Download:
pdf |
pdfOMB Package Appendixes
Table of Contents
Appendix
Page
1
Authorizing Legislation ...........................................................................
1-1
2
IRB Approval..........................................................................................
2-1
3
NISMART Citations ...............................................................................
3-1
4
Title 34, United States Code, Section 10231 ............................................
4-1
5
28 CFR Part 22 .......................................................................................
5-1
6
Federal Assurances of Confidentiality and Other Notices........................
6-1
7
NISMART-3 Planning Papers .................................................................
7-1
8
LES-SK Pilot Materials
Attachment A
Attachment B
Attachment C
Attachment D
Attachment E
Attachment F
9
Pilot Survey Invitation Letter .........................................
Frequently Asked Questions ..........................................
Survey Reminder by Email or Telephone .......................
LES-SK Instrument .......................................................
Recording Comments ....................................................
Script for Telephone Follow-up Interviews....................
8-1
8-4
8-6
8-8
8-31
8-33
LES-SK Full Study
Attachment A Sample Letter from State Investigative Partner or
State Missing Children Clearinghouse Manager ..............
Attachment B Letter of Support from NIJ............................................
Attachment C Invitation Letter, Chief of Police/Sheriff .......................
Attachment D Mail Survey Screener......................................................
Attachment E FAQS Mail Survey Screener...........................................
Attachment F Thank you/Reminder Postcard......................................
Attachment G Second Reminder Letter.................................................
Attachment H Third Reminder Letter ...................................................
Attachment I Shortened Four-Question Survey...................................
Attachment J LES-SK Web Survey......................................................
Attachment K Invitation Letter for Web Survey, Investigating Officer .
Attachment L Frequently Asked Questions Phase 2: Web Survey.........
Attachment M Web Survey First Reminder Email .................................
Attachment N Web Survey Third Reminder Email................................
Attachment O Web Survey Second Reminder Email.............................
Attachment P Thank You Letter ..........................................................
iii
9-1
9-3
9-6
9-8
9-16
9-18
9-20
9-22
9-24
9-27
9-51
9-55
9-57
9-59
9-61
9-63
Contents (continued)
Appendix
10
Page
LES-FA Component 1 Materials
Attachment A
Attachment B
Attachment C
Attachment D
11
Invitation Letter, Targeted to Each of the 25 LEAs .......
Mail Survey Screener......................................................
Frequently Asked Questions ..........................................
Thank you/Reminder Postcard......................................
Second Reminder Letter.................................................
Third Reminder Letter ...................................................
Shortened Three-Question Survey .................................
10-13
11-1
11-5
11-12
11-14
11-16
11-19
11-21
LES-FA Component 3
Attachment A Draft LES-FA Questionnaire.........................................
Attachment B Web Survey Email Invite for Telephone Interview
(10 Cases).......................................................................
Attachment C Telephone Case Interview Introduction (10 Cases) ........
Attachment D Web Survey Email Invite ...............................................
Attachment E Invitation Letter for Web Survey, Investigating Officer .
Attachment F Frequently Asked Questions ..........................................
Attachment G Web Survey First Reminder Email .................................
Attachment H Web Survey Third Reminder Email................................
Attachment I Web Survey Second Reminder Email.............................
Attachment J Script for Telephone Follow-Up Interviews...................
13
10-1
10-4
10-11
LES-FA Component 2 Materials
Attachment A
Attachment B
Attachment C
Attachment D
Attachment E
Attachment F
Attachment G
12
Invitation Letter, Targeted to Each of the 5 LEAs.........
Mail Survey Screener......................................................
Frequently Asked Questions ..........................................
Follow-up Protocol and Questions for Search
Component....................................................................
12-1
12-17
12-20
12-22
12-25
12-28
12-31
12-33
12-35
12-37
LES-MC Component 1 Materials
Attachment A
Attachment B
Attachment C
Attachment D
Invitation Letter, Targeted to Each of the 5 LEAs.........
Mail Survey Screener......................................................
Frequently Asked Questions ..........................................
Follow-up Protocol and Questions for Search Component
......................................................................................
iv
13-1
13-4
13-12
13-14
Contents (continued)
Appendix
14
Page
LES-MC Component 2 Materials
Attachment A
Attachment B
Attachment C
Attachment D
Attachment E
Attachment F
Attachment G
15
Invitation Letter, Targeted to Each of the 25 LEAs .......
Mail Survey Screener......................................................
Frequently Asked Questions ..........................................
Thank You/Reminder Postcard .....................................
Second Reminder Letter.................................................
Third Reminder Letter ...................................................
Shortened Three-Question Survey .................................
14-1
14-5
14-13
14-15
14-17
14-20
14-22
LES-MC Component 3
Attachment A Draft LES-MC Questionnaire........................................
Attachment B Web Survey Email Invite for Telephone Interview
(10 Cases).......................................................................
Attachment C Telephone Case Interview Introduction (10 Cases) ........
Attachment D Web Survey Email Invite (20 Cases)...............................
Attachment E Invitation Letter for Web Survey, Investigating Officer .
Attachment F Frequently Asked Questions ..........................................
Attachment G Web Survey First Reminder Email .................................
Attachment H Web Survey Third Reminder Email................................
Attachment I Web Survey Second Reminder Email.............................
Attachment J Script for Telephone Follow-Up Interviews...................
v
15-1
15-12
15-15
15-17
15-20
15-23
15-26
15-28
15-30
15-32
Appendix 1
Authorizing Legislation
34 USC 11293: Duties and functions of the Administrator
Text contains those laws in effect on August 16, 2018
From Title 34-CRIME CONTROL AND LAW ENFORCEMENT
Subtitle I-Comprehensive Acts
CHAPTER 111-JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION
SUBCHAPTER IV-MISSING CHILDREN
§11293. Duties and functions of the Administrator
(a) Description of activities
The Administrator shall(1) issue such rules as the Administrator considers necessary or appropriate to carry out this
subchapter;
(2) make such arrangements as may be necessary and appropriate to facilitate effective
coordination among all federally funded programs relating to missing children (including the
preparation of an annual comprehensive plan for facilitating such coordination);
(3) provide for the furnishing of information derived from the national toll-free telephone line,
established under subsection (b)(1), to appropriate entities;
(4) coordinate with the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness to ensure that
homeless services professionals are aware of educational resources and assistance provided by the
Center regarding child sexual exploitation;
(5) provide adequate staff and agency resources which are necessary to properly carry out the
responsibilities pursuant to this subchapter; and
(6) not later than 180 days after the end of each fiscal year, submit a report to the President,
Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Committee on Education and the Workforce of the
House of Representatives, the President pro tempore of the Senate, and the Committee on the
Judiciary of the Senate(A) containing a comprehensive plan for facilitating cooperation and coordination in the
succeeding fiscal year among all agencies and organizations with responsibilities related to
missing children;
(B) identifying and summarizing effective models of Federal, State, and local coordination
and cooperation in locating and recovering missing children;
(C) identifying and summarizing effective program models that provide treatment,
counseling, or other aid to parents of missing children or to children who have been the
victims of abduction;
(D) describing how the Administrator satisfied the requirements of paragraph (4) in the
preceding fiscal year;
(E) describing in detail the number and types of telephone calls received in the preceding
fiscal year over the national toll-free telephone line established under subsection (b)(1)(A) and
the number and types of communications referred to the national communications system
established under section 11231 of this title;
(F) describing in detail the activities in the preceding fiscal year of the national resource
center and clearinghouse established under subsection (b)(2);
(G) describing all the programs for which assistance was provided under section 11294 of
this title in the preceding fiscal year;
(H) summarizing the results of all research completed in the preceding year for which
assistance was provided at any time under this subchapter; and
Authorizing Legislation
1 -1
(I)(i) identifying each clearinghouse with respect to which assistance is provided
under section 11294(a)(9) of this title in the preceding fiscal year;
(ii) describing the activities carried out by such clearinghouse in such fiscal year;
(iii) specifying the types and amounts of assistance (other than assistance under section
11294(a)(9) of this title) received by such clearinghouse in such fiscal year; and
(iv) specifying the number and types of missing children cases handled (and the number of
such cases resolved) by such clearinghouse in such fiscal year and summarizing the
circumstances of each such cases.1
(b) Annual grant to National Center for Missing and Exploited Children
(1) In general
The Administrator shall annually make a grant to the Center, which shall be used to(A)(i) operate a national 24-hour toll-free telephone line by which individuals may report
information regarding the location of any missing child, and request information pertaining to
procedures necessary to reunite such child with such child's legal custodian; and
(ii) coordinate the operation of such telephone line with the operation of the national
communications system referred to in part C of subchapter III;
(B) operate the official national resource center and information clearinghouse for missing
and exploited children;
(C) provide to State and local governments, public and private nonprofit agencies, State and
local educational agencies, and individuals, information regarding(i) free or low-cost legal, restaurant, lodging, and transportation services that are available
for the benefit of missing and exploited children and their families; and
(ii) the existence and nature of programs being carried out by Federal agencies to assist
missing and exploited children and their families;
(D) coordinate public and private programs that locate, recover, or reunite missing children
with their families;
(E) disseminate, on a national basis, information relating to innovative and model programs,
services, and legislation that benefit missing and exploited children;
(F) based solely on reports received by the National Center for Missing and Exploited
Children (NCMEC), and not involving any data collection by NCMEC other than the receipt
of those reports, annually provide to the Department of Justice's Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention(i) the number of children nationwide who are reported to NCMEC as missing;
(ii) the number of children nationwide who are reported to NCMEC as victims of nonfamily abductions;
(iii) the number of children nationwide who are reported to NCMEC as victims of
parental kidnappings; and
(iv) the number of children recovered nationwide whose recovery was reported to
NCMEC;
(G) provide, at the request of State and local governments, and public and private nonprofit
agencies, guidance on how to facilitate the lawful use of school records and birth certificates to
identify and locate missing children;
Authorizing Legislation
1 -2
(H) provide technical assistance and training to law enforcement agencies, State and local
governments, elements of the criminal justice system, public and private nonprofit agencies,
and individuals in the prevention, investigation, prosecution, and treatment of cases involving
missing and exploited children, including cases involving children with developmental
disabilities such as autism;
(I) provide assistance to families and law enforcement agencies in locating and recovering
missing and exploited children, both nationally and, in cooperation with the Department of
State, internationally;
(J) provide analytical support and technical assistance to law enforcement agencies through
searching public records databases in locating and recovering missing and exploited children
and helping to locate and identify abductors;
(K) provide direct on-site technical assistance and consultation to law enforcement agencies
in child abduction and exploitation cases;
(L) provide forensic technical assistance and consultation to law enforcement and other
agencies in the identification of unidentified deceased children through facial reconstruction of
skeletal remains and similar techniques;
(M) track the incidence of attempted child abductions in order to identify links and patterns,
and provide such information to law enforcement agencies;
(N) provide training and assistance to law enforcement agencies in identifying and locating
non-compliant sex offenders;
(O) facilitate the deployment of the National Emergency Child Locator Center to assist in
reuniting missing children with their families during periods of national disasters;
(P) operate a cyber tipline to provide online users and electronic service providers an
effective means of reporting Internet-related child sexual exploitation in the areas of(i) possession, manufacture, and distribution of child pornography;
(ii) online enticement of children for sexual acts;
(iii) child sex trafficking, including child prostitution;
(iv) sex tourism involving children;
(v) extrafamilial child sexual molestation;
(vi) unsolicited obscene material sent to a child;
(vii) misleading domain names; and
(viii) misleading words or digital images on the Internet,
and subsequently to transmit such reports, including relevant images and information, to the
appropriate international, Federal, State or local law enforcement agency for investigation;
(Q) work with law enforcement, Internet service providers, electronic payment service
providers, and others on methods to reduce the distribution on the Internet of images and
videos of sexually exploited children;
(R) operate a child victim identification program in order to assist the efforts of law
enforcement agencies in identifying victims of child pornography and other sexual crimes;
(S) develop and disseminate programs and information to the general public, schools, public
officials, youth-serving organizations, and nonprofit organizations, directly or through grants or
contracts with public agencies and public and private nonprofit organizations, on(i) the prevention of child abduction and sexual exploitation; and
(ii) internet safety;
Authorizing Legislation
1 -3
(T) provide technical assistance and training to State and local law enforcement agencies and
statewide clearinghouses to coordinate with State and local educational agencies in identifying
and recovering missing children;
(U) assist the efforts of law enforcement agencies in coordinating with child welfare agencies
to respond to foster children missing from the State welfare system; and
(V) provide technical assistance to law enforcement agencies and first responders in
identifying, locating, and recovering victims of, and children at risk for, child sex trafficking.
(2) Limitation
(A) In general
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no Federal funds may be used to pay the
compensation of an individual employed by the Center if such compensation, as determined at
the beginning of each grant year, exceeds 110 percent of the maximum annual salary payable to
a member of the Federal Government's Senior Executive Service (SES) for that year. The
Center may compensate an employee at a higher rate provided the amount in excess of this
limitation is paid with non-Federal funds.
(B) Definition of compensation
For the purpose of this paragraph, the term "compensation"(i) includes salary, bonuses, periodic payments, severance pay, the value of a
compensatory or paid leave benefit not excluded by clause (ii), and the fair market value of
any employee perquisite or benefit not excluded by clause (ii); and
(ii) excludes any Center expenditure for health, medical, or life insurance, or disability or
retirement pay, including pensions benefits.
(c) National incidence studies
The Administrator, either by making grants to or entering into contracts with public agencies or
nonprofit private agencies, shall(1) triennially conduct national incidence studies to determine for a given year the actual
number of children reported missing each year, the number of children who are victims of
abduction by strangers, the number of children who are the victims of parental kidnappings, and
the number of children who are recovered each year; and
(2) provide to State and local governments, public and private nonprofit agencies, and
individuals information to facilitate the lawful use of school records and birth certificates, in
compliance with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (20 U.S.C. 1232g) 2 to
identify and locate missing children.
(d) Independent status of other Federal agencies
Nothing contained in this subchapter shall be construed to grant to the Administrator any law
enforcement responsibility or supervisory authority over any other Federal agency.
(Pub. L. 93–415, title IV, §404, as added Pub. L. 98–473, title II, §660, Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2126 ;
amended Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, §7285, Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4459 ; Pub. L. 101–204, title X,
§1004(2), Dec. 7, 1989, 103 Stat. 1828 ; Pub. L. 106–71, §2(c), Oct. 12, 1999, 113 Stat. 1034 ; Pub. L.
107–273, div. C, title II, §12221(b)(2), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1894 ; Pub. L. 108–21, title III,
§§321(b), 323, Apr. 30, 2003, 117 Stat. 664 , 665; Pub. L. 108–96, title II, §202(a), Oct. 10, 2003, 117
Stat. 1172 ; Pub. L. 110–240, §3, June 3, 2008, 122 Stat. 1561 ; Pub. L. 113–38, §2(b), Sept. 30,
Authorizing Legislation
1 -4
2013, 127 Stat. 527 ; Pub. L. 114–22, title II, §211, May 29, 2015, 129 Stat. 249 ; Pub. L. 115–
141, div. Q, title II, §201, Mar. 23, 2018, 132 Stat. 1120 .)
REFERENCES IN TEXT
The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974, referred to in subsec. (c)(2), is section
513 of Pub. L. 93–380, title V, Aug. 21, 1974, 88 Stat. 571 , which enacted section 1232g of Title 20,
Education, and provisions set out as notes under sections 1221 and 1232g of Title 20. For complete
classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title of 1974 Amendment note set out under section
1221 of Title 20 and Tables.
