MART 

December 2004 

Access OJJDP publications online at 

This Bulletin presents results of a special analysis comparing 

missing,”1 highlights trends from 1988 to 1999 and reveals some 

encouraging news. 

1 For methodological reasons, the analysis does not cover nonfamily abductions (including 

on pages 4–7. 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

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

Office of Justice Programs 

Partnerships for Safer Communities 

www.ojp.usdoj.gov 

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ojjdp 

National Estimates of Missing 

Children: Selected Trends, 

1988–1999 

Heather Hammer, David Finkelhor, 

Andrea J. Sedlak, and Lorraine E. Porcellini 

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. 

selected findings from NISMART–2 and its predecessor, 

NISMART–1. The analysis, which is based on household surveys 

of adult caretakers and covers victims of family abductions, runaways, and children categorized as “lost, injured, or otherwise 

stereotypical kidnappings) and children categorized as “thrownaway.” See methodology sidebar 

J. Robert Flores, Administrator 
NISMART

Key Findings 

In the three categories considered (family abductions, 

runaways, and lost, injured, or otherwise missing children), the analysis finds: 

■ No evidence of any increase in the incidence of missing children between 1988 and 1999. 

■ Decreases in the incidence rates for some types of 

episodes of missing children between 1988 and 1999. 

Background 

The 1984 Missing Children’s Assistance Act (Pub. L. 

98–473) requires the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to conduct periodic studies to 

determine the number of children reported missing and 

the number recovered in a given year. The first such 

study, NISMART–1 (Finkelhor, Hotaling, and Sedlak, 

1990), provided estimates for 1988 and the second, 

NISMART–2 (Hammer, Finkelhor, and Sedlak, forthcoming), provided estimates for 1999. 

In NISMART–2, the research team changed definitions and methodology to reflect what was learned in 

NISMART–1. In contrast to the other Bulletins in the 

NISMART–2 series, this Bulletin uses the original 

NISMART–1 definitions to permit comparisons between 

1999 and 1988. The methodology sidebar on pages 4–7 

presents important information for readers to keep in 

mind as they consider the results that follow. 

Results 

This section presents findings for three categories of 

children: victims of family abductions, runaways, and 

children categorized as lost, injured, or otherwise missing. The subsections begin with definitions of the cases 

included in the analysis. In each category, definitions 

distinguish between “broad scope” and “policy focal” 

cases—i.e., all cases and those considered to be more 

serious—as explained below. The findings are summarized in the figure on this page. 

Family Abductions 

Definitions. An episode qualifies as a broad 

scope family abduction if, in violation of a 

custody agreement or decree, a family member 

took a child or failed to return a child at the 

Comparison of Incidence Rates for Missing 

Children, 1988 (NISMART–1) and 1999 

(NISMART–2) 

Rate per 1,000 children ages 0–17 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

0 

1988 1999 1988 1999 1988 1999 1988 1999 1988 1999 1988 1999 

Broad Policy Broad Policy Broad Policy 

Scope Focal Scope Focal Scope Focal 

p=.032* p=.522* p=.057* p=.147* p=.0007* p=.063* 

statistically not approaches not statistically approaches 

significant significant significance significant significant significance 

Family Abductions Runaways Lost, Injured, or 

Otherwise Missing 

*The p values are the result of tests that measure the extent to which 

changes between 1988 and 1999 are statistically significant. Two-tailed tests 

were conducted to detect a change in either direction (increase or decrease), 

and the conventional level of significance (.05) was used as the cutoff. Thus, 

p=.05 or less indicates that the observed change was statistically significant. 

Details of the statistical tests, including 95-percent confidence intervals for 

the rate estimates, will be available in OJJDP’s NISMART–2 Household 

Survey Methodology Technical Report (Hammer and Barr, forthcoming). 

end of a legal or agreed-upon visit and the child 

was kept at least overnight. Policy focal family 

abductions meet at least one of three additional conditions: (1) the abductor attempted to 

conceal the taking or whereabouts of the child 

or to prevent contact with the child, (2) the 

abductor transported the child out of state, or 

(3) evidence existed that the abductor intended

to keep the child indefinitely or to affect custodial privileges permanently. 

■ The incidence rate for children who experienced 

broad scope family abductions declined significantly, 

from 5.62 per 1,000 children in 1988 to 4.18 in 1999. 

