode outcomes

Child returned alive 99 57

Returned child was injured <1† 32

Child was killed <1† 40

Child not returned and not located <1† 4†

* Duration percentages are calculated using the number of children without missing data as the baseline. For nonfamily abductions, this number is 39,800. For stereotypical kidnappings, this number is 95.

† Estimate based on too few sample cases to be reliable.
11

NISMART

The seasonal distribution of nonfamily

abductions and stereotypical kidnappings indicates only that they occur

less frequently in winter (table 9).

Implications

When, in the wake of notorious kidnappings, parents and reporters clamor

for information about the risk children

face for such heinous crimes, the best

answer currently available based on

the data from this study is that an estimated 115 children and youth were the

victims of a stereotypical kidnapping

in the study year, and that the true

number was somewhere between

60 and 170 (this range represents the

95-percent confidence interval around

the estimate). This estimate is consistent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI’s) estimates of the number of abductions by strangers in which,

because of their seriousness or duration,

Federal law enforcement becomes involved (M. Heimbach, personal communication, August 22, 2002).

The larger number identified in this

study, the 58,200 nonfamily abduction

victims, represents an estimate of the

number of child victims of crimes that

meet the legal definition of abduction

by a nonfamily perpetrator. Most children’s nonfamily abduction episodes do

not involve elements of the extremely

alarming kind of crime that parents and

reporters have in mind (such as a child’s

being killed, abducted overnight, taken

long distances, held for ransom or with

the intent to keep the child) when they

think about a kidnapping by a stranger.

There was some kind of police contact

regarding 47 percent of the nonfamily

Table 8: Police Contact for Nonfamily Abductions

Percent of 

Percent of All Stereotypical 

Characteristic of Nonfamily Abduction Kidnapping 

Episode Victims (n = 58,200) Victims (n = 115)

Any police contact

Yes 47* 100

No 53* n/a†

Reason police were not 

contacted‡

Expected child to return 12* —

Lack of evidence 9* —

Caretaker informed too 

long after abduction 3* —

Child wanted to protect 

perpetrator 10* —

Caretaker not told about 

abduction 10* —

Episode was not serious 

enough 17* —

No information 39* —

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

† n/a = not available.

‡ Percentages are computed from a baseline of 30,800, the number of children with no police contact.

Table 9: Season of Nonfamily Abductions 

Percent of

Percent of All Stereotypical 

Nonfamily Abduction Kidnapping 

Season of Episode Victims (n = 58,200) Victims (n = 115)

Winter 15* 9*

Spring 36* 28

Summer 30* 29

Fall 19* 33

No information <1* 1*

* Estimate is based on too few sample cases to be reliable.
for a “legal definition” nonfamily abduction known

to police, which seems markedly smaller than the estimate of 58,200 victims of nonfamily abduction from

NISMART–2.

Although the definitions used in NISMART–1 and

NISMART–2 were virtually the same, the NISMART–1

estimate included only nonfamily abductions known to

police exclusively and was calculated from a review of

police records in which researchers looked for elements

of abduction in written case material about reported

crimes. The estimate was believed at the time to be a

serious undercount because police records so frequently

failed to note elements of forced movement or detention

in their accounts of crimes like sexual assault. In contrast, the NISMART–2 estimate is based on accounts by

victims and their caretakers who were asked systematically in a national survey about possible elements of

abduction in the course of crime victimizations. Slightly

more than half of the estimated 58,200 nonfamily abducted children from NISMART–2 were not even reported

to the police.

Nonetheless, in trying to interpret this new and considerably higher estimate of the number of nonfamily

abducted children, several considerations should be

kept in mind. First, because the new estimate is based

on victim accounts rather than police records, it inherently involves a much lower threshold of seriousness.

Moreover, the definition of nonfamily abduction used in

NISMART involves modest amounts of coerced movement or detention that are present in many violent and

sexual crimes. When children suffer more than 2 million

violent crimes each year, including more than 100,000

cases of sexual assault and sexual abuse, it is quite reasonable that tens of thousands of these crimes involve

coerced movement and detention (Crimes against Children Research Center, 1999). Finally, however, even phenomena that occur to tens of thousands of children

are hard to estimate with surveys the size of those in

NISMART–2. As a result, there is more imprecision and

margin of error in the nonfamily abduction estimate

than in any of the other NISMART–2 estimates.

The NISMART–2 findings reinforce the 1988 study’s

conclusion that teenage girls are the most frequent

targets of nonfamily abductions and stereotypical

12

NISMART

abducted children, either to report the child as missing

or for other reasons. However, in 53 percent of cases,

there was no police contact. Most caretakers who did not

contact the police expected the child to return or did

not think the episode was particularly serious, and

some caretakers were never told about the episode

(as revealed by the youth who were interviewed).

In 1988, NISMART–1 estimated that stereotypical kidnappings numbered between 200 and 300 annually (Finkelhor, Hotaling, and Sedlak, 1990). Comparing the new

NISMART–2 estimates with these older estimates, people

may be inclined to conclude that there has been a substantial decline in stereotypical kidnappings during the

past decade. Unfortunately, such a clear-cut conclusion is

not scientifically justified by the current evidence because

the imprecision of the estimates and differences in the

methodologies do not allow it.

The higher estimate of NISMART–1 was obtained using

a methodology that differs from the current methodology,

and, unlike the current estimate, its precision could not

be accurately determined. The actual number of stereotypical kidnappings in the NISMART–1 study year may,

in fact, be within the NISMART–2 confidence interval,

and thus not significantly different from the NISMART–2

estimate.