CODIFICATION
Section was formerly classified to section 5773 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, prior
to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section. Some section numbers or references in
amendment notes below reflect the classification of such sections or references prior to editorial
reclassification.
PRIOR PROVISIONS
A prior section 404 of Pub. L. 93–415 amended section 3882 of Title 42, The Public Health and
Welfare, and was repealed by Pub. L. 95–115, §10, Oct. 3, 1977, 91 Stat. 1061 , and Pub. L. 107–
273,div. C, title II, §12221(a)(4), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1894 .
A MENDMENTS
2018-Subsec. (b)(1)(H). Pub. L. 115–141 inserted ", including cases involving children with
developmental disabilities such as autism" before semicolon at end.
2015-Subsec. (b)(1)(P)(iii). Pub. L. 114–22 substituted "child sex trafficking, including child
prostitution" for "child prostitution".
2013-Subsec. (a)(4). Pub. L. 113–38, §2(b)(1)(C), added par. (4). Former par. (4) redesignated (5).
Subsec. (a)(5). Pub. L. 113–38, §2(b)(1)(B), redesignated par. (4) as (5). Former par. (5)
redesignated (6).
Pub. L. 113–38, §2(b)(1)(A), in introductory provisions, substituted "Representatives, the
Committee on Education and the Workforce of the House of Representatives," for
"Representatives, and" and inserted ", and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate" after
"Senate".
Subsec. (a)(6). Pub. L. 113–38, §2(b)(1)(B), redesignated par. (5) as (6).
Subsec. (b)(1)(C). Pub. L. 113–38, §2(b)(2)(A)(i), in introductory provisions, struck out "and" after
"governments," and inserted "State and local educational agencies," after "nonprofit agencies,".
Subsec. (b)(1)(T) to (V). Pub. L. 113–38, §2(b)(2)(A)(ii)–(iv), added subpars. (T) to (V).
Subsec. (b)(2). Pub. L. 113–38, §2(b)(2)(B), amended par. (2) generally. Prior to amendment, text
read as follows: "There is authorized to be appropriated to the Administrator to carry out this
subsection, $40,000,000 for fiscal year 2008 and such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 2009
through 2013."
Authorizing Legislation
1 -5
Subsec. (c)(1). Pub. L. 113–38, §2(b)(3), substituted "triennially" for "periodically" and
"kidnappings" for "kidnapings".
Subsec. (c)(2). Pub. L. 113–38, §2(b)(4), inserted ", in compliance with the Family Educational
Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (20 U.S.C. 1232g)" after "birth certificates".
2008-Subsec. (b)(1). Pub. L. 110–240, §3(1), amended par. (1) generally. Prior to amendment, par.
(1) consisted of subpars. (A) to (H) relating to annual grants to Center.
Subsec. (b)(2). Pub. L. 110–240, §3(2), substituted "$40,000,000 for fiscal year 2008 and such
sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 2009 through 2013" for "$20,000,000 for each of the fiscal
years 2004 through 2008".
2003-Subsec. (b)(1)(H). Pub. L. 108–21, §323, added subpar. (H).
Subsec. (b)(2). Pub. L. 108–96 substituted "2008" for "2005".
Pub. L. 108–21, §321(b), substituted "$20,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2004 through 2005"
for "$10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003".
2002-Subsec. (a)(5)(E). Pub. L. 107–273 substituted "section 5714–11" for "section 5712a".
1999-Subsecs. (b) to (d). Pub. L. 106–71 added subsecs. (b) and (c), redesignated former subsec.
(c) as (d), and struck out former subsec. (b) which related to the establishment of toll-free telephone
line and national resource center and clearinghouse, conduct of national incidence studies, and use
of school records and birth certificates.
1989-Subsec. (a)(5)(C). Pub. L. 101–204, §1004(2)(A), substituted semicolon for comma at end.
Subsec. (b)(2)(A). Pub. L. 101–204, §1004(2)(B), inserted "to" before "provide to State".
1988-Subsec. (a)(3). Pub. L. 100–690, §7285(a)(1), struck out "law enforcement" before "entities".
Subsec. (a)(4). Pub. L. 100–690, §7285(a)(2), inserted "and" at end.
Subsec. (a)(5). Pub. L. 100–690, §7285(a)(3), amended par. (5) generally. Prior to amendment, par.
(5) read as follows: "analyze, compile, publish, and disseminate an annual summary of recently
completed research, research being conducted, and Federal, State, and local demonstration projects
relating to missing children with particular emphasis on"(A) effective models of local, State, and Federal coordination and cooperation in locating
missing children;
"(B) effective programs designed to promote community awareness of the problem of
missing children;
"(C) effective programs to prevent the abduction and sexual exploitation of children
(including parent, child, and community education); and
"(D) effective program models which provide treatment, counseling, or other aid to parents
of missing children or to children who have been the victims of abduction or sexual exploitation;
and".
Authorizing Legislation
1 -6
Subsec. (a)(6). Pub. L. 100–690, §7285(a)(4), struck out par. (6), which read as follows: "prepare,
in conjunction with and with the final approval of the Advisory Board on Missing Children, an
annual comprehensive plan for facilitating cooperation and coordination among all agencies and
organizations with responsibilities related to missing children."
Subsec. (b)(1). Pub. L. 100–690, §7285(b)(1), designated existing provisions as subpar. (A),
inserted "24-hour" after "national" and "and" at end, and added subpar. (B).
Subsec. (b)(2)(A). Pub. L. 100–690, §7285(b)(2)(A), amended subpar. (A) generally. Prior to
amendment, subpar. (A) read as follows: "to provide technical assistance to local and State
governments, public and private nonprofit agencies, and individuals in locating and recovering
missing children;".
Subsec. (b)(2)(D). Pub. L. 100–690, §7285(b)(2)(B), inserted "and training" after "assistance" and
"and in locating and recovering missing children" before semicolon.
Subsec. (b)(4). Pub. L. 100–690, §7285(b)(3), (4), added par. (4).
EFFECTIVE D ATE OF 2002 A MENDMENT
Amendment by Pub. L. 107–273 effective on the first day of the first fiscal year that begins after
Nov. 2, 2002, and applicable only with respect to fiscal years beginning on or after the first day of
the first fiscal year that begins after Nov. 2, 2002, see section 12223 of Pub. L. 107–273, set out as a
note under section 11101 of this title.
EFFECTIVE D ATE OF 1988 A MENDMENT
Amendment by Pub. L. 100–690 effective Oct. 1, 1988, with the report required by subsec. (a)(6)
of this section with respect to fiscal year 1988 to be submitted not later than Aug. 1, 1989,
notwithstanding the 180-day period provided in subsec. (a)(6) of this section, see section 7296(a),
(b)(3) of Pub. L. 100–690, set out as a note under section 11101 of this title.
TERMINATION OF REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
For termination, effective May 15, 2000, of provisions in subsec. (a)(6) of this section relating to
submittal of annual report to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro
tempore of the Senate, see section 3003 of Pub. L. 104–66, set out as a note under section 1113 of
Title 31, Money and Finance, and the 2nd item on page 122 of House Document No. 103–7.
Authorizing Legislation
1 -7
Appendix 2
IRB Approval
Date:
December 15, 2017
To:
Crystal MacAllum, Project Director
From:
Subject:
Sharon Zack, Administrator, Westat IRB
Expedited Approval of NISMCRLE, Project Number 6562
FWA 00005551
As Administrator of the Westat Institutional Review Board (IRB), I reviewed the materials submitted for
the following: NISMCRLE, Project Number 6562. The Westat IRB reviews all studies involving
research on human subjects. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention funds this study.
Surveys will be completed by law enforcement officers about abduction cases they investigate.
IRB regulations permit expedited review of certain activities involving minimal risk [28 CFR pt. 46.110,
45 CFR pt. 46.110]. This study can be considered minimal risk and is approved under expedited
authority. Per [28 pt 46.117(c), 45 CFR 46.117(c)], a waiver of documentation of informed consent is
also approved as the research presents no more than minimal risk of harm to subjects and involves no
procedures for which written consent is normally conducted outside of the research context.
As the Project Director, you are responsible for the following:
•
•
•
cc:
Ensure that all final participant materials are reviewed by the IRB Office before being used for
this research.
Submit this study for a continuing review before December 15, 2018.
In the interim, notify the IRB Office as soon as possible if there are any injuries to
subjects as well as problems or changes with the study that relate to human subjects.
Institutional Review Board Janet Ciarico
IRB Approval
2 -1
Date:
August 1, 2018
To:
Crystal MacAllum, Project Director
From:
Sharon Zack, Administrator, Westat IRB
Subject:
Amendment Approval of NISMCRLE, Project Number 6562 FWA 00005551
Transaction # 2803
As Administrator of the Westat Institutional Review Board (IRB), I reviewed the materials submitted for
the following: NISMCRLE, Project Number 6562. The Westat IRB reviews all studies involving
research on human subjects. This project was last reviewed in December 2017.
This amendment included a request to approve invitation letters and other respondent
correspondence for all 4 data collections, as well as the data collection instruments.
The regulations (28 CFR 46; 45 CFR 46) permit expedited review of minor changes in previously
approved activities. I am therefore approving the modifications under expedited authority.
•
•
cc:
You are required to submit this study for a continuing review before December 15, 2018.
In the interim, you are responsible for notifying the IRB Office as soon as possible if there are any
injuries to the subjects as well as problems or changes with the study that relate to human subjects.
Institutional Review Board Janet Ciarico
IRB Approval
2 -2
Appendix 3
NISMART Citations
NISMART Citations
Asdigian, N., Finkelhor, D., and Hotaling, G.T. (1995). Varieties of Non-Family Abduction of Children &
Adolescents. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 22(3):215-232.
Finkelhor, D., Hammer, H., and Sedlak, A.J. (2002). Nonfamily Abducted Children: National Estimates
and Characteristics. Juvenile Justice Bulletin–NCJ196467, 1-16.
Finkelhor, D., Henley, M., Turner, H., & Hamby, S. (2017). Family Abduction in a National Sample of US
Children. Child Abuse and Neglect, 67, 403-407.
Finkelhor, D., Hotaling G.T., and Sedlak, A.J. (1992). The Abduction of Children By Strangers and NonFamily Members: Estimating the Incidence Using Multiple Methods. The Journal of Interpersonal Violence,
7(2):226-243.
Finkelhor, D., Hotaling G.T., and Sedlak, A.J. (1991). Children Abducted by Family Members: A National
Household Survey of Incidence and Episode Characteristics. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53: 805-817.
Order (MC3)
Finkelhor, D., Hotaling G.T., and Sedlak, A.J. (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.T., and Asdigian, N. (1995). Attempted Non-Family Abduction. Child Welfare,
74(5):941-955.
Hammer, H., Finkelhor, D., Ormrod, R., Sedlak, A.J., and Bruce, C. (2008). Caretaker Satisfaction with
Law Enforcement Response to Missing Children. Juvenile Justice Bulletin - NCJ217909, 1-8.
Hammer, H., Finkelhor, D., and Sedlak, A.J. (2002). Children Abducted by Family Members: National
Estimates and Characteristics. Juvenile Justice Bulletin – NCJ196466, 1-12.
Hammer, H., Finkelhor, D., and Sedlak, A.J. (2002). Runaway/Thrownaway Children: National Estimates
and Characteristics. Juvenile Justice Bulletin – NCJ196469, 1-12.
Hammer, H., Finkelhor, D., Sedlak, A.J., and Porcellini L. (2004). National Estimates of Missing Children:
Selected Trends, 1988-1999. Juvenile Justice Bulletin - NCJ206179, 1-8.
NISMART C itations
3 -1
Hammer, H., Sedlak, A.J., and Finkelhor, D. (2005 ). National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway,
and Thrownaway Children (NISMART), 1999. Household Survey Technical Report. Philadelphia, PA: Temple
University, Institute for Survey Research.
Highlights from the NISMART Bulletins. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (2002).
Juvenile Justice Fact Sheet.
Plass, P.S. (2007). Secondary Victimizations in Missing Child Events. American Journal of Criminal Justice,
32(1-2), 30-44.
Plass, P.S., Finkelhor, D., & Hotaling, G.T. (1997). Risk Factors for Family Abduction: Demographic and
Family Interaction Characteristics. Journal of Family Violence, 12(3), 333-348.
Plass P., Finkelhor, D., and Hotaling G.T. (1996). Family Abduction Outcomes: Factors Associated with
Duration and Emotional Trauma to Children. Journal of Youth & Society, 28(1): 109-130.
Plass, P.S., & Hotaling, G.T. (1995). The Intergenerational Transmission of Running Away: Childhood
Experiences of the Parents of Runaways. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 24(3), 335-348.
Plass P., Hotaling, G.T., and Finkelhor, D. (1995). Police Involvement in Family Abduction Episodes.
Crime & Delinquency, 41(2):205-218.
Sedlak, A.J., Finkelhor, D., & Brick, J.M. (2017). National Estimates of Missing Children: Updated
Findings from a Survey of Parents and Other Primary Caretakers. Juvenile Justice Bulletin – NCJ 250089.
Sedlak, A.J., Brick, J.M., and Brock, S. (2016). NISMART–3/Third National Incidence Studies of Missing,
Abducted, Runaway and Thrownaway Children: Household Survey Methodology. Rockville, MD: Rockville Institute.
Sedlak, A.J., Finkelhor, D., and Hammer, H. (2005). National Estimates of Children Missing Involuntarily
or for Benign Reasons. Juvenile Justice Bulletin - NCJ206180, 1-12.
Sedlak, A.J., Finkelhor, D., Hammer, H., and Schultz, D.J. (2002). National Estimates of Missing Children:
An Overview. Juvenile Justice Bulletin – NCJ196465, 1-12.
Shutt, J.E., Miller, J.M., Schreck, C.J., & Brown, N.K. (2004). Reconsidering the Leading Myths of Stranger
Child Abduction. Criminal Justice Studies: A Critical Journal of Crime, Law and Society, 17(1), 127-134.
Wolak, J., Finkelhor, D., and Sedlak, A.J. (2016). Child Victims of Stereotypical Kidnappings Known to
Law Enforcement in 2011. Juvenile Justice Bulletin - NCJ 249249, 1-20.
NISMART C itations
3 -2
Appendix 4
Title 34, United States Code, Section 10231
§10231. Confidentiality of information
(a) Research or statistical information; immunity from process; prohibition against admission
as evidence or use in any proceedings
No officer or employee of the Federal Government, and no recipient of assistance under the provisions
of this chapter shall use or reveal any research or statistical information furnished under this chapter by any
person and identifiable to any specific private person for any purpose other than the purpose for which it
was obtained in accordance with this chapter. Such information and copies thereof shall be immune from
legal process, and shall not, without the consent of the person furnishing such information, be admitted as
evidence or used for any purpose in any action, suit, or other judicial, legislative, or administrative
proceedings.
(b) Criminal history information; disposition and arrest data; procedures for collection,
storage, dissemination, and current status; security and privacy; availability for law
enforcement, criminal justice, and other lawful purposes; automated systems: review,
challenge, and correction of information
All criminal history information collected, stored, or disseminated through support under this chapter
shall contain, to the maximum extent feasible, disposition as well as arrest data where arrest data is included
therein. The collection, storage, and dissemination of such information shall take place under procedures
reasonably designed to insure that all such information is kept current therein; the Office of Justice
Programs shall assure that the security and privacy of all information is adequately provided for and that
information shall only be used for law enforcement and criminal justice and other lawful purposes. In
addition, an individual who believes that criminal history information concerning him contained in an
automated system is inaccurate, incomplete, or maintained in violation of this chapter, shall, upon
satisfactory verification of his identity, be entitled to review such information and to obtain a copy of it for
the purpose of challenge or correction.