2 
NISMART

■ The slight increase in the incidence rate for children 

who were victims of policy focal family abductions, 

from 2.59 per 1,000 children in 1988 to 3.15 in 1999, 

is not large enough to be statistically significant—i.e., 

the difference in rates may simply be due to chance 

and may not reflect an actual increase in the incidence rate. 

One might expect an increase, not a decrease, in the 

incidence of family abduction victims, given that the 

population has become more geographically mobile, 

divorce rates remain high, and parents (particularly 

fathers) have rising expectations for more equitable custody arrangements. However, countervailing trends may 

be at work: greater public awareness and avoidance of 

risks associated with catastrophic conflicts over custody, 

improved public access to custody dispute resolution 

services, and court system reforms that make it harder 

for disgruntled parents to turn to other states for more 

favorable treatment. 

Such factors may explain the decline in the incidence 

rate for children who experienced broad scope family 

abductions. The lack of decline in the incidence rate for 

children who experienced more serious policy focal family abductions may mean that these improvements have 

had less impact on the most acrimonious, combative 

custody situations in which noncustodial parents resort 

to extreme unilateral actions. 

At least one demographic change between 1988 and 1999 

may have affected family abduction estimates: a decline 

in the number of children who live with both biological 

parents. During that period, the U.S. Census Bureau’s 

Current Population Surveys (conducted in March of each 

year) show a 4.6-percent decline in the number of children living with both parents, and NISMART caretaker 

respondents who were biological parents of the child in 

question declined 4 percent between NISMART–1 and 

NISMART–2. In NISMART–1, 9 out of 10 respondents 

were parents, and the rest were primarily grandparents, 

aunts, and uncles (Finkelhor, Hotaling, and Sedlak, 

1992); in NISMART–2, fewer (86 percent) were biological 

parents, more (4 percent) were stepparents, and 6 percent 

(about the same as in NISMART–1) were grandparents, 

aunts, and uncles. 

The increase in the percentage of NISMART caretakers 

who are stepparents may be especially relevant to the 

decline in the incidence rate for children who experienced broad scope family abductions. Stepparents may 

be less aware of, or less likely to report, less serious family abductions, which tend to involve conflicts between 

biological parents. 

Runaways 

Definitions. An episode qualifies as a broad 

scope runaway if it meets one of the following 

criteria: (1) a child left home without permission and was away at least one night; (2) a 

child made a statement or left a note indicating intent to run away and then stayed away 

at least overnight; (3) a child age 15 or older 

was away, chose not to come home when 

expected, and stayed away at least two nights; 

or (4) a child age 14 or younger was away, 

chose not to come home when expected, and 

stayed away at least one night. Policy focal 

runaway episodes meet the additional condition that the child was without a familiar and 

secure place to stay for at least one night. 

■ The incidence rate for broad scope runaways declined 

from 7.09 per 1,000 children in 1988 to 5.28 in 1999. 

This decrease approaches statistical significance, 

meaning that it probably, but not conclusively, indicates an actual decline. 

■ The decrease in the incidence rate for policy focal 

runaways, from 2.06 per 1,000 children in 1988 to 

1.26 in 1999, is not large enough to be statistically

significant. The difference in rates may simply be due 

to chance and may not reflect an actual decrease in 

these cases. 

The likely decline in the incidence rate for broad scope 

runaways and the possible decline in the incidence rate 

for policy focal runaways could have a variety of explanations. As context, it is important to note that most 

runaway episodes (as defined in NISMART) are brief, 

lasting no longer than a day or two. These episodes often 

involve children doing things they think their parents 

may disapprove of, such as traveling to a distant party or 

event, or spending time with a boyfriend or girlfriend. 

Between 1988 and 1999, caretakers may have begun to 

give teenagers greater independence or may have become less able to establish limits in light of competing 

3 
NISMART

Methodology 

This section presents background information on 

NISMART–1 and NISMART–2 that readers should take into 

account when considering the findings presented in this 

Bulletin. It discusses the reasons for excluding certain categories of missing children from the analysis, examines 

differences in the two surveys’ methodology and definitions, presents brief technical notes, and compares the 

NISMART–1 and NISMART–2 household samples. 

Exclusions 

Nonfamily abductions. Because NISMART–1 and 

NISMART–2 used different methods to estimate the number of children who are victims of nonfamily abductions, 

the findings from the two surveys are not comparable. 