Nonetheless, stereotypical kidnappings do not appear to

be any more frequent in 1999 than in 1988. Moreover,

despite using different methodologies, NISMART–1 and

NISMART–2 yield estimates of the same order of magnitude (in the hundreds rather than in thousands), reinforcing confidence that the estimates for both years are

in the true range.

The possibility that stereotypical kidnappings have declined is supported by declining rates of juvenile-victim

homicides and of sexual and aggravated assaults in the

1990s. Such crimes include instances of and provide the

context for many kidnappings by strangers. However, the

current data, given their limitations, cannot be used to

confirm this possibility.

Comparison of NISMART–1 and NISMART–2 findings

with regard to the more general category of nonfamily

abduction may also cause confusion. NISMART–1 estimated that approximately 3,200–4,600 children qualified
13

NISMART

kidnappings. To some extent, this finding contrasts with

the image drawn from media accounts of the abduction

of very young children such as Adam Walsh and Samantha Runnion. Perhaps the innocence and vulnerability

of younger children ensure more publicity and greater

notoriety for these cases. Nonetheless, in planning

strategies for preventing and responding to nonfamily

abductions, it is important to keep efforts from being

misdirected by the stereotype of the preteen victim. In

fact, the vulnerability of teens needs to be a central principle guiding such planning. 

Strategies for prevention and intervention also need to

recognize that acquaintances play a greater role than

strangers do in abductions that occur outside the family.

In the current study, more than half of the nonfamily

abduction victims were abducted by persons known to

the child. If parents and law enforcement assume that

abduction is an element only in crimes committed by

strangers, they may fail to provide appropriate prevention information to young people. More attention needs

to be given to the motives and dynamics of crimes involving abductions by perpetrators known to the child.

The NISMART–2 results reinforce the generally well

known fact that sexual assault is the motive for a considerable percentage of nonfamily abductions. This suggests the importance and usefulness of combining sexual

assault prevention strategies and abduction prevention

strategies as a way to reduce the rates of both crimes.

Recent declines in rates of sexual abuse during the 1990s

(Jones and Finkelhor, 2001) point to the possible effectiveness of recent sexual assault prevention strategies,

including public awareness, educational programs, and

aggressive prosecution to increase general and specific

deterrence.

The considerable interest in statistics on nonfamily

abduction raises obvious questions about how statistics

can be obtained more regularly and systematically. Part

of the solution to this problem may come with the full

implementation of the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS), which is being introduced by the

FBI to supplant the Uniform Crime Reporting Program

(UCR) as the source of national information about

crimes known to police. NIBRS, unlike its predecessor,

allows police to indicate when abduction occurs alone

or in connection with other crimes.

When NIBRS is fully implemented nationally, it will be

able to generate annual estimates of the number of children, known to the police, who are abducted not only

by nonfamily perpetrators but also by family members.

Unfortunately, only 20 States contributed to NIBRS as

of 2000, and its national implementation is unlikely to

be complete for another decade. The analysis of these

NIBRS data has already yielded some useful conclusions

(Finkelhor and Ormrod, 2000), such as the large number and distinctive features of acquaintance kidnapping.

However, the NIBRS data are not yet of use in calculating national incidence or tracking national trends.

One question pertaining to NIBRS in connection with

child abduction data is how quickly police, who have

not had to record the abduction element of crimes systematically under UCR, are going to do so in NIBRS

data collection. An additional limitation of NIBRS is

that it does not collect the kind of data that would facilitate estimating the incidence of stereotypical kidnapping, as defined by NISMART. To do this, NIBRS would

have to collect more data on specific crime episode characteristics, such as the duration of the episode and the

distance victims were taken.

The National Crime Information Center (NCIC), to which

local police report missing children for whom they are

searching, may present an opportunity to track the incidence of stereotypical kidnappings more regularly. At the

present time, the NCIC system is not used for statistical

or data-gathering purposes.

Finally, conducting studies such as those reported in

this Bulletin on a more regular basis would enhance the

availability of timely statistics on abducted and missing

children.

Endnote

1. The reference dates for some of the NISMART–2 component studies vary because of a delay caused by pending Federal legislation that, had it passed, would have

made it impossible to conduct the National Household

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

anticipation of a quick resolution, OJJDP decided to
Acknowledgments

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

of New Hampshire, and Advisor to NISMART–2. Heather Hammer, Ph.D., is a Senior Study Director at the Temple

University Institute for Survey Research, Philadelphia, PA, and Principal Investigator of NISMART–2. 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 would also like to 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.

14

NISMART

proceed with the Law Enforcement Study and the Juvenile Facilities Study because neither involved interviewing youth. Had these 1997 studies been postponed until

1999, it is highly unlikely that those estimates would

have been statistically different.

References

Crimes against Children Research Center. 1999. Fact

Sheet. Retrieved September 2002 from www.unh.edu/

ccrc/factsheet.html

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.

Finkelhor, D., and Ormrod, R.K. 2000. Kidnapping

of Juveniles: Patterns From NIBRS. Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice

Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention.

Jones, L., and Finkelhor, D. 2001. The Decline in Child

Sexual Abuse Cases. Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office

of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000a. 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.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000b. Population Estimates for the

U.S. and States by Single Year of Age and Sex: July 1,

1999 (ST–99–10). Web site: eire.census.gov/popest/

archives/state/st-99-10.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.
15

NISMART

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.

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
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 196467

PRESORTED STANDARD

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/OJJDP

PERMIT NO. G–91