(c) Criminal intelligence systems and information; prohibition against violation of privacy and
constitutional rights of individuals
All criminal intelligence systems operating through support under this chapter shall collect, maintain,
and disseminate criminal intelligence information in conformance with policy standards which are
prescribed by the Office of Justice Programs and which are written to assure that the funding and operation
of these systems furthers the purpose of this chapter and to assure that such systems are not utilized in
violation of the privacy and constitutional rights of individuals.
(d) Violations; fine as additional penalty
Any person violating the provisions of this section, or of any rule, regulation, or order issued thereunder,
shall be fined not to exceed $10,000, in addition to any other penalty imposed by law.
(Pub. L. 90–351, title I, §812, formerly §818, as added Pub. L. 96–157, §2, Dec. 27, 1979, 93 Stat.
1213 ; renumbered §812 and amended Pub. L. 98–473, title II, §609B(f), (k), Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat.
2093 , 2096; Pub. L. 109–162, title XI, §1115(c), Jan. 5, 2006, 119 Stat. 3104 .)
CODIFICATION
Section was formerly classified to section 3789g of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, prior to
editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.
PRIOR PROVIS IONS
A prior section 812 of Pub. L. 90–351 was classified to section 3789a of Title 42, The Public Health and
Welfare, prior to repeal by section 609B(e) of Pub. L. 98–473.
Title 34, United States C ode, Section 1 0 2 3 1
4 -1
AMENDMENTS
2006-Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 109–162 substituted "No" for "Except as provided by Federal law other than
this chapter, no".
1984-Subsecs. (b), (c). Pub. L. 98–473, 609B(k), substituted "Office of Justice Programs" for "Office of
Justice Assistance, Research, and Statistics".
EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1984 AMENDMENT
Amendment by section 609B(k) of Pub. L. 98–473 effective Oct. 12, 1984, see section 609AA(a) of Pub.
L. 98–473, set out as an Effective Date note under section 10101 of this title.
CONS TRUCTION
Terms "this chapter" and "this section", as such terms appear in this section, deemed to be references to
chapter 501 and section 50105 of this title, respectively, and reference to the Office of Justice Programs in
this section deemed to be a reference to the Attorney General, see section 50105 of this title.
Title 34, United States C ode, Section 1 0 2 3 1
4 -2
Appendix 5
28 CFR Part 22
Confidentiality of Identifiable Research and Statistical Information
(28 CFR Part 22)
PART 22—CONFIDENTIALITY OF IDENTIFIABLE RESEARCH AND STATISTICAL INFORMATION
Sec.
22.1
Purpose.
22.2
Definitions.
22.20
Applicability.
22.21
Use of identifiable data.
22.22
Revelation of identifiable data.
22.23
Privacy certification.
22.24
Information transfer agreement.
22.25
Final disposition of identifiable materials.
22.26
Requests for transfer of information.
22.27
Notification.
22.28
Use of data identifiable to a private person for judicial, legislative or administrative purposes.
22.29
Sanctions.
AUTHORITY : Secs. 801(a), 812(a), Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 3701,
et seq., as amended (Pub. L. 90–351, as amended by Pub. L. 93–83, Pub. L. 93–415, Pub. L. 94–430, Pub. L.
94–503, Pub. L. 95–115, Pub. L. 96–157, and Pub. L. 98–473); secs. 262(b), 262(d), Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, 42 U.S.C. 5601, et seq., as amended (Pub. L. 93–415, as amended by
Pub. L. 94–503, Pub. L. 95–115, Pub. L. 99–509, and Pub. L. 98–473); and secs. 1407(a) and 1407(d) of the
Victims of Crime Act of 1984, 42 U.S.C. 10601, et seq., Pub. L. 98–473.
SOURCE : 41 FR 54846, Dec. 15, 1976, unless otherwise noted.
§ 22.1 Purpose.
The purpose of these regulations is to:
(a) Protect privacy of individuals by requiring that information identifiable to a private person obtained
in a research or statistical program may only be used and/or revealed for the purpose for which obtained;
(b) Insure that copies of such information shall not, without the consent of the person to whom the
information pertains, be admitted as evidence or used for any purpose in any judicial or administrative
proceedings;
(c) Increase the credibility and reliability of federally-supported research and statistical findings by
minimizing subject concern over subsequent uses of identifiable information;
2 8 C F R Part 2 2
5 -1
(d) Provide needed guidance to persons engaged in research and statistical activities by clarifying the
purposes for which identifiable information may be used or revealed; and
(e) Insure appropriate balance between individual privacy and essential needs of the research community
for data to advance the state of knowledge in the area of criminal justice.
(f) Insure the confidentiality of information provided by crime victims to crisis intervention counselors
working for victim services programs receiving funds provided under the Crime Control Act, the Juvenile
Justice Act, and the Victims of Crime Act.
[41 FR 54846, Dec. 15, 1976, as amended at 51 FR 6400, Feb. 24, 1986]
§ 22.2 Definitions.
(a) Person means any individual, partnership, corporation, association, public or private organization or
governmental entity, or combination thereof.
(b) Private person means any person defined in § 22.2(a) other than an agency, or department of Federal,
State, or local government, or any component or combination thereof. Included as a private person is an indi
vidual acting in his or her official capacity.
(c) Research or statistical project means any program, project, or component thereof which is supported
in whole or in part with funds appropriated under the Act and whose purpose is to develop, measure, evaluate,
or otherwise advance the state of knowledge in a particular area. The term does not include “intelligence” or
other information-gathering activities in which information pertaining to specific individuals is obtained for
purposes directly related to enforcement of the criminal laws.
(d) Research or statistical information means any information which is collected during the conduct of a
research or statistical project and which is intended to be utilized for research or statistical purposes. The term
includes information which is collected directly from the individual or obtained from any agency or individual
having possession, knowledge, or control thereof.
(e) Information identifiable to a private person means information which either—
(1) Is labeled by name or other personal identifiers, or
(2) Can, by virtue of sample size or other factors, be reasonably interpreted as referring to a particular
private person.
(f) Recipient of assistance means any recipient of a grant, contract, interagency agreement, subgrant, or
subcontract under the Act and any person, including subcontractors, employed by such recipient in connection
with performances of the grant, contract, or interagency agreement.
(g) Officer or employee of the Federal Government means any person employed as a regular or special
employee of the U.S. (including experts, consultants, and advisory board members) as of July 1, 1973, or at
any time thereafter.
(h) The act means the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended.
(i) Applicant means any person who applies for a grant, contract, or subgrant to be funded pursuant to
the Act.
2 8 C F R Part 2 2
5 -2
(j) The Juvenile Justice Act means the “Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, as
amended.”
(k) The Victims of Crime Act means the Victims of Crime Act of 1984.
[41 FR 54846, Dec. 15, 1976, as amended at 43 FR 16974, Apr. 21, 1978; 51 FR 6400, Feb. 24, 1986]
§ 22.20 Applicability.
(a) These regulations govern use and revelation of research and statistical information obtained, collect
ed, or produced either directly by BJA, OJJDP, BJS, NIJ, or OJP or under any interagency agreement, grant,
contract, or subgrant awarded under the Crime Control Act, the Juvenile Justice Act, and the Victims of
Crime Act.
(b) The regulations do not apply to any records from which identifiable research or statistical informa
tion was originally obtained; or to any records which are designated under existing statutes as public; or to
any information extracted from any records designated as public.
(c) The regulations do not apply to information gained regarding future criminal conduct.
[41 FR 54846, Dec. 15, 1976, as amended at 43 FR 16974, Apr. 21, 1978; 51 FR 6400, 6401, Feb. 24, 1986]
§ 22.21 Use of identifiable data.
Research or statistical information identifiable to a private person may be used only for research or
statistical purposes.
§ 22.22 Revelation of identifiable data.
(a) Except as noted in paragraph (b) of this section, research and statistical information relating to a
private person may be revealed in identifiable form on a need-to-know basis only to—
(1) Officers, employees, and subcontractors of the recipient of assistance;
(2) Such individuals as needed to implement sections 202(c)(3), 801, and 811(b) of the Act; and sections
223(a)(12)(A), 223(a)(13), 223(a)(14), and 243 of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act.
(3) Persons or organizations for research or statistical purposes. Information may only be transferred for
such purposes upon a clear demonstration that the standards of § 22.26 have been met and that, except where
information is transferred under paragraphs (a) (1) and (2) of this section, such transfers shall be conditioned
on compliance with a § 22.24 agreement.
(b) Information may be revealed in identifiable form where prior consent is obtained from an individual
or where the individual has agreed to participate in a project with knowledge that the findings cannot, by
virtue of sample size, or uniqueness of subject, be expected to totally conceal subject identity.
[41 FR 54846, Dec. 15, 1976, as amended at 51 FR 6400, Feb. 24, 1986]
§ 22.23 Privacy certification.
(a) Each applicant for BJA, OJJDP, BJS, NIJ, or OJP support either directly or under a State plan shall
submit a Privacy Certificate as a condition of approval of a grant application or contract proposal which has
a research or statistical project component under which information identifiable to a private person will be
collected.
2 8 C F R Part 2 2
5 -3
(b) The Privacy Certificate shall briefly describe the project and shall contain assurance by the applicant
that:
(1) Data identifiable to a private person will not be used or revealed, except as authorized under
§§ 22.21, 22.22.
(2) Access to data will be limited to those employees having a need therefore and that such persons shall
be advised of and agree in writing to comply with these regulations.
(3) All subcontracts which require access to identifiable data will contain conditions meeting the require
ments of § 22.24.
(4) To the extent required by § 22.27 any private persons from whom identifiable data are collected or
obtained, either orally or by means of written questionnaire, shall be advised that the data will only be used or
revealed for research or statistical purposes and that compliance with requests for information is not mandato
ry. Where the notification requirement is to be waived, pursuant to § 22.27(c), a justification must be included
in the Privacy Certificate.
(5) Adequate precautions will be taken to insure administrative and physical security of identifiable data.
(6) A log will be maintained indicating that identifiable data have been transmitted to persons other than
BJA, OJJDP, BJS, NIJ, or OJP or grantee/contractor staff or subcontractors, that such data have been returned,
or that alternative arrangements have been agreed upon for future maintenance of such data.
(7) Project plans will be designed to preserve anonymity of private persons to whom information relates,
including, where appropriate, name-stripping, coding of data, or other similar procedures.
(8) Project findings and reports prepared for dissemination will not contain information which can rea
sonably be expected to be identifiable to a private person except as authorized under § 22.22.
(c) The applicant shall attach to the Privacy Certification a description of physical and/or administrative
procedures to be followed to insure the security of the data to meet the requirements of § 22.25.
[41 FR 5486, Dec. 15, 1976, as amended at 51 FR 6401, Feb. 24, 1986]
§ 22.24 Information transfer agreement.
Prior to the transfer of any identifiable information to persons other than BJA, OJJDP, BJS, NIJ, or OJP
or project staff, an agreement shall be entered into which shall provide, as a minimum, that the recipient of
data agrees that:
(a) Information identifiable to a private person will be used only for research and statistical purposes.
(b) Information identifiable to a private person will not be revealed to any person for any purpose except
where the information has already been included in research findings (and/or data bases) and is revealed on a
need-to-know basis for research or statistical purposes, provided that such transfer is approved by the person
providing information under the agreement, or authorized under § 22.24(e).
(c) Knowingly and willfully using or disseminating information contrary to the provisions of the agree
ment shall constitute a violation of these regulations, punishable in accordance with the Act.
(d) Adequate administrative and physical precautions will be taken to assure security of information
obtained for such purpose.
2 8 C F R Part 2 2
5 -4
(e) Access to information will be limited to those employees or subcontractors having a need therefore in
connection with performance of the activity for which obtained, and that such persons shall be advised of, and
agree to comply with, these regulations.
(f) Project plans will be designed to preserve anonymity of private persons to whom information relates,
including, where appropriate, required name-stripping and/or coding of data or other similar procedures.
(g) Project findings and reports prepared for dissemination will not contain information which can
reasonably be expected to be identifiable to a private person.
(h) Information identifiable to a private person (obtained in accordance with this agreement) will, unless
otherwise agreed upon, be returned upon completion of the project for which obtained and no copies of that
information retained.
[41 FR 5486, Dec. 15, 1976, as amended at 51 FR 6401, Feb. 24, 1986]
§ 22.25 Final disposition of identifiable materials.
Upon completion of a research or statistical project the security of identifiable research or statistical
information shall be protected by:
(a) Complete physical destruction of all copies of the materials or the identifiable portion of such
materials after a three-year required recipient retention period or as soon as authorized by law, or
(b) Removal of identifiers from data and separate maintenance of a name-code index in a secure
location.
The Privacy Certificate shall indicate the procedures to be followed and shall, in the case of paragraph
(b) of this section, describe procedures to secure the name index.
§ 22.26 Requests for transfer of information.
(a) Requests for transfer of information identifiable to an individual shall be submitted to the person
submitting the Privacy Certificate pursuant to § 22.23.
(b) Except where information is requested by BJA, OJJDP, BJS, NIJ, or OJP, the request shall describe
the general objectives of the project for which information is requested, and specifically justify the need for
such information in identifiable form. The request shall also indicate, and provide justification for the conclu
sion that conduct of the project will not, either directly or indirectly, cause legal, economic, physical, or social
harm to individuals whose identification is revealed in the transfer of information.
(c) Data may not be transferred pursuant to this section where a clear showing of the criteria set forth
above is not made by the person requesting the data.
[41 FR 5486, Dec. 15, 1976, as amended at 51 FR 6401, Feb. 24, 1986]
§ 22.27 Notification.
(a) Any person from whom information identifiable to a private person is to be obtained directly, either
orally, by questionnaire, or other written documents, shall be advised:
(1) That the information will only be used or revealed for research or statistical purposes; and
2 8 C F R Part 2 2
5 -5
(2) That compliance with the request for information is entirely voluntary and may be terminated at
any time.
(b) Except as noted in paragraph (c) of this section, where information is to be obtained through obser
vation of individual activity or performance, such individuals shall be advised:
(1) Of the particular types of information to be collected;
(2) That the data will only be utilized or revealed for research or statistical purposes; and
(3) That participation in the project in question is voluntary and may be terminated at any time.
(c) Notification, as described in paragraph (b) of this section, may be eliminated where information is
obtained through field observation of individual activity or performance and in the judgment of the researcher
such notification is impractical or may seriously impede the progress of the research.
(d) Where findings in a project cannot, by virtue of sample size, or uniqueness of subject, be expected to
totally conceal subject identity, an individual shall be so advised.
§ 22.28 Use of data identifiable to a private person for judicial, legislative or administrative
purposes.
(a) Research or statistical information identifiable to a private person shall be immune from legal process
and shall only be admitted as evidence or used for any purpose in any action, suit, or other judicial, legislative
or administrative proceeding with the written consent of the individual to whom the data pertains.
(b) Where consent is obtained, such consent shall:
(1) Be obtained at the time that information is sought for use in judicial, legislative or administrative
proceedings;
(2) Set out specific purposes in connection with which information will be used;
(3) Limit, where appropriate, the scope of the information subject to such consent.
[41 FR 54846, Dec. 15, 1976, as amended at 45 FR 62038, Sept. 18, 1980]
§ 22.29 Sanctions.