Missing children represent a small fraction of the total 

number of children in the population, and very serious 

cases, such as children who are victims of stereotypical 

kidnappings by strangers, are rare. In NISMART–1, the 

household survey did not yield enough cases to permit 

calculation of a national estimate of nonfamily abductions 

or stereotypical kidnappings (Finkelhor, Hotaling, and 

Sedlak, 1990); instead, the estimate was derived from a 

police records study. The NISMART–2 design sought to 

improve estimates by combining two methods: a household survey to estimate less serious nonfamily abductions 

and a survey of law enforcement agencies to ensure an 

accurate estimate of stereotypical kidnapping victims. 

demands on caretakers’ time. This could mean that 

fewer children who are away from home meet the runaway definition of being away without permission. 

Another possible factor is the increasing availability of 

cell phones and other modes of communication. Children who have taken liberties may be more likely to 

negotiate an agreement with their caretakers, precluding a sense of alarm or violation of permission. 

In addition, running away may hold less allure as children become more aware of the dangers involved. The 

Internet may now serve as a substitute for hanging out 

with friends, taking risks, and having adventures. The 

decline in running away is also consistent with improvements in child and youth well-being during the 1990s 

(Foundation for Child Development, 2004). These 

improvements include declines in child poverty (Federal 

Interagency Forum, 2000), teenage drinking (Johnston, 

O’Malley, and Bachman, 2000) and pregnancy (Federal 

Interagency Forum, 2000), youth violence and victimization (U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2000), and child 

Thrownaway children. Thrownaway children are those 

whom an adult in the household has asked or told to 

leave home. The NISMART–2 Household Survey of Adult 

Caretakers yielded only seven thrownaway cases—too 

few to support an estimate. Findings from the NISMART–2 

Household Survey of Youth and the NISMART–1 study of 

returned runaways (Finkelhor, Hotaling, and Sedlak, 1990) 

suggest that the small number of NISMART–2 thrownaways may not reflect an actual decline between 1988 

and 1999. It is more likely that caretakers are increasingly 

reluctant to report thrownaway episodes, less likely to 

recall such episodes in interviews, or more inclined to 

remember and report the runaway aspects of episodes 

that possibly involved both runaway and thrownaway 

elements. 

Differences in Methodology and Definitions 

Because a key objective of NISMART is to detect historical 

changes, NISMART–2 designers retained many core elements from NISMART–1. On the other hand, designers 

also sought to make improvements based on experience 

from NISMART–1, and these improvements involved several changes in methodology and definitions. These 

changes mean that data and findings from the two surveys should not be compared directly. 

■ Virtually all of the key questions asked in NISMART–1 to 

determine whether an episode should be counted were 

asked again in NISMART–2. However, questionnaire 

abuse and neglect, including sexual abuse (Jones and 

Finkelhor, 2001; Finkelhor and Jones, 2004). 

Lost, Injured, or Otherwise Missing Children 

Definitions. An episode qualifies as broad 

scope lost, injured, or otherwise missing if it 

meets one of the following criteria: (1) a child 

disappeared from home or from parental supervision and could not be located for varying 

amounts of time depending on age—any 

amount of time (ages 0–2), 2 hours (3–4), 3 

hours (5–6), 4 hours (7–10), 8 hours (11–13), 

overnight (14–17)—or, for a child of any age 

with a serious or permanent physical or mental disability or impairment or life threatening 

medical condition, for 1 hour; (2) a child who 

was out with parental permission failed to 

return, could not be located, and was gone at 

least overnight; or (3) a child who was out 

with parental permission failed to return or 

make contact with the parent for at least an 

4 
NISMART

format and content changed. For example, not all questions were replicated verbatim and, in some instances, 

the designers changed question format from openended to close-ended, changed question order, collapsed sequences of questions into a single question, 

or partitioned a single question into a sequence. 

■ Other analyses in this series of Bulletins focus entirely 

on NISMART–2 and use that survey’s definitions to 

calculate estimates. However, to permit comparisons 

with NISMART–1 data in this Bulletin, researchers calculated NISMART–2 estimates according to the original NISMART–1 definitions. Because the extent to 

which changes in questionnaire format and content 

may have influenced responses is not clear, these estimates are close approximations to (but not strict replications of) the original NISMART–1 definitions. 

■ NISMART–2 included a household survey of youth. 

NISMART–1 did not. Therefore, comparisons between 

the two years must be limited to the adult caretaker 

household surveys conducted in both years. 

Technical Notes: Rates, Weighting, and 

Sampling Errors 

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the population ages 

0–17 increased from just over 63 million in 1988 to almost 

72 million in 1999. Because of this change, the analysis in 

this Bulletin standardizes the incidence estimates for 

hour after return, or contact was expected 

because the child suffered harm or an injury 

that required medical attention. Policy focal 

lost, injured, or otherwise missing episodes 

meet the additional condition that the police 

were contacted to help locate the child. 

■ The incidence rate for children who experienced 

broad scope lost, injured, otherwise missing episodes 

decreased significantly, from 6.95 per 1,000 children 

in 1988 to 3.40 in 1999. 

■ The incidence rate for children who experienced 

policy focal lost, injured, otherwise missing episodes 

declined from 2.21 per 1,000 children in 1988 to 0.51 

in 1999. This decrease approaches statistical significance, meaning that it probably, but not conclusively, 

indicates an actual decline. 

These findings suggest a clear decline in the incidence 

rate for children who experienced broad scope lost, 

injured, or otherwise missing episodes and a possible 

decline in the incidence rate for children who experienced episodes classified as policy focal because they 

NISMART–1 and NISMART–2, reports the estimates as incidence rates of missing children per 1,000 children ages 

0–17 in the population, and measures change in these 

rates over time. 

Standardizing the survey data involved weighting the data 

to reflect the census-based population ages 0–17 at the 

time of each survey. All comparisons between the two 

surveys take into account the fact that the estimates are 

based on samples and, as a result, sampling error affects 

their precision. This sampling error is reflected in the confidence interval around each estimated rate—i.e., a range 

within which the true number should fall 95 percent of the 

time when a study like this one is conducted. Details of 

the NISMART–1 weighting procedures and variance estimation are available in NISMART Household Survey 

Methodology (Sedlak, Mohadjer, and Hudock, 1990). Similar 

details for NISMART–2 will be available in OJJDP’s NISMART–2 Household Survey Methodology Technical Report 

(Hammer and Barr, forthcoming). 

Comparing the NISMART–1 and NISMART–2 

Household Samples 

A primary challenge in designing the NISMART–2 household survey was to have a large enough sample to support 

an estimate of the number of children who were victims of 

nonfamily abductions. Thus, NISMART–2 attempted to reach 

a much larger household sample of adult primary caretakers than was reached in NISMART–1. The table on page 7 

triggered a call to police to help locate the missing child. 

Most commonly, lost, injured, or otherwise missing 

episodes involve children who are delayed coming home 

or contacting their parents because of weather, travel 

delays (such as car breakdowns), and other extenuating 

circumstances, and children who are perceived as missing because of a miscommunication about their plans or 

intentions. 

Once again, a factor in the observed decline could be 

improvements in communication technology, such as 

the proliferation of cell phones. However, it is also 

possible that the change could arise from methodological 

differences between NISMART–1 and NISMART–2. 

Summary 

This analysis examines trends in the incidence of children who are family abduction victims, runaways, and 

lost, injured, or otherwise missing, based on NISMART 

data for 1988 and 1999. It considers children who experienced a broad scope (i.e., any) incident and those who 

experienced a policy focal (more serious) incident. 

5 
NISMART MART 

presents detailed sample comparisons for NISMART–1 and 

NISMART–2 and reveals significant differences between the 

two surveys. Although NISMART–2 contacted nearly 2.5 

times as many households as NISMART–1, the numbers of 

interviews completed and children represented were not 

proportionately larger. 

Of the 85,522 households contacted in NISMART–2, it was 

possible to screen 85 percent for the presence of children, 

yielding 20,170 eligible households with children. Of these, 

16,111 households (representing 31,787 children) yielded 

completed adult interviews, for a response rate of 61 percent. In NISMART–1, 11,617 eligible households yielded 

10,367 completed interviews (representing 20,138 children), 

for a response rate of 78 percent.* 

The recruitment statistics in the table show that the 

NISMART–2 sample yielded proportionately fewer contacts with households, fewer eligible households with children, fewer completed interviews among eligible households, and more telephone numbers with unknown 

eligibility. Only the percent of ineligible telephone numbers 

is similar between the two surveys. 

The outcome rates in the table, which are based on 

American Association for Public Opinion Research standard definitions (AAPOR, 2004), mirror the recruitment 

*Response rates for NISMART–1 and NISMART–2 have been computed 

with standard definition RR4 (AAPOR, 2004) to facilitate this comparison. 