Where BJA, OJJDP, BJS, NIJ, or OJP believes that a violation has occurred of section 812(a) of the Act
or section 1407(d) of the Victims of Crime Act, these regulations, or any grant or contract conditions entered
into thereunder, it may initiate administrative actions leading to termination of a grant or contract, commence
appropriate personnel and/or other procedures in cases involving Federal employees, and/or initiate appropri
ate legal actions leading to imposition of a fine not to exceed $10,000 against any person responsible for such
violations.
[41 FR 54846, Dec. 15, 1976, as amended at 45 FR 62038, Sept. 18, 1980; 51 FR 6401, Feb. 24, 1986]
2 8 C F R Part 2 2
5 -6
Appendix 6
Federal Assurances of Confidentiality
and Other Notices
FEDERAL ASSURANCES OF CONFIDENTIALITY AND OTHER NOTICES
This data collection is authorized under the Missing Children's Assistance Act (see, 34 U.S.C. §
11293(c)). NIJ, OJJDP, its employees, and its data collection agents will use the information you
provide for statistical or research purposes only, and will not disclose your information in
identifiable form without your consent to anyone outside of the research team. All personally
identifiable data collected are protected under the confidentiality provisions of 34 U.S.C. § 10231,
and any person who violates these provisions may be punished by a fine up to $10,000, in addition
to any other penalties imposed by law. Further, under the Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2015,
your data are protected from cybersecurity risks through screening of the systems that transmit your
data. Your compliance with the request for information is entirely voluntary, and if you choose to
provide information, you may discontinue at any time without penalty of any sort.
Under the Federal Paperwork Reduction Act, a person is not required to respond to a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. We try to create forms and
instructions that are accurate, can be easily understood, and which impose the least possible burden
on you to provide us with information. We estimate that it will take xx hours to complete this
questionnaire. This estimate includes time for reviewing the instructions, searching for and gathering
the data, completing the form, and reviewing answers.
If you would like more information concerning this authorization, the confidentiality guarantee,
have comments regarding the accuracy of the burden estimate, or suggestions for making the form
simpler, please contact Benjamin Adams, Social Science Analyst, at [email protected] or
202-616-3687. If you need assistance regarding your submission, please contact the survey director,
Kimberly Mitchell at [email protected] or call the project’s toll free number: xxx-xxxxxxx.
F ederal Assurances of Confidentiality
and Other Notices
6 -1
Appendix 7
NISMART-3 Planning Papers
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
ICPSR 36566
National Incidence Studies of
Missing, Abducted, Runaway and
Thrownaway Children (NISMART),
2011 [United States]
Andrea Sedlak
Rockville Institute & Westat, Inc.
David Finkelhor
Crimes against Children Research Center,
University of New Hampshire
Planning Papers
Office of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention
NISMART-3 Planning Papers
P.O. Box 1248
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106
www.icpsr.umich.edu
7 -1
Terms of Use
The terms of use for this study can be found at:
http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/ICPSR/studies/36566/terms
Information about Copyrighted Content
Some instruments administered as part of this study may contain in whole or substantially
in part contents from copyrighted instruments. Reproductions of the instruments are
provided as documentation for the analysis of the data associated with this collection.
Restrictions on "fair use" apply to all copyrighted content. More information about the
reproduction of copyrighted works by educators and librarians is available from the United
States Copyright Office.
NOTICE
WARNING CONCERNING COPYRIGHT RESTRICTIONS
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making
of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Under certain conditions
specified in the law, libraries and archives are authorized to furnish a photocopy or other
reproduction. One of these specified conditions is that the photocopy or reproduction is
not to be "used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research." If a
user makes a request for, or later uses, a photocopy or reproduction for purposes in
excess of "fair use," that user may be liable for copyright infringement.
NISMART-3 Planning Papers
7 -2
Third National Incidence Studies of Missing,
Abducted, Runaway and Thrownaway Children
(NISMART–3)
Law Enforcement Survey
(LES) Redesign
Planning Papers and Draft
Instruments
Authors
Andrea J. Sedlak
David Finkelhor
J. Michael Brick
Janis Wolak
November 14, 2016
NISMART-3 Planning Papers
7 -3
NISMART-3 was funded by Grant Number 2010-MC-CX-0004 awarded to the Rockville Institute,
Rockville MD by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), U.S.
Department of Justice, Washington, DC. The research was conducted by the Rockville Institute,
Rockville, MD, and the Crimes against Children Research Center at the University of New
Hampshire. Andrea Sedlak was Project Director and Co-Principal Investor, J. Michael Brick, and
Shelley Brock project statisticians and methodological advisors. All three are at Westat and worked
for the Rockville Institute to conduct this research. David Finkelhor, co-Principal Investigator, is
Director of the Crimes Against Children Research Center.
NISMART-3 Planning Papers
7 -4
Table of Contents
Section
1.
Page
Introduction ...........................................................................................................................1
Statement of the Problem..........................................................................................1
Planning Papers and Draft Instruments.....................................................................1
Next Steps.................................................................................................................2
2.
Investigating Improving Precision for the LES-SK.................................................................4
Background...............................................................................................................4
Using Auxiliary Data to Improve Precision ...............................................................5
Modeling Predicted Victims ......................................................................................7
Alternative Estimators...............................................................................................9
Findings ..................................................................................................................11
References...............................................................................................................13
Appendix ................................................................................................................14
3.
Utility of a Self-Administered LES-SK..................................................................................16
Possible Benefits .....................................................................................................16
Possible Design .......................................................................................................16
Possible Problems ...................................................................................................17
For Further Exploration..........................................................................................17
Draft Self-Administered LES-SK Questionnaire .....................................................18
4.
Designing an LES-FA to Estimate Family Abduction...........................................................39
Benefits...................................................................................................................39
Possible Problems ...................................................................................................40
To Explore..............................................................................................................41
Inferences from an ABA Study ...............................................................................41
Family Abduction or “Missing” Family Abduction..................................................44
Recommendations...................................................................................................45
References...............................................................................................................46
NISMART-3 Planning Papers
7 -5
Definitional Elements for the LES-FA....................................................................47
Draft Self-Administered LES-FA Questionnaire .....................................................48
5.
Designing an LES-MC to Estimate Missing Children and Recovery......................................62
Background Considerations.....................................................................................62
Recommendation ....................................................................................................65
Additional Issues for Further Design Work .............................................................67
Definitions ..............................................................................................................68
Draft Self-Administered LES-MC Questionnaire ....................................................71
NISMART-3 Planning Papers
7 -6
1. Introduction
Statement of the Problem
Upon the completion of the NISMART-3 studies, it was evident that Household Survey
methodology, which has served as the principal data source for NISMART’s estimates of episode
children and missing children, was no longer an efficient and cost effective method for obtaining the
data OJJDP required to respond to the legislative mandate. The relatively low numbers of missing
children and the large samples of households needed to identify adequate samples of qualifying
cases, combined with the seriously declining response rates to household surveys and the
concomitant greater cost of achieving acceptable response rates, undermine the feasibility of
estimating numbers of episode children and missing children on the basis of data from household
surveys of parents (and youth).
At the same time, the Law Enforcement Survey (LES) has been a successful element of
NISMART in that it has been accomplished at a reasonable cost and yielded a high participation rate
in an era of declining participation rates. It has produced a result that comports with other sources
of information about serious non-family kidnappings, like data from the National Center for Missing
and Exploited Children (NCMEC), has been widely cited in the media, and the topic of the most
queries for updated data. However, the LES has two major limitations:
•
Its primary goal is counting SK, which does not fully meet the statutory language
requiring information about the “number of children reported missing each year, the
number of children who are victims of abduction by strangers, the number of children
who are victims of parental kidnappings, and the number of children who are
recovered.”
•
The SK estimates produced by the LES have very large confidence intervals. This
means that although the order of magnitude is clear the estimate is very imprecise. Of
particular importance, a fairly large underlying change could not be detected with
statistical confidence.
Planning Papers and Draft Instruments
This collection of papers responds to the request of OJJDP and BJS that we establish
an initial foundation for the redesign of NISMART. Four main tasks were involved:
•
Improving the precision of the LES-SK estimates. We were asked to explore the
feasibility of improving the precision of the SK estimate using post-stratification control
NISMART-3 Planning Papers
7 -7
totals on measures that may be correlated with the SK PSU-level estimates. Paper 1
describes this work, which entailed searching for potentially usable correlates in the
SHR, UCR, and NIBRS, as by extracting data on the number of child homicides, the
crime rate and the number of abductions.
•
Examine the utility of a self-administered survey for the future LES-SK. The LES has
been used to study stereotypical kidnaping (SK) in the last two NISMARTs. It relies on
telephone interviews with investigating officers of potentially qualifying cases. We were
asked to discuss potential advantages and outline in detail how a self-administered
modality could be integrated into the LES-SK methodology. Paper 2 describes our
work, which considered issues such as: how it would be accessed, what kind of help
information would be provided, and how non-response would be managed. We drafted
a questionnaire that could be implemented in a self-administered online format.
•
Adding family abduction to the LES. We examined a number of issues involved in
adding family abduction to the LES, essentially considering the design of an LES-FA.
Paper 3 describes our work, which considered sample size and issues of precision of
estimate, strategies for identifying cases, and delineation of major issues to be tested in a
future NISMART. We also proposed some operational definitions for key items to be
used in the counting of family abductions. We conducted 5 interviews with officials at
law enforcement agencies about searching for family abductions. We drafted a family
abduction questionnaire for pretesting and pilot testing in the LES-FA design phase.
•
Developing an LES-MC design to measure overall missing children and their recovery.
Our task was to outline the possible design of an LES-MC, specifying some of the
issues that need to be resolved in planning such a survey, and suggest how to organize a
pilot add-on to the next NISMART effort that could deal with some of these issues. We
will propose some operational definitions for identifying and counting missing children
in LE files and also counting recoveries. We conducted 5 interviews with officials at law
enforcement agencies about searching for general missing children and determining
recovery. (These were the same 5 officials interviewed about family abduction.) We
drafted a questionnaire to obtain data on missing child cases for use in future design
work.
Next Steps
The planning papers for the LES-SK, LES-FA, and LES-MC all mention the need for a
design phase which will finalize the sample design and instruments, obtain OMB clearance, and
conduct pretesting/pilot testing.
The design phase can be relatively short because the LES-SK has an established
methodology that has been quite successful and the main change is the move to a simplified selfadministered online questionnaire to collect case-level data. The LES-SK design phase will entail
finalizing and programming the instruments, exploring their workability through limited pretesting
NISMART-3 Planning Papers
7 -8
with a few law enforcement agencies (LEAs), and preparing the OMB package and getting OMB
approval. We recommend using the same basic sampling design that has worked well in the past—
drawing a stratified sample of 400 PSUs (counties and clusters of small counties) and mailing the
phase 1 questionnaire to all the LEAs who serve the counties. If agencies/responding officers run
into problems using the online questionnaire, interviewers will contact them and administer the
interview by phone—reverting to the tried-and-true methodology for this study.
The design phase will require more time and resources for the other studies, the LESFA and the LES-MC. We recommend a unified OMB package that covers all the surveys that will
proceed (including the LES-SK). The new instruments for the LES-FA and LES-MC should not just
undergo simple pretests, but the full survey methodologies should be pilot tested in LEAs in several
counties. That will require initial OMB approval for the pilot tests and, if the pilot test results
indicate that modifications to the instruments or study protocol are needed, then it will be necessary
to obtain OMB approval of those amendments before the national study can proceed. Note that if
both LES-FA and LES-MC are pilot-tested during the same design year (to allow for a unified OMB
application and minimize duplication of efforts in sampling, website development, etc.), then they
should not be pilot-tested in the same counties, for the same reasons we recommend fielding the
national implementations in different years, as described below.
As the ensuing papers indicate, we recommend that all three designs start with the
current LES-SK approach—selecting 400 PSUs (counties or small county-clusters) and recruiting
the LEAs that serve those counties. However, for the LES-FA and LES-MC, we expect that many
more cases will potentially qualify than in the LES-SK, so we recommend devising methods of
reducing the burden on participants, as by sampling from listings of potentially qualifying cases to
obtain case-level details, by sampling agencies, and in one instance, by asking agencies to report on
reports they received only during a one-month period (with calendar months randomly allocated to
subsamples of agencies). Additionally, because the certainty counties will be sampled in every study,
we recommend against fielding more than one of these studies in any given calendar year. This will
minimize the burden on agencies that will be targeted for recruitment in every study and will
minimize suppression of response across the studies due to the additional burden. These
considerations lead to our recommendation to consider planning to collect data from the three LES
designs in a 3-year cycle, with one study implemented each year. Note that this schedule will
synchronize with the current legislative mandate that requires OJJDP to report triennially.
NISMART-3 Planning Papers
7 -9
2. Investigating Improving Precision
for the LES-SK
Background
The NISMART–3 Law Enforcement Survey (LES–3) measured the national incidence
of stereotypical kidnappings that occurred between October 1, 2010, and September 30, 2011 using
essentially the same approach used previously in the NISMART–2 in 1997. The LES–3 sampled 433
counties from a sample frame of counties after clustering small adjacent counties. The sample
selected these first stage units using a stratified probability-proportional-to-size design so that the
largest counties were in sample with certainty and smaller counties had a lower chance of being
selected. Within the sampled first stage counties, all law enforcement agencies (LEAs) were
surveyed. In all, the 4,644 LEAs identified in the sampled counties were surveyed. Data collection
occurred in two phases. In the first phase, the sampled LEAs were sent a mail survey that asked
whether they investigated any stereotypical kidnappings in their jurisdiction between October 1,
2010, and September 30, 2011. The response rate for the mail survey was 86 percent. In the second
phase, extensive telephone interviews were conducted with investigating officers to obtain details of
the cases reported in the mail survey. Interviews were completed for 91 percent of the targeted
cases. After applying the rules for defining a stereotypical kidnapping only 40 cases with 46 victims
were determined to qualify using the definitions of NISMART.
More details on the sampling and reporting on the LES-3 are available in the report
Child Victims of Stereotypical Kidnappings Known to Law Enforcement in 2011 that can be downloaded from
the URL at http://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/249249.pdf. The 2011 LES-3 estimate of the national
number of stereotypical kidnapping victims was 105, with a 95% confidence interval of the estimate
ranging from 40 to 165. While the estimate and confidence interval clearly show the number of
victims of stereotypical kidnapping is very small, the breadth of the confidence interval is larger than
desired. Analysis of the subgroups and characteristics of the incidents, victims, and perpetrators are
based on even smaller sample sizes, and subject to high sampling errors.
With any sample survey, the natural approach to improving precision of the estimates is
to increase the sample size. With the LES this is not a viable approach largely because stereotypical
kidnapping cases are so rare and the sample already contains almost half the estimated total that
NISMART-3 Planning Papers
7 -1 0
would be obtained if all LEAs were canvassed. 1 The vast majority were obtained within counties that
were included with certainty. Increasing the number of counties in the first stage sample above 433
would bring in proportionately considerably fewer cases because the larger counties are already
included with certainty. The LES-3 sample of 4,644 sampled LEAs only found 40 cases; so
increasing the sample of counties would be relatively expensive and produce a very low yield in
terms of increased precision.
Using Auxiliary Data to Improve Precision
Another approach to increasing precision of sample survey estimates is to try to use
auxiliary data available from other sources in the estimation stage. The general idea is that if an
estimate from the survey is highly correlated to data that are known from an alternative data source
then the survey weights can be adjusted by taking this relationship into account. The adjusted
weights2, under favorable conditions on the nature of the relationship, will give more precise
estimates. Cochran (1977) discusses ratio and regression estimators that take advantage of auxiliary
data to reduce the variance of the estimates. Deville and Särndal (1992) elaborate on the use of
auxiliary data; they show that poststratification and raking estimation methods, as well as ratio and
many regression estimators, are within a class of “calibration” estimators.
In the NISMART-3 LES, the final weights were the inverse of the selection
probabilities for counties and were adjusted for LEA and case level nonresponse. Two case weights
were trimmed to deal with very large weights. In this report, we use the original nonresponse
adjusted, but untrimmed, case weights for all the work to avoid possible distortions. We will refer to
these as the original nonresponse adjusted weights for this report.
The best type of auxiliary data for this purpose is one that is consistent with the
NISMART definition of a stereotypical kidnapping case. Of paramount importance is that the
auxiliary data are known (or estimated precisely from a probability sample) at the national or some
lower level of detail such as census region. For example, in a survey of the general population,
poststratification at the national level to a variable such as sex adjusts the base weight for each
female respondent ( wfemale,i ) by the ratio of the known number of females in the population (F) to
the estimated number from the sample ( F / ∑i wfemale,i ). Ratio-adjusted weights for males would be
1
T he confidence intervals for the estimates do not contain a finite population adjustment for the variance estimate to account for the high sampling
rates.
NISMART-3 Planning Papers
7 -1 1
done the same way and then the sum of the weights of the respondents over sex would be equal to
F+M. From this example it is clear that the ratio-adjustment in relation to sex requires independent
data (from census) on the numbers of males and females in the general population.
With these objectives in mind we searched for suitable sources of auxiliary data for the
LES estimates. The data sources that are most closely related to the LES estimates of stereotypical
kidnapping are discussed in Child Victims of Stereotypical Kidnappings Known to Law Enforcement in 2011.
Specifically, sources and the differences from the NISMART definitions that are discussed in the
report include data from the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, State
Clearinghouses for Missing Children, the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS), and
the National Crime Information Center. None of these sources provide data that are fully nationally
representative and comparable to the definitions used in NISMART.
Two data sources from the Federal Bureau of Investigation that we thought might be
useful for adjusting the LES weights were the NIBRS and the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR)
Program. Both of these collect aggregate data from local law enforcement and try to use a consistent
definition. Several methodological investigations show there are differences by agencies within and
across states. Furthermore, neither system currently provides complete data for the nation.
NIBRS has information on incidents that can be classified at the LEA, county and state
level. We obtained the 2011 NIBRS data and selected only records for completed kidnapping cases
where at least one victim for each case was under age 18. From this data set we did some additional
data editing to remove duplicates and eliminate some suspicious data values. We then created a
NVICTIM variable that is the number of victims for the incident. Some of the counts were larger
than seemed reasonable, so the counts of victims were trimmed in a few cases.
The UCR does not have data as directly related to the stereotypical kidnapping estimates
from the LES. The variables available are more aggregates of categories of crime. We extracted data
from the UCR file for 2011 including: violent crime, murder and non-negligent manslaughter,
forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, property crime, larceny/theft, motor vehicle theft, and
arson.
We also downloaded data from the American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year data file
for 2010-2014. These data are available for census geographies (such as state, county, block group)
but these do not correspond to geographies for LEAs. Thus, the county was the only level that
corresponded to the LES data, so the ACS county-level counts were the only variables that could be
NISMART-3 Planning Papers
7 -1 2
used for the current analysis. While several variables were downloaded and were included in initial
models, the only two that are discussed later are the number of adults and the number of children
(under 18 years) in the geographies.
Modeling Predicted Victims
Our approach to using the NIBRS and UCR data to try to develop an auxiliary variable
for estimation purposes was a bit nonstandard. The problem is that neither NIBRS nor UCR is
complete for all states, counties, and certainly not for LEAs. This incompleteness means that
standard approaches that involve computing totals by summing the auxiliary data across the country
do not work. Furthermore, the missing data in the files are not due to controlled sampling, which
meant that we could not compute precise national estimates using probability weighting (instead of
using known totals). We understand that NIBRS has been considering having a probability sample
of agencies that could be used to produce national estimates. If this existed, we could have evaluated
a more standard approach to using the NIBRS.
As result of this problem, we decided to try to create a predicted value of the number of
stereotypical kidnapping victims in each county in the U.S. by a series of modeling steps. The first
decision was to do the modeling at the county level rather than the LEA level. We believed the
prediction would be less error-prone at the more aggregate county level (most LEAs had no
stereotypical kidnapping cases in the year so predicting zeros and a predicting a few spikes is very
error prone). The same type of problem exists at the county level because most counties also have
zero cases, but at least it is a bit more aggregated. Furthermore, these data are only used as auxiliaries
that are summed to regional totals as discussed later.
The NIBRS count of victims is the statistic that is most directly related to the LES
stereotypical kidnapping victim count. As a result, we decided to try to model the NIBRS count for
each county in the U.S. To do this, we looked at the 11 states that had complete reporting (as best as
could be determined from the data sets) for both NIBRS and UCR data.
The model in these states predicted the NIBRS number of victims using data from the
ACS and UCR data files. Initial models were run with all the UCR variables and several ACS
variables and interactions among some of the variables. After reviewing and modifying the models,
the model selected was a simple linear regression to predict the number of victims using the adult
population (the only ACS variable that remained in the model) and forcible rape, robbery,
aggravated assault, larceny/theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson. Due to the influence of a very small
NISMART-3 Planning Papers
7 -1 3
number of cases with a large value of the number of victims, the regression was done after topcoding the number of victims in a county to 20 (any value greater than 20 was set to 20). The final
model is given in the appendix. The model was relatively good for predicting the number of victims
with an R2 of 0.27 and residuals (not shown) that were distributed reasonably.
The next step was to use the estimated parameters from this model to predict the
number of victims for those states with complete reporting of UCR. 3 To do this, the parameters
from the model were applied to the UCR (and ACS) values for the counties with UCR reported
data. Since the regression model was linear and the expected value of the number of victims in a
county was small, negative predicted values of the number of victims were not uncommon. If the
predicted value from the regression model was negative, we set it equal to zero.
The same process was followed to produce predicted values for the 11 states that
actually had NIBRS and UCR data. This was done (rather than using the actual value from NIBRS
of the number of victims) to have a consistent measure for the auxiliary variable regardless of the
missing data pattern in the UCR and NIBRS, to the extent possible. Again, the predicted value of
the number of victims was set to zero if the model prediction was negative.
The only remaining issue was how to deal with the states without complete UCR
reporting. For these, two options were considered. One option was to use the UCR data for the
counties that had some reporting but not complete county-level reporting with the model developed
above. We decided that this might be problematic because missing data for some of the LEAs
within a county was hard to assess and the UCR data present might be biased downward due to the
missing data. Instead, we chose to disregard the UCR data entirely in these states and just use ACS
to model the number of victims.
For this, we ran a linear regression of the number of victims from NIBRS using only
the ACS variable of the number of adults (adults was more predictive than the number of children),
again using the 11 states with complete UCR and NIBRS reporting. This model is also given in the
appendix. The model fit for this subset was poor, with an R2 of only 0.03. The predicted value of the
number of victims was set to zero if the model prediction was negative.
3
T hree states appeared to have complete reporting for all but one county (Georgia, Minnesota, and Ohio). These three states were included and the
UCR variables for these counties (all small ones) were set equal to zero.
NISMART-3 Planning Papers
7 -1 4
These procedures provided a predicted value of the number of victims for every county
in the U.S. Of the 3,142 counties in the U.S., 59 percent were in counties with both UCR and
NIBRS, 38 percent were in counties with UCR but no NIBRS, and 3 percent were in states without
UCR. Thus, the poor model fit associated with using ACS only was at least limited to a relatively
small number of counties.
Alternative Estimators
The weights for the LES-3 were developed in steps. At the first step, the weight was the
inverse of the probability of selection of the county (or group of counties for the smaller ones). The
largest counties were sampled with certainty so many of the counties had weights of one at this step.
This weight is the called the PSU weight since it refers to the weight for the primary sampling unit at
the first stage.
Within the county or group of counties, all LEAs were sampled so no adjustment was
needed for sampling LEAs within counties. However, some agencies did not respond so the PSU
weight that would have been appropriate for the LEAs if there had been complete response had to
be adjusted to create nonresponse agency-level weights.
The final step was obtaining case level information on each case in an agency that met
the screening eligibility requirements. Again, there was no sampling but there was nonresponse.
Thus, the nonresponse adjusted agency weights were further adjusted for case level nonresponse and
these weights are called the case weights. These original nonresponse adjusted case weights4 were
used to produce the estimates corresponding to those in Child Victims of Stereotypical Kidnappings Known
to Law Enforcement in 2011.
We created three additional weights to produce three alternative estimates using three
sets of auxiliary data. The three auxiliary variables used for this purpose were:
•
•
•
4
Total adult population in the county (group of counties);
Total child (under 18 years) population in the county; and
Total model-predicted victims in the county.
As noted before, the case weights used in the report were trimmed, but the analysis here uses the weights without trimming.
NISMART-3 Planning Papers
7 -1 5
The auxiliary variables were known at the county level so the adjustment was applied at
the PSU weight level5. Thus, the process involved ratio-adjusting the PSU weight with the auxiliary
data and then doing the exact same agency and case nonresponse adjustment processes as was done
for original weights.
As explained earlier, a “ratio adjustment” uses the ratio of the ‘known’ sum or total of
the auxiliary variable (either adult population, child population, or predicted victims) to the sum of
the estimated value of the same variable using the PSU weights. This ratio adjustment was created
for each of the 4 census region (with the hope of producing a more effective adjustment) and then
applied to the PSU weight for PSUs/counties in the region to form the adjusted weight. Specifically,
the adjustment factor (Ar) for each PSU weight in region r is
Ar =
Tr
∑k∈r wktk
where Tr is the value of the auxiliary summed over all counties in region r, tk is the
auxiliary for county k in region r, and w k is the unadjusted PSU weight for county k. The adjusted
PSU weight is then wk′ = Ar wk for counties in region r. The adjustments for agency and case
nonresponse were then made to give alternative weights.6
Thus, we had four weights for alternative analyses:
•
•
•
•
The original nonresponse adjusted weight;
The original weight adjusted using adult population;
The original weight adjusted using the child population; and
The original weight adjusted using model-predicted victims.
As discussed in the LES report for the original weights, a set of 80 jackknife replicate
weights were computed for the three alternative weighting approaches. The PSU ratio-adjustment
was replicated individually for each of these replicate weights. Thus, estimates and their estimated
sampling errors could be computed for each weighting scheme.
5
As mentioned earlier, applying an adjustment at a lower level would have required the auxiliary data for every LEA or case and that was not done
in the modeling.
6
We considered restricting the adjustment to those counties that were not certainty selections, but decided to include all counties for the initial
work. Based on the results given below, we did not revise the adjustment to only the non-certainty counties.
NISMART-3 Planning Papers
7 -1 6
Findings
To evaluate the effectiveness of using the auxiliary variables in estimation we computed
the 8 estimates that appear in Table 1 of Child Victims of Stereotypical Kidnappings Known to Law
Enforcement in 2011 with each of the ratio-adjusted weights as well as with the original nonresponse
adjusted weights. For each of these estimates, we also computed the variance of the estimate (the
variance is the square of the standard error of the estimate). To assess the effectiveness of the
adjustment more easily, we computed the ratio of the variance of the adjusted estimate to the
variance of the original, unadjusted estimates. A value less than 1 in this ratio indicates the ratioadjustment improved the precision (the variance of the adjusted estimate is less than the variance of
the unadjusted estimate) and a value of greater than 1 indicates the adjustment caused an increase in
the variance.
Table 1 shows the values of the ratios for the 8 estimates. When the adjustment was
based on the number of children or the number of adults, the variances of the estimates never
decreased. Clearly, both of these adjustments simply added noise and did not improve the precision
of the estimates. 7
The variance ratios when the predicted number of victims was used as the auxiliary are
more variable, with 4 of the ratios greater than 1 and 4 less than 1. The 4 ratios that are less than 1
only show a relatively small increase in precision (less than 5 percent); the variance increases for 2 of
the estimates are fairly large (1.3 and 1.9). This suggests that while this auxiliary might have some
potential to increase precision for some estimates, it also has serious problems. It is likely that the
adjustment to the predicted value of the number of victims is just too unstable to perform reliably.
7
T he estimates from the adjusted and unadjusted estimators are very highly correlated because they use exactly the same data set. The statistical
significance of the ratio was not evaluated because it is clear the adjustments did not improve precision.
NISMART-3 Planning Papers
7 -1 7
Table 1. Ratio of variance of the ratio-adjusted estimate to the variance of the original, nonresponse adjusted
estimates for each auxiliary variable.
Outcome
Homicide
Recovered
Abduction involved
Use of force or threats
Sexual assault or exportation
Ransom/extortion
Intent to keep as own child
Victim was
Detained overnight
Moved 50 miles or more
Auxiliary variable used in adjustment
Child
Adult
Victims
1.007
1.005
1.035
1.033
1.941
0.959
1.005
1.005
1.005
1.004
1.034
1.034
1.035
1.034
0.959
0.957
1.001
1.290
1.005
1.009
1.034
1.025
0.956
1.016
Conclusion
Strategies for improving the precision of LES-3 estimates of the number and
characteristics of stereotypical kidnapping cases in the U.S. were examined. The approach of
increasing the sample size was determined to be very inefficient and unlikely to be useful without
doing a complete census. The alternative approach of using auxiliary variables in the estimation stage
was also not effective. It is so difficult to improve the precision in the LES because the outcome
(stereotypical kidnapping) is so rare and so unpredictable on the basis of readily available data that
neither design nor estimation strategies are helpful. The whole premise of probability sampling, the
foundation for the design and estimation of the LES, requires large sample theory. With such rare
outcomes, even though the sample size in terms of the number of counties and agencies is extremely
large, the actual number of cases of interest is very small. In some sense, the best that can be done
with a sample survey is to determine if the number of stereotypical kidnapping cases in the U.S.
remains low. The current design and estimation strategy for the LES is useful for monitoring that
outcome. Large increases such as an increase from 100 to 200 in the number of stereotypical
kidnapping would be detected by the current design. Even 200 cases is a small number to estimate
from a probability sample.
Other alternative approaches might be explored in the future. If NIBRS or UCR were
to change the structure and coverage of their programs, more investigations of their utility in
improving LES precision might be worthwhile. For example, if the completeness or the level of
detail in these systems improves, a new evaluation of the usefulness of these systems could yield
different results. Furthermore, we only considered sampling and estimation strategies for LES in this
NISMART-3 Planning Papers
7 -1 8
study, and have not investigate other approaches might totally change the system such as relying on
administrative records and modeling rather than probability sampling. However, such drastic
changes would require substantial design work and might make tracking changes in estimates of
stereotypical kidnapping over time more difficult.
References
Cochran, W. G. (2007). Sampling Techniques. John Wiley & Sons
Deville, J. C., & Särndal, C. E. (1992). Calibration estimators in survey sampling. Journal of the
American Statistical Association, 87, 376-382.