The analysis offers evidence of statistically significant 

declines in incidence rates for children who experienced 

broad scope family abduction episodes and lost, injured, 

or otherwise missing episodes, plus some evidence of declines in incidence rates for children who experienced 

broad scope runaway episodes and policy focal lost, 

injured, otherwise missing episodes. Observed changes 

in incidence rates for children who experienced policy 

focal family abduction episodes and policy focal runaway 

episodes are not statistically significant. 

The most important finding is the absence of increases 

in any of these problems. This finding is consistent with 

growing evidence of improvements in child and youth 

well-being during the 1990s (Foundation for Child Development, 2004; Federal Interagency Forum, 2000; Johnston, O’Malley, and Bachman, 2000; U.S. Bureau of 

Justice Statistics, 2000; Jones and Finkelhor, 2001; 

Finkelhor and Jones, 2004). 

Such evidence suggests that the environment affecting 

children—possibly the economic resources available for 

statistics. NISMART-2 had a significantly lower contact rate 

(the proportion of all cases in which the survey reached 

some responsible member of the household) and cooperation rate (the proportion of completed interviews among 

eligible households) and a somewhat higher refusal rate 

(the proportion of all cases in which a household or 

respondent refuses to do an interview or breaks off an 

interview among all potentially eligible households). These 

outcomes yielded a lower response rate (the proportion of 

completed interviews among all eligible households in the 

sample) for NISMART–2. This is consistent with the increasing prevalence of nonresponse (including noncontact and 

refusals) noted by other researchers in general population 

surveys, particularly in random-digit dial surveys like NISMART (Groves and Couper, 1998; Hox and De Leeuw, 1994; 

Harris-Kojetin and Tucker, 1999; Steeh et al., 2001). 

The recruitment and outcome differences between 

NISMART–1 and NISMART–2 may stem from their use of 

different methodologies to sample and screen phone numbers. The differences may also reflect an increased reluctance of respondents to report the presence of children 

living in the household, or possibly a larger proportion 

of eligible households (i.e., households with children) 

“hidden” in phone numbers with unknown eligibility. 

A discussion of these differences and their potential implications will be available in OJJDP’s NISMART–2 Household Survey Methodology Technical Report (Hammer and 

Barr, forthcoming). 

their care, the quality of family life and parental attention, availability of social and medical services, and 

community safety and cohesion—has not worsened and 

may have improved. It is also possible that the allure of 

running away may have dissipated as parents have given 

children greater freedom and independence. The proliferation of cell phones and other modes of communication 

has made it easier to locate children and clear up misunderstandings, which may help to explain the decline in 

lost, injured, or otherwise missing children. 

Although the findings reported in this Bulletin are 

encouraging, they are no cause for complacency. The 

NISMART estimates for 1999 also reveal large numbers 

of children and youth still caught up in circumstances 

of crisis and vulnerability. The family and community 

problems these statistics reflect are unlikely to disappear 

anytime soon. 

Finally, methodological differences between the 1988 

and 1999 NISMART surveys (see sidebar on pages 4–7) 

may explain some of the change (and lack of change) 

reported in this Bulletin. Further analysis is required to 

6 
T 

Number Number 

Households contacted 34,820 58 85,522 45 

40,652 68 66 

30,268 87a 73,055 85a 

b 28b 

89c 80c 

Children in households where adults completed interviews 31,787 

d 

Contact rate 87 77 

Cooperation rate 89 80 

11 

78 61 

a 

b 

c 

d 

NISMAR

Sample Statistics for NISMART–1 and NISMART–2 Household Surveys 

Sample Statistic Category NISMART–1 NISMART–2 

Recruitment Percent Percent 

Telephone numbers called 60,000 100 188,477 100 

Numbers with unknown eligibility 7,731 13 44,318 23 

Ineligible numbers 123,989 

Households screened for children 

Screened households with children 11,617 38 20,170 

Completed interviews with adult caretakers 10,367 16,111 

20,138 

Outcome Rates Percent Percent 

Refusal rate 15 

Response rate 

Note: All percents are rounded to the nearest whole number. 

Percent computed from total households contacted. 

Percent computed from households screened for children. 

Percent computed from screened households with children (equivalent to 

cooperation rate, COOP2). 

Outcome rates are based on American Association for Public Opinion Research 

standard definitions CON2, COOP2, REF2, and RR4 (AAPOR, 2004).

reach definitive conclusions about the impact of these 

differences. 