NISMART-3 Planning Papers
7 -1 9
NISMART-3 Planning Papers
Appendix
Final model for predicting NIBRS number of victims using UCR and ACS
Source
Model
Error
Corrected Total
Root MSE
Dependent Mean
DF
Sum of
Squares
Mean
Square
8
1843
1851
478.70491
1285.48245
1764.18737
59.83811
0.69749
0.83516
0.12473
R-Square
Adj R-Sq
7 -2 0
Variable
Label
Intercept
ADLTPOP
AGASSLT
ARSON
BURGLRY
LARCENY
MVTHEFT
RAPE
ROBBERY_P4
Intercept
ACS (10-14): Adult population
AGGRAVATED ASSAULTS (04)
ARSONS (09)
BURGLARIES (05)
LARCENIES (06)
MOTOR VEHICLE THEFTS (07)
RAPES (02)
ROBBERIES (03)
0.2713
0.2682
F Value
Pr > F
85.79
<.0001
DF
Parameter
Estimate
Standard
Error
t Value
Pr > |t|
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-0.00002107
-0.00000161
-0.00039694
0.00368
0.00030437
-0.00006464
-0.00050870
0.00800
0.00078095
0.02208
2.577401E-7
0.00006828
0.00059749
0.00003851
0.00001536
0.00005034
0.00079904
0.00009878
-0.00
-6.23
-5.81
6.16
7.90
-4.21
-10.11
10.01
7.91
0.9992
<.0001
<.0001
<.0001
<.0001
<.0001
<.0001
<.0001
<.0001
NISMART-3 Planning Papers
Final model for predicting NIBRS number of victims using ACS
Source
Model
Error
Corrected Total
Root MSE
Dependent Mean
DF
Sum of
Squares
Mean
Square
1
1850
1851
60.51899
1703.66837
1764.18737
60.51899
0.92090
0.95964
0.12473
R-Square
Adj R-Sq
7 -2 1
Variable
Label
Intercept
ADLTPOP
Intercept
ACS (10-14): Adult population
F Value
Pr > F
65.72
<.0001
0.0343
0.0338
DF
Parameter
Estimate
Standard
Error
t Value
Pr > |t|
1
1
0.06117
6.490445E-7
0.02364
8.006363E-8
2.59
8.11
0.0097
<.0001
3. Utility of a Self-Administered LES-SK
The proposal being evaluated is whether to give agencies and officers the option of
providing the information on possible Stereotypical Kidnappings (and also possibly Parental
Kidnapings) via a self-administered web-based questionnaire.
Possible Benefits
•
Reduction in the survey cost, since interviewers would not need to spend time
making appointments with respondents and collecting the information.
•
Reduction in length of the data collection period. The survey might be completed more
quickly.
•
Increase in response rate. Given the option to fill out a questionnaire at their own
leisure, some respondents might participate who would otherwise not.
Possible Design
As with the present design, a questionnaire would be mailed to all selected LEAs asking
for the enumeration of cases involving a SK, and the contact information for the investigator who
could provide information on the case. We would retain the mechanism of making personal contact
with the investigator. The communication with the investigator (either by phone or email) would
give them the option of being interviewed by phone or filling out an online SAQ about case. If the
investigator chose the SAQ, they would be given a 2-week window in which to complete it. At the
end of that time, they would receive an additional reminder, a one week extension and query about
whether they would prefer to schedule an interview. If the SAQ was not completed within the
extension, then regular contacts would be scheduled to try to set up an interview.
The SAQ would consist of the same questions asked in the interview. In both cases, the
questionnaire will be considerably shortened and simplified from previous SK questionnaires. Links
to helpful information would be available on every webpage, including contact numbers for help in
filling out the questions.
The SAQ would be reviewed upon submission and any questions or ambiguities would
be flagged and the investigator will be contacted for clarification.
NISMART-3 Planning Papers
7 -2 2
Possible Problems
•
Would the quality of the data suffer without the interviewer to ask clarifying questions
or give feedback on responses? This should be taken care of by the possibility of asking
clarifying questions after reviewing the responses.
•
Would the narrative component of the interview suffer? We will specifically ask for
narrative accounts of certain elements.
•
Given relatively small sample size, how much savings would actually be involved? This
procedure would be useful particularly if data is collected about Family Abduction.
For Further Exploration
Is a pilot test necessary? We think that adding this option can probably be done
without pilot testing, but with some pretesting of the self-administered questionnaire after it has
been programmed. If problems arise, they should be readily reparable by returning to the
investigator in a phone interview format.
NISMART-3 Planning Papers
7 -2 3
Draft Self-Administered LES-SK Questionnaire
PREFACE
The methodology of the LES–SK will closely replicate the methodology of the previous two NISMART
Law Enforcement Surveys (LES-2, 1997 and LES-3, 2011) with one change. Instead of collecting case-level
data from investigators solely via lengthy telephone interviews, it uses a streamlined instrument, the
LES-SK SAQ, which can be self-administered online by law enforcement respondents or administered by
telephone interviewers.
As with LES-2 and -3, the LES–SK will obtain a sample of stereotypical kidnapping cases through a survey
of all law enforcement agencies located in a national sample of counties. Within each sampled county,
researchers will identify all of the law enforcement agencies and take them into the sample.
Data collection will occur in two phases. In the first phase, the researchers will send the sample agencies
a mail survey using either a hard-copy mailed questionnaire or electronic mail. The mail survey will ask
whether the agency investigated any stereotypical kidnappings in their jurisdiction during the 12-month
time frame determined for the survey. If agencies have such cases, the survey will ask them to provide
case numbers along with names and contact information, including email addresses, for primary
investigating officers for each case.
In the second phase, the researchers will contact the primary investigator for each case and provide
them with a link to the LES-SK SAQ to obtain details of the case. Researchers will use email to provide
the link when an email address is provided and a letter when there is no email address. Researchers also
will give reminders to non-responders via email or telephone call, and telephone interviewers will call
respondents to obtain data if they do not complete an online survey. In LES-3, interviews were
completed for 91 percent of the targeted cases, and we expect similarly high response rates with this
streamlined methodology for collecting case-level data.
The online surveys that respondents sign into will have unique login identification numbers and will
automatically indicate the agency and case that is the subject of the online survey. The instructions to
the LES-SK SAQ will direct respondents to refer to agency records of the incident when they fill out the
survey. The research team will review submitted surveys for completeness and contact respondents
when necessary to resolve questions, acquire missing data and understand ambiguous descriptions.
An IRB-approved explanation of the survey and confidentiality will be provided at the beginning of the
LES-SK SAQ and for the mail survey. The SAQ will also provide contact information for the research
team (email, telephone) for respondents to use if they have questions.
NISMART-3 Planning Papers
7 -2 4
PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS
SK1.1 Please give your contact information here so the researchers can reach you if they have
questions after they review your survey. This information will be deleted as soon as the research team
verifies that your survey is complete.
Name and title (1)
Telephone number (2)
Email address (3)
NISMART requirements for SK
SK1.2 Your agency’s case number for this investigation is [number will be provided].
Please confirm that this case involved a child age 17 or younger abducted by someone who was not a
family member AND the child was
Moved at least 20 feet OR
Held for at least one hour.
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
If you are not sure what happened to the child, answer based on what
investigators in your agency think is the most likely explanation.
Box 1
If SK1.2=2 (child was not moved 20’ or held for 1 hour) or SK1.2=3 (don’t know) and respondent has no
additional surveys to complete, go to ENDSURVEY1.
If SK1.2=2 or SK1.2=3 and respondent has additional surveys to complete, go to ENDSURVEY2.
NISMART Time Frame
SK1.3
Did this incident occur between [12-month time frame to be established]?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
Box 2
If SK1.3=2 (incident not in time frame) or SK1.3=3 (don’t know) and respondent has no additional surveys to
complete, go to ENDSURVEY1.
If SK1.3=2 or SK1.3=3 and respondent has additional surveys to complete, go to ENDSURVEY2.
NISMART-3 Planning Papers
7 -2 5
NISMART definition of SK
SK1.4 Did any of the following happen in this case? (Please respond to all items.)
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot
determine (3)
a. A child was held
overnight OR between
12 midnight & 5am (1)
b. A child
was transported 50
miles or more (2)
c. A child was held for
ransom (3)
d. A child was killed (4)
e. A perpetrator
apparently intended
to keep a child
permanently (5)
Box 3
If none of the answers to SK1.4 = 1 (Yes) and respondent has no additional surveys, go to ENDSURVEY1.
If none of the answers to SK1.4 = 1 and respondent has additional surveys, go to ENDSURVEY2.
SK1.5 Did this case involve more than one perpetrator?
If number of perpetrators is unknown, please enter the number believed to have
been involved if more than one.
Yes (Enter number of perpetrators) (1)
No, 1 perpetrator (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
NISMART-3 Planning Papers
SK1.9
SK1.9
7 -2 6
SK1.6 How did the perpetrators know each other? (Please respond to all items.)
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot
determine (3)
Married or romantic or
sexual partners (1)
Other members of a
family (2)
Members of a gang (3)
Involved together in
selling or buying drugs
(4)
Involved together in
sex trafficking (5)
Involved in some other
type of criminal
enterprise (6)
Friends, acquaintances
or schoolmates (7)
Something else (Please
describe) (8)
SK1.7 Did any of the perpetrators have a close relationship with a victim or victim’s family? This could
involve a blood or legal tie to the family, a romantic partnership with a relative of a victim, a
longstanding friendship, or another relationship that would make a perpetrator well-known to a child
victim or their family.
Yes (1)
No (2)
SK1.9
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
SK1.9
SK1.8 Please describe this close relationship between a perpetrator and child victim or victim’s
family. [TEXT ENTRY]
Box 4
If SK1.5 = 1 (multiple perpetrators) the survey will be programmed to instruct respondents to answer questions
regarding the perpetrator most responsible for the incident.
SK1.9 Did this case involve more than one child victim?
Yes, 2 child victims (1)
Yes, 3 or more child victims (Enter number) (2)
No, 1 child victim (3)
Don't know/Cannot determine (4)
NISMART-3 Planning Papers
7 -2 7
SK1.11
SK1.12
SK1.12
SK1.10 How did the victims know each other?
Siblings or step-siblings (1)
Related as family some other way, such as cousins (2)
Friends, acquaintances or schoolmates (3)
Something else (Please describe) (4)
Don't know/Cannot determine (5)
SK1.12
SK1.12
SK1.12
SK1.12
SK1.12
SK1.11 How did the victims know each other?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot
determine (3)
Siblings or step-siblings
(1)
Related as family some
other way, such as
cousins (2)
Friends, acquaintances
or schoolmates (3)
Something else (Please
describe) (4)
Box 5
If SK1.9 = 1 or SK1.9 = 2 (multiple child victims) the survey will be programmed to refer to plural victims or to
“any” or “each” victim and to provide other related instructions.
NISMART Definition of Stranger
SK1.12 Was the perpetrator [most responsible for this incident] a stranger to [the/any] child victim?
Stranger means a non-family perpetrator whom the child or child's family
did not know OR the perpetrator's identity is unknown but investigators
reasonably believe the perpetrator is a stranger.)
Yes, a perpetrator was a stranger (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
SK1.15
SK1.13 Please briefly describe how the [most responsible] perpetrator knew the child victim[s] or
families. [TEXT ENTRY]
NISMART-3 Planning Papers
7 -2 8
NISMART definition of Slight Acquaintance
SK1.14 Was the [most responsible] perpetrator a slight acquaintance of [the/any] victim?
Slight acquaintance means that one of the following statements applies to the
[most responsible] perpetrator's relationship to the [any] child victim or their
family. If you are not sure, please answer based on what investigators in your
agency think is most likely about the perpetrator/victim relationships.
(Please respond to all statements.) The perpetrator was not a family member AND before the abduction:
Don't know/Cannot
Yes (1)
No (2)
determine (3)
The perpetrator's name
was unknown to the
child or family and the
child or family did not
know the
perpetrator well
enough to speak to. (1)
The child met the
perpetrator on the
Internet but not in
person. (2)
The child or
family knew the
perpetrator for less
than 6 months. (3)
The child or
family knew the
perpetrator for longer
than 6 months but saw
them less than once a
month. (4)
SK1.17 [Narrative of incident]
Box 6
Please describe
briefly what occurred in this incident, as far as you know. How did the abduction begin?
If all of the answers to SK1.14 = 2 (No) and respondent has no additional surveys, go to ENDSURVEY1.
What did the
perpetrator[s]
the child
victim[s]?
How
it end?surveys, go to ENDSURVEY2.
If all
of the answersdo
to to
SK1.14
= 2 and
respondent
has did
additional
SK1.15 Were other law enforcement agencies involved in this case?
Yes (Please specify number of agencies involved) (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
NISMART-3 Planning Papers
7 -2 9
SK1.19
SK1.19
SK1.16 Did your agency receive the first report of this case?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
SK1.18
SK1.18
SK1.17 What agency received the first report? (Please enter the agency name, county and state.)
[TEXT ENTRY]
SK1.18 Please list the other agencies involved in this case. Please list each agency by name, county and
state.
[TEXT ENTRY]
SK1.19 What is the current status of this case in your agency?
Open (under active investigation) (1)
Open (arrest warrant issued) (2)
Cleared by arrest (3)
Closed for reasons other than arrest (exceptional clearance) (4)
Suspended (inactive investigation) (5)
Some other status (Please describe) (6)
Don't know/Cannot determine (7)
NISMART-3 Planning Papers
7 -3 0
CHILD CHARACTERISTICS
SK2.1 Next are questions about [the/each] child victim in this incident. [Since there is more than one,
please start with the oldest child.] Is this child male or female?
Male (1)
Female (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
SK2.2 How old was this child at the time of the incident? (Please give your best estimate if not sure.)
Less than 1 year old (1)
1 year old or older (Please enter age in years) (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
SK2.3 Is this child Hispanic or Latino/a?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
SK2.4 What is this child's race? (Please enter all that apply.)
White (1)
Black or African American (2)
American Indian or Alaska Native (3)
Asian (4)
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander (5)
Other (Please describe) (6)
Don't know/Cannot determine (7)
Box 7
If SK1.9 = 3 (one child victim) or SK1.9=4 (don’t know), go to SK2.10
If SK1.9 = 1 or If SK1.9 = 1 (multiple child victims), go to SK2.5.
SK2.5 Was the [most responsible] perpetrator in this incident a stranger to this child or their family?
Stranger means that the child or the child's family did not
know the perpetrator OR the identity of the perpetrator is
unknown but law enforcement reasonably believes it is a
stranger.
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
Box 9
SK2.6 Please briefly describe how this child knew the [most responsible] perpetrator.
[TEXT ENTRY]
NISMART-3 Planning Papers
7 -3 1
SK2.7 Was the [most responsible] perpetrator a slight acquaintance of this child victim?
Slight acquaintance means that one of the following statements applies to the
[most responsible] perpetrator's relationship to the [any] child victim or their
family. If you are not sure, please answer based on what investigators in your
agency think is most likely about the perpetrator/victim relationships.
(Please respond to all statements.) The perpetrator was not a family member AND before the abduction:
Don't know/Cannot
Yes (1)
No (2)
determine (3)
a.
The perpetrator's name
was unknown to the
child or family and the
child or family did not
know the perpetrator
well enough to speak
to (1)
b. The child met the
perpetrator on the
Internet but not in
person (2)
c. The child or
family knew the
perpetrator for less
than 6 months (3)
d. The child or
family knew the
perpetrator for longer
than 6 months but saw
them less than once a
month (4)
Box 8
If all of the answers to SK2.7 = 2 (No) and there are additional victims, go to SK2.1.
If all of the answers to SK2.7 = 2 and there are no additional victims, go to SK3.1.
Box 9
If SK1.9 = 1 or If SK1.9 = 2 (multiple child victims) and SK1.4c = 1 (held for ransom), go to SK2.8.
Otherwise go to Box 10.
NISMART-3 Planning Papers
7 -3 2
SK2.8 Was this child held for ransom?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
Box 10
If SK1.9 = 1 or If SK1.9 = 2 (multiple child victims) and SK1.4e = 1 (intent to keep permanently), go to SK2.9.
Otherwise go to SK.10.
SK2.9 Did [the/a] perpetrator intend to keep this child permanently?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
SK2.10 How far did the perpetrator move this victim from the beginning of the abduction to the time
the victim was released, found, escaped or killed?
20 feet or less (1)
More than 20 feet but less than 1 mile (2)
1 to 9 miles (3)
10 to 49 miles (4)
50 miles or more (5)
Child was not moved (6)
Don't know/Cannot determine (7)
SK2.11 How long did the perpetrator keep or detain this victim before he or she was released, found,
escaped or killed?
Less than 1 hour (1)
SK2.13
1 hour to less than 24 hours (2)
1 to 3 days (3)
SK2.13
4 to 7 days (4)
SK2.13
More than 1 week (5)
SK2.13
Child was not detained (6)
SK2.13
Don't know/Cannot determine (7)
SK2.13
SK2.12 Was this victim held or detained overnight OR for at least one hour between midnight and 5am?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
NISMART-3 Planning Papers
7 -3 3
SK2.13 What parents did this child live with when this incident began?
Two married, biological parents (1)
Two married parents, one or both not biological, but both having a legal relationship to the child,
such as adoption (2)
Two unmarried parents, biological or other (3)
One unmarried parent with a live-in partner who was not the child’s parent) (4)
A single parent (no live-in partner) (5)
No parent (6)
Other situation (Please describe) (9)
Don't know/Cannot determine (10)
SK2.14 What type of housing did this child live in at the time of the incident?
Single family dwelling (1)
Multi-family dwelling (duplex, apartment building, for example) (2)
Other situation such as shelter, institution, etc. (3)
Don't know/Cannot determine (4)
SK2.15 At the time of the abduction, was this child impaired by any serious or permanent physical or
mental disabilities, life threatening medical conditions or other problems such as drug or alcohol use?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Box 11
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
Box 11
SK2.16 Please describe the child's disabilities, medical conditions or other impairments at the time of the
incident.
[TEXT ENTRY]
SK2.17 Would you say that this child was mentally incompetent at the time of the episode?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
NISMART-3 Planning Papers
7 -3 4
Box 11
If child is age 10 or older, go to SK2.18. If child is age 9 or younger, go to SK2.19.
SK2.18 Was this child involved in any way in... (Respond to all options.)
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot
determine (3)
The criminal justice
system (past or
current, perpetrator or
victim) (1)
Drugs, using or selling
(2)
Alcohol use (3)
SK2.19 Did this child have a parent who was involved in any way in... (Respond to all options.)
Don't know/Cannot
Yes (1)
No (2)
determine (3)
The criminal justice
system (past or
current, perpetrator or
victim) (1)
Drugs, using or selling
(2)
Definition of Recovery
SK2.20 Was this victim...
Recovered? (1)
Killed? (2)
Still missing? (3)
Don't know/Cannot determine (4)
Box 12
If SK1.9=1 or SK1.9=2 (multiple child victims), questions SK2.1—SK2.20 will repeat for each child.
After last child, go to SK3.1.
NISMART-3 Planning Papers
7 -3 5
PERPETRATOR CHARACTERISTICS
SK3.1 The next questions ask about the perpetrator. [Please answer about the perpetrator most
responsible for the incident.] Is the identity of this perpetrator known?
Yes (1)
SK3.3
No (2)
SK3.2 Do you have any information at all, like sex, race or approximate age?
Yes (1)
No (2)
SK4.1
SK3.3 How old was the [most responsible] perpetrator at the time of the incident.
Please enter age in years (1)
Don't know/Cannot determine (2)
SK3.4 Is the [most responsible] perpetrator male or female?
Male (1)
Female (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
SK3.5 Is the [most responsible] perpetrator Hispanic or Latino/a?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
SK3.6 What is the [most responsible] perpetrator's race? (Enter all that apply.)
White (1)
Black or African American (2)
American Indian or Alaska Native (3)
Asian (4)
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander (5)
Other (Please describe) (6)
Don't know/Cannot determine (7)
Box 13
If SK3.2=1 (some information about unknown perpetrator), go to SK3.7.
If SK3.1=1 (perpetrator’s identity is known), go to SK3.8.
SK3.7 Do you have any information about the perpetrator's life circumstances, like marital status,
employment or involvement with the criminal justice system?
Yes (1)
No (2)
SK4.1
NISMART-3 Planning Papers
7 -3 6
SK3.8 What was the [most responsible] perpetrator's marital status at the time of the crime?
Single (1)
Married (2)
Separated, divorced or widowed (3)
Living with a partner (4)
Don't know/Cannot determine (5)
SK3.9 Was the [most responsible] perpetrator’s employed either full- or part-time at the time of the
crime?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
SK3.10 At the time of this crime, did the [most responsible] perpetrator have any active or ongoing
involvement with the legal system or treatment programs?
Yes (Please describe) (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
SK3.11 At the time of the episode, did the [most responsible] perpetrator have a diagnosed mental illness?
Yes (Please describe) (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
SK3.12 How would you describe the [most responsible] perpetrator's overall intelligence?
Above average (1)
Average (2)
Below average (3)
Don't know/Cannot determine (4)
SK3.13 How would you describe the amount of social interaction the [most responsible] perpetrator had
in everyday life?
Above average (1)
Average (2)
Below average (3)
Don't know/Cannot determine (4)
SK3.14 Is there any indication that the [most responsible] perpetrator has any problems with drugs or
alcohol?
Yes (Please describe type of problem) (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
NISMART-3 Planning Papers
7 -3 7
SK3.15 Did this perpetrator have any prior arrests?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
SK4.1
SK4.1
SK3.16 Were any of these arrests for crimes of violence?
Yes (Please describe) (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
SK3.17 Did this perpetrator have any prior arrests for crimes against juveniles?
Yes (1)
No (2)
SK4.1
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
SK4.1
SK3.18 Did any of these prior arrests involve any of the following? (Please answer all options.)
Don't know/Cannot
Yes (1)
No (2)
determine (3)
Homicide of a child (1)
A sex crime against a
child (2)
Child abduction (3)
Battery or assault of a
child (4)
Something else (Please
describe) (5)
CRIME CHARACTERISTICS
SK4.1 Did a parent or other caretaker of a child victim in this case contact the police for help to locate
their missing child?
Yes, contacted police to locate missing child (1)
No, contacted police for other reason or did not contact police (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
NISMART-3 Planning Papers
7 -3 8
SK4.2 Where [was the victim/were the victims] last seen before the abduction occurred?
Victim's residence or place child was staying at night, includes yard (1)
Outdoor area with public access (sidewalk, park, street, beach, etc.) (2)
Indoor area with public access (shopping mall, store, theater, etc.) (3)
Perpetrator's residence or yard (4)
Common area of apartment complex (5)
School or daycare, indoors or outdoors (6)
Vehicle (7)
Other place (Please describe) (8)
Don't know/Not sure (9)
SK4.3 Was [the/any] victim taken from a group of children?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
SK4.4 How would you characterize the perpetrator's initial approach? (Please respond to all options.)
Don't know/Cannot
No (1)
Yes (2)
determine (3)
Deceptive or nonthreatening pretext (1)
Surprise (laying in wait,
using stealth) or blitz
(sudden, overwhelming
force) (2)
Other type of approach
(Please describe) (3)
SK4.5 Did [the/any] victim go with the perpetrator voluntarily (even if duped)?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
NISMART-3 Planning Papers
7 -3 9
SK4.6 During the incident did the perpetrator take or move [the/any] victim in or to any of the
following... (Please answer all options.)
Don't know/Cannot
Yes (1)
No (2)
determine (3)
A vehicle? (1)
A building? (2)
The perpetrator's
home? (3)
An outside area, like
woods? (4)
SK4.7 Did the perpetrator use physical force or any kind of threat in taking or moving [the/any] victim
from their original location?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
Box 14
If SK2.11<6 (victim was detained) or SK2.11=7 (don’t know), go to SK4.8.
If SK2.11=6 (not detained), go to Box 15.
SK4.8 Did the perpetrator use any kind of force or threat during the time [the/any] victim was detained?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
SK4.9 How isolated was the location where the victim was detained?
Very isolated (1)
Probably isolated (2)
Not isolated (3)
Don't know/Cannot determine (4)
NISMART-3 Planning Papers
Isolated means the child was not able to leave on his or
her own and had no opportunity to appeal for help.
7 -4 0
Box 15
If SK4.7=1 (force or threat while taking/moving) or SK4.8=1 (force/threat during detainment), go to SK4.10.
Otherwise go to SK4.11.
SK4.10 Did the perpetrator use force or threaten [the/any] victim in any of the following ways during the
crime? (Please respond to all statements.)
Don't know/Cannot
Yes (1)
No (2)
determine (3)
Threaten a child with
or use a weapon? (1)
Harm or threaten to
harm a child's family or
pets? (2)
Force the child to walk
somewhere (3)
Other use of force
(Describe) (4)
SK4.11 During the abduction or detainment, did [any] perpetrator... (Please respond to all statements.)
Don't know/Cannot
Yes (1)
No (2)
determine (3)
Physically assault a
child victim? (1)
Neglect a victim's basic
needs (food, water,
shelter, medical
treatment, etc.)? (2)
Sexually assault a child
victim? (3)
Drug a child victim? (4)
Rob a child victim or
damage or destroy
their belongings? (5)
Harm the child some
other way (Please
describe) (6)
NISMART-3 Planning Papers
7 -4 1
SK4.12 Is there any indication that this crime was connected with ... (Answer all options.)
Don't know/Cannot
Yes (1)
No (2)
determine (3)
Youth gang activity (1)
Drug trafficking (2)
Sex trafficking (3)
Serial killings (4)
Other criminal
networks or
conspiracies (Describe)
(5)
SK4.13 Is there any indication that the internet played a role in prior contact between a perpetrator and
victim or in leading up to the abduction encounter?
Yes (1)
No (2)
SK5.1
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
SK5.1
SK4.14 Please describe the role the internet played.
[TEXT ENTRY]
INVESTIGATION
SK5.1 Was this case submitted to ... (Please answer all options.)
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot
determine (3)
FBI's Violent Criminal
Apprehension system
(VICAP)? (1)
National Crime
Information Center
(NCIC)? (2)
National Center for
Missing & Exploited
Children (NCMEC)? (3)
SK5.2 Did a NCMEC Project Alert team participate in the investigation?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
NISMART-3 Planning Papers
7 -4 2
SK5.3 Was a DNA profile entered into CODIS (Combined DNA Index System)?
Yes (1)
No (2)
SK5.5
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
SK5.5
SK5.4 Was a match found?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
SK5.5 Was a telephone hotline established?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
SK5.6 Was a leads management system established?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
SK5.7 Was an Amber Alert issued?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
SK5.9
_SK5.11
SK5.8 Why wasn't an Amber Alert issued? (Please answer all options.)
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot
determine (3)
Child was quickly
recovered (1)
No reasonable belief an
abduction had
occurred (2)
Child was not in
imminent danger of
serious bodily injury or
death (3)
Insufficient information
about child, vehicle,
etc. to issue Amber
Alert (4)
Other reason (Please
describe) (5)
NISMART-3 Planning Papers
7 -4 3
Box 16
If SK5.7=2 (no Amber Alert), go to SK5.11.
SK5.9 Did the Amber Alert result in any information that helped to locate or recover the child or identify
the perpetrator?
Yes (1)
No (2)
SK5.11
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
SK5.11
SK5.10 Please describe how the Amber Alert helped to locate and recover the
child? [TEXT ENTRY]
SK5.11 Did electronic devices such as cell phones or computers provide evidence, leads, or other
information that was key to recovering [the/any] victim or identifying the perpetrator?
Yes (1)
No (2)
SK5.13
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
SK5.13
SK5.12 Please describe how electronic devices provided evidence, leads or other
information. [TEXT ENTRY]
SK5.13 Is there anything else that would be important to know about this case?
[TEXT ENTRY]
Box 17
If respondent has no additional surveys to complete, go to ENDSURVEY3.
If respondent has additional surveys to complete, go to ENDSURVEY4.
ENDSURVEY1 We are only including certain incidents in this study and this case does not qualify.
There are no further questions. Thank you for your time.
ENDSURVEY2 We are only including certain incidents in this study and this case does not qualify.
Please use this link to access questions about your next case that may qualify for this study: [To
be added].
ENDSURVEY3 Thank you for completing this survey. We appreciate your help and your
contribution to understanding the problem of child kidnapping.
ENDSURVEY4 Thank you for completing this survey. We appreciate your help and your
contribution to understanding the problem of child kidnapping. Please use this link to access
questions about your next case that may qualify for this study: [To be added].
NISMART-3 Planning Papers
7 -4 4
4. Designing an LES-FA to Estimate Family
Abduction
Our proposal is to use the LES-SK-type methodology to also make counts of Family
Abduction from a sample of law enforcement agencies (LEAs) selected and surveyed in a similar
way as the Stereotypical kidnappings.
Benefits
•
It would be a relatively low-cost strategy to satisfy the statutory requirement
about parental kidnappings.
•
It could provide very valuable information about the law enforcement practices
around the management of FA cases.
The design would entail using a similar sampling approach to that used in selecting
LEAs as has been used in the SK study. In the 2011 NISMART LES-SK, this meant selecting a
sample of 400 (county and county-cluster) PSUs, which included 433 counties. In the LES-SK the
design included all law enforcement agencies located in those counties (4,644), but the LES-FA may
adopt a different approach, as discussed below. The request letter would ask officials to identify
cases of children in their records who had been abducted by family members over a one-year time
period, provided to us online or hardcopy format. For large agencies, we might need to select a
subsample from this list. We could then ask to interview the investigator or someone with a copy of
the case record as in the LES-SK, or we could ask the agency to fill in an online form on the case.
Project staff will follow up by phone to interview non-respondents and conduct data-retrieval on
answers to key items that are confusing or missing in the online responses.
This is a strategy that has been used very successfully not only in the LES-SK but also
in the N-JOV studies (Wolak, Mitchell and Finkelhor, 2003, 2010, 2011), which entailed many more
cases known to LE than with Stranger Kidnapping. 8 In N-JOV, we were asking police to enumerate
all sex crimes against children that had some internet component and that had occurred over the
course of a year. In organizing the participation of large agencies, we have typically had a single
interviewer who negotiates with the agency about the optimal way to create the list and identify the
respondents and who conducts the interviews.
8
T he N-JOV3 collected over 4,000 cases from LEAs, over 2000 of which met that study’s eligibility requirements.
NISMART-3 Planning Papers
7 -4 5
An initial mailing with hard-copy is cost effective. The hard-copy mail form worked
well through two cycles of the LES-SK. Westat’s 2014-5 implementation of the BJS Annual Survey
of Probation and Parole Agencies (ASPP) also demonstrated the success of the online response
format when combined with mailed pre-notices and invitations to the website and then followed by
telephone contact and, as needed, additional mail reminders. The ASPP obtained a 90% response
rate from 476 agencies targeted for recruitment. The Census of Adult Probation-Serving Agencies
(CAPSA) similarly showed the success of online data collection from agencies, which obtained a
79% response rate from nearly 1,500 public agencies. These completed the relatively long survey (68
questions taking about an hour) by logging in to do so on their own schedule (even in multiple
sessions, as their time allowed).