Conclusion 

The period between 1988 and 1999 saw significant mobilization on behalf of missing children. Law enforcement 

officers received special training, and public awareness 

grew as a result of media coverage and educational programs disseminated to schools and families. Have these 

efforts made a difference? What else should be done? 

The kinds of data collected thus far are of limited use 

in answering these questions. Data gathered more frequently and more locally could provide a tool for public 

policy analysis that might lead to even greater effectiveness in combating the problem of missing children. 

References 

American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR). 

2004. Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes 

and Outcome Rates for Surveys. 3rd edition. Lenexa, KS: 

AAPOR. 

Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics. 

2000. America’s Children: Key National Indicators of WellBeing, 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing 

Office. 

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., Hotaling, G., and Sedlak, A. 1992. The abduction 

of children by strangers and nonfamily members: Estimating 

the incidence using multiple methods. Journal of Interpersonal 

Violence 7(2):226–243. 

Finkelhor, D., and Jones, L.M. 2004. Explanations for the 

Decline in Child Sexual Abuse Cases. Bulletin. Washington, 

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

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

Foundation for Child Development. 2004. The Foundation for 

Child Development Index of Child Well-Being (CWI), 

1975–2002. Durham, NC: Duke University, Foundation for 

Child Development. 

Groves, R.M., and Couper, M.P. 1998. Nonresponse in Household Interview Surveys. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, 

Inc. 

Hammer, H., and Barr, M.K. Forthcoming. NISMART–2 Household Survey Methodology Technical Report. 

Hammer, H., Finkelhor, D., and Sedlak, A. Forthcoming. 

Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children in 

America. Final Report of Estimates From the Second National 

Incidence Studies, NISMART–2. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile 

Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

7 
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 

Harris-Kojetin, B., and Tucker, C. 1999. Exploring the relation 

of economic and political conditions with refusal rates to a 

government survey. Journal of Official Statistics 15(2):67–184. 

Hox, J.J., and De Leeuw, E.D. 1994. A comparison of nonresponse in mail, telephone, and face-to-face surveys. Applying 

multilevel modeling to meta-analysis. Quality and Quantity 

28:329–344. 

Johnston, L.D., O’Malley, P.M., and Bachman, J.G. 2000. Monitoring the Future. National Results on Adolescent Drug Use: 

Overview of Key Findings 1999. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 

Jones, L., and Finkelhor, D. 2001. The Decline in Sexual Abuse 

Cases. Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 

Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

Sedlak, A.J., Mohadjer, L., and Hudock, V. 1990. NISMART 

Household Survey Methodology. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

Steeh, C., Kirgis, N., Cannon, B., and DeWitt, J. 2001. Are they 

really as bad as they seem? Nonresponse rates at the end of the 

twentieth century. Journal of Official Statistics 17(2):227–247. 

U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. 2000. National Crime Victimization Survey trends, 1973–98: Adjusted victimization rates. 

Retrieved August 13, 2000, from the Web: 

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs. 

*NCJ~206179*

PRESORTED STANDARD 

POSTAGE & FEES PAID 

DOJ/OJJDP 

PERMIT NO. G–91 

NISMART Bulletin Series NCJ 206179

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. 

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

authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies 

of OJJDP or the U.S. Department of Justice. 

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the 

Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the 

National Institute of Justice, and the Office for Victims of Crime. 

Acknowledgments 

Heather Hammer, Ph.D., is a Senior Study Director at the 

Temple University Institute for Survey Research, Philadelphia, 

PA, and Principal Investigator of NISMART–2. David Finkelhor, 

Ph.D., is Professor of Sociology and Director of the Crimes 

against Children Research Center, University of New 

Hampshire; and Advisor to NISMART–2. Andrea J. Sedlak, 

Ph.D., is Associate Director of Human Services Research at 

Westat, Inc.; Project Director of the NISMART–2 Unified 

Estimate, Juvenile Facilities Study, and Law Enforcement 

Study; and Advisor to the NISMART–2 Household Survey. 

Lorraine E. Porcellini, B.A., is Study Direction/Sampling 

Coordinator at the Temple University Institute for Survey 

Research. 

The authors extend their appreciation to the many individuals 

who contributed to this Bulletin, to OJJDP NISMART–2 

Program Manager Barbara Allen-Hagen, and to the NISMART 

survey respondents.