In the interview with investigators, information would be gathered about the
characteristics of victims, perpetrators and aggrieved caregivers. Other key elements to be
ascertained: whether the whereabouts of the child was known, whether the child was endangered,
whether the LEA deemed this episode to be a missing child, whether the child was reported to the
NCIC or the state Missing Children Clearinghouse (MCCH), what steps the agency took to recover
the child, and whether the child was indeed returned to the caregiver.
Possible Problems
Some concerns that this addition to the LES-SK might raise are the following:
•
If it were done in complete conjunction with the LES-SK, would it impair in some way
the participation rate for the LES-SK by increasing the perceived burden on agencies?
This addition of FA cases would be asking considerably more from agencies.
Compared to SK which entailed a few hundred cases nationwide, FA cases known to
LEAs number 30,000, so many agencies that had only minor inconvenience to
accommodate the SK request might have much more burden to accommodate the FA
request.
However, our experience with N-JOVs suggests that a larger burden on agencies does
not impair participation rates. In NJOV-3, conducted in 2010 and 2011, 2,653 law
enforcement agencies responded to a mail survey asking them to list arrests for
internet- facilitated sex crimes against minors, reflecting 86% of the agency sample.
They listed more than 4,000 such cases; the researchers drew a sample of these for indepth interviews about the case details and succeeded in completing nearly two-thirds
(64%) of the targeted interviews. The study generated a national estimate of 8,144
arrests for internet-facilitated sex crimes against minors.
NISMART-3 Planning Papers
7 -4 6
•
Would it be feasible to find cases? Because of the electronic data bases in most LEAs,
searching for family abductions should be feasible. Moreover, it appears that
capabilities are improving at an accelerating pace. The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS)
has just announced the award of $24.2 million to LEAs to support infrastructure for
national and consistent crime reporting (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2016).
•
Because of variability in agencies and communities, would it prove very hard to get
comparable cases from all jurisdictions? In other words, would the records in some
agencies include some systematically different types of cases than others? Such
differences might be due to statute or to agency practices, and they might vary
according to the expectations of different communities in how willing they are to
involve police in family matters.
This issue could be addressed with some pilot testing. Some exploration and testing of
this problem may also be feasible after the first data collection is accomplished. Some
general questions could be asked as part of the agency recruitment about whether the
agency has any criteria for accepting a case for investigation.
•
Recovery information on cases may be incomplete. It is likely that case resolution
information will be available for cases that were reported to the NCIC as a missing
child. But for other FAs that were custody disputes and that were not filed as missing,
the resolution information may be less complete. There may even be some cases where
very little case detail is available. Some effort will need to be made in the study to
estimate the proportion of cases with missing information.
To Explore
Can we confirm that current computerized data management systems are widespread
enough and comprehensive enough to make searching relatively easy? This info is in something
called the LEMAS, http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/lpd13et.pdf
Inferences from an ABA Study
The feasibility of a law enforcement survey of family abduction is largely confirmed by
the experience of an earlier such survey (Grasso et al., 2001), which was conducted by the American
Bar Association and Westat. That study aimed, among other goals, at estimating the number of
family abduction cases known to law enforcement for 1992 used a methodology somewhat similar
to the current NISMART LES, for which it was a precursor. A nationally representative sample of
400 counties were drawn with the 104 largest counties selected with certainty. A total of 3625
municipal and 405 county LEAs were identified in those counties. A four-step mail questionnaire
process was used to get information from the agencies about family abduction cases. The agencies
NISMART-3 Planning Papers
7 -4 7
provided the aggregate counts. No direct phone interviewing was done of the investigators about
the cases, as is done in the LES-SK.
Several conclusions from this study are encouraging.
•
The participation rate was high. 76.6% of all agencies and 80.4% of the eligible
agencies completed the mail survey. This was in an era when searches of agency data
bases was not yet as computerized as they are today.
•
40-50% of all the cases estimated to exist came from the agencies actually targeted in
the survey. This confirms that a strategy targeting the large agencies captured many of
the existing cases.
•
The confidence interval of the estimate was relatively narrow, the estimate being 30,536,
(CI 27,227-33,845), meaning that a change of 14% could be detected by subsequent
equivalent samples.
•
High percentages of agencies (71.7%) reported that all calls they receive about a
custody cases result in the production of a written report when the call concerned an
allegation that a child was being kept, concealed or wrongly taken. Again this was in an
era before most agencies had electronic dispatch tracking systems.
•
The study should be even less burdensome for LEAs today because of
computerized information management systems.
The findings and procedures from the ABA study do nonetheless leave some questions
that a new study would have to consider.
Possible underestimate of cases. The 1990 NISMART estimated that caregivers
contacted police about 155,800 family abducted children. This is about 5 times more than the
estimate that the ABA arrived at by surveying LEAs. One source of discrepancy is that the LEA
survey was of cases, not distinct children. But this discrepancy may indicate that there were a large
number of calls that police (at least at that time) did not record or did not classify as abductions or
criminal matters. It could mean that LEAs did not do a very thorough job of identifying cases in
their records. It could also reflect the possibility that NISMART had a broader definition of family
abduction than that used by law enforcement. Or caregivers may not have given NISMART
interviewers reliable accounts of what they did.
Solution: This disjunction between population survey estimates and agency-based
estimates is a reality almost universal in epidemiology. It highlights the fact that agencybased estimates may be vulnerable to agency practices, record keeping and enumeration
NISMART-3 Planning Papers
7 -4 8
efforts. But as with UCR, NIBRS, and NCANDS data collection, these agency tallies
have proven to be useful in public policy nonetheless.
Consistent definition of family abduction. The ABA study gave agencies only a
relatively simple and non-detailed definition of what kinds of cases were sought. (See Exhibit 1, table
used in the Grasso et al. data collection, which LEAs completed.) It specified “criminal reports of
parental or familial abduction” where a family member “was alleged to have wrongfully taken, kept
or concealed a child or youth from another parent or legal guardian.” Questions might be raised
about what what interpretations agencies may have given to the terms “criminal” or “wrongfully”
and in particular whether these were interpreted from the point of view of the agency or the
complainant. It should also be noted that no information was specified or gathered about whether
the episode involved a “missing child,” that is, a child whose whereabouts were unknown.
Solution: This shortcoming in the ABA study might be remedied in a NISMART LES
in two ways. First, more detailed definitions and criteria could be given to the agencies
in selecting the cases. Second, more data could be collected about the cases (through
interviews or SAQs of the investigators) so that consistent definitional criteria could be
applied.
Exhibit 1. Response table used in Grasso et al. (2001) data collection
NISMART-3 Planning Papers
7 -4 9
The ABA study seems to confirm that a LES could be used to derive a fairly precise
estimate of Family Abductions and that response rates and cooperation would likely be quite high.
However, the ABA study had a very short instrument and asked only for aggregate data. By adding
a component to the ABA methodology that involves getting more details about individual cases, it
may be possible to apply a more consistent definition and also ascertain the “missingness” of the
children.
Family Abduction or “Missing” Family Abduction
A key design question for a LES on family abduction is whether to count only FAs
where a child is deemed to be missing, or, as an alternative, also to count FAs where the child’s
location is known, but he/she is not where the caretaker believes the child ought to be. This would
be the case where a parent says, “My ex-husband has the child at his home in Cincinnati and is
refusing to return him to me now that school vacation is over.”
In the NISMART household survey, family abduction was defined independently of
whether the child’s location was known. Then caregivers were asked about whether the child’s
location was known. If police had been contacted, they were also asked whether that contact was
for the purpose of locating a missing child or for some other reason (e.g., to report a crime). This
tiered sequence allowed NISMART to ascertain that in at least half of the police contacts about
family abduction the caregivers did know the location of the child.
In principle, it would be possible to ask LEAs to identify FAs whether the child was
missing or not, and then for the study to ascertain through a review of case information whether the
child’s whereabouts were known and/or whether the child was treated as a missing child. This
would involve having the officer providing the case-level data check the case record for what
information was given about the child’s whereabouts. It could also involve ascertaining if a missing
child report was filed about this child with the NCIC or the state MCCH. This approach would
provide the most comprehensive and nuanced data about the problem and also give information
about the degree to which family abduction is indeed a problem of literally missing children. This
point about the fact that many FA kids are not literally missing may be one of the more important
findings about the FA problem that is worth emphasizing and educating people about through the
NISMART studies. Moreover, this approach would fully address the legislative mandate in that it
would provide the estimates to address that mandate regardless of whether one reads it to mean
only the missing abducted children or all abducted children.
NISMART-3 Planning Papers
7 -5 0
As an alternative, the LES-FA could focus just on FAs that were reported as missing to
NCIC or the state MCCH. The possible advantages to just counting “missing” family abducted
children, include the following. The count of missing FA kids might be accomplished very easily
using the data from the state MCCH in states where clearinghouses collect such data. The count
would nest into the total of all MC more readily. This “missing” portion probably reflects the most
serious of the FA cases.
However, we strongly recommend the approach that identifies FAs more broadly,
irrespective of whether the child was missing.
Recommendations
•
A LES study to estimate FAs in law enforcement records should be undertaken.
•
The study should obtain case-level data (using a methodology closer to the LES-SK and
the N-JOV than to the ABA study, which obtained agency-aggregate data only).
•
While the PSU/Counties sample will be drawn similarly in all these studies (400 PSUs
comprising counties and county-clusters), the LES-FA should subsample in some way
because of the large number of family abduction cases anticipated. If the national total
of family abductions is close to 30,000 (as the ABA study indicated) and if the 400-PSU
sample design includes close to one-half of that number of cases in its sample (as
occurred in the LES-SK1, the LES-SK2, the N-JOV3, and the ABA study), then the
LEAs in the sampled counties will have reports on about 15,000 family abductions
during the study year. The LES-FA will not need nearly that number of cases to provide
precise estimates—about 4,000 cases should suffice. Further design work is needed to
consider the method of sampling to obtain that total, whether to sample agencies
within PSUs (which would reduce the recruitment labor and hence study costs) or cases
within agencies (which would reduce the agency burden and enhance response rates), or
some combination of both strategies.
•
The LES-FA should use a self-administered online instrument or, when needed but not
routinely, direct interviews with the investigators or someone with the case record in
order to get details on the case. (Various justice system surveys show that such
methods can be successful and obtain high rates of LE cooperation.)
•
A broad definition for the search should be given to the agencies, including any cases of
contact in which a caregiver was trying to recover a child from a family member who
was deemed not to have a right to the child at that time.
•
Some key goals of the data collection will be to ascertain from among these cases
how many of the children:
a. Had whereabouts that were unknown
NISMART-3 Planning Papers
7 -5 1
b.
c.
d.
e.
Were deemed to be in danger
Had some recovery action performed by police
Were reported as missing children to MCCH and NCIC
Were recovered
•
This study should be implemented separately from the LES-SK, so as not to impair the
participation in the LES-SK by asking too much of agencies at one time.
•
Piloting activity need not be extensive for this study. Prior studies such as the ABA
LES-SK and the N-JOVS suggest that this methodology works. The questionnaire can
be pretested with a small number of informants and the adequacy of the questionnaire
and the definitions can be vetted by advisory groups. After the first administration of
the LES-FA, analysis may suggest some modifications and alterations to the methods or
the questionnaire.
References
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2016). FBI and BJS award $24.2 million to law enforcement agencies to support
national crime-reporting infrastructure. BJS Press Release. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics,
U.S. Department of Justice.
Grasso, K.L., Sedlak, A.J., Chiancone, J.L., Gragg, F., Schultz, D., and Ryan, J.F. (2001). The Criminal
Justice System’s Response to Parental Abduction. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington, DC: Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice. NCJ 186160.
Wolak, J., Mitchell, K.J. and Finkelhor, D. (2003). National juvenile online victimization study (N-JOV):
Methodology report. Durham, NH: Crimes Against Children Research Center. (CV72).
Wolak, J., Mitchell, K.J. and Finkelhor, D. (2010). The national juvenile online victim study: Methodology
report. Durham, NH: Crimes Against Children Research Center.
Wolak, J., Mitchell, K.J. and Finkelhor, D. (2011). The Third National Online Victimization (NJOV3)
and Arrest Study. Durham, NH: Crimes Against Children Research Center.
NISMART-3 Planning Papers
7 -5 2
Definitional Elements for the LES-FA
The following are some important elements of the Family Abduction data collection,
and proposed definitions for these elements.
Family abduction
The taking or keeping of a child by a family member in violation of a court order, written
agreement or mutual understanding about custody or visitation rights
Family member
A biological, adoptive, step- or foster family member; someone acting on behalf of such a
family member; or the romantic partner of a parent
Missing child
Report was made to the MCH or the NCIC
Whereabouts unknown
The person who reported this incident did not have an address, telephone number or other
information that works to contact the child or the perpetrator.
Endangerment
Caregiver believed that child was at risk of physical assault, sexual abuse, physical injury, or
health problem in the company of the perpetrator.
Recovery
Child was returned or came back to the custody of the aggrieved caregiver
Violation of custody agreement
An aggrieved parent is stating that a specific part of a court order, written agreement or mutual
understanding about custody or visitation rights has been violated
NISMART-3 Planning Papers
7 -5 3
Draft Self-Administered LES-FA Questionnaire
PREFACE
The LES-FA methodology to collect data about family abductions will closely replicate the methodology
of the proposed LES-SK (stereotypical kidnappings). The LES-FA also will use a streamlined instrument to
collect case-level data, the LES-FA SAQ, which can be self-administered online by law enforcement
respondents or administered by telephone interviewers.
As with LES-SK, the LES–FA will obtain a sample of family abduction cases through a survey of law
enforcement agencies located in a national sample of counties. The sampling method is not yet finalized
and will probably differ somewhat from that used to collect data about stereotypical kidnappings
because family abductions occur much more frequently.
LES-FA data collection will occur in two phases. In the first phase, the researchers will send the sample
agencies a mail survey using either a hard-copy mailed questionnaire or electronic mail. The mail survey
will ask agencies to list case numbers of any family abductions investigated in their jurisdiction during
the time frame determined for the survey. The researchers will sub-sample cases in agencies with large
numbers of such incidents. Agencies will be asked to provide names and contact information, including
email addresses, for primary investigating officers for each selected case.
In the second phase, the researchers will contact the primary investigator for each selected case and
provide them with a link to the LES-FA SAQ to obtain details of the case. Researchers will use email to
provide the link when an email address is provided and a letter when there is no email address.
Researchers also will give reminders to non-responders via email or telephone call, and telephone
interviewers will call respondents to obtain data if they do not complete an online survey.
The online surveys that respondents sign into will have unique login identification numbers and will
automatically indicate the agency and case that is the subject of the online survey. The instructions to
the LES-SK SAQ will direct respondents to refer to agency records of the incident when they fill out the
survey. The research team will review submitted surveys for completeness and contact respondents
when necessary to resolve questions, acquire missing data and understand ambiguous descriptions.
An IRB-approved explanation of the survey and confidentiality will be provided at the beginning of the
LES-FA SAQ and for the mail survey. The SAQ will also provide contact information for the research
team (email, telephone) for respondents to use if they have questions.
NISMART-3 Planning Papers
7 -5 4
PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS
FA1 Please give your contact information here so the researchers can reach you with any questions
after they review your survey. This information will be deleted as soon as the research team verifies
that your survey is complete.
Name and title (1)
Telephone number (2)
Email address (3)
NISMART LES-FA Definitions of Family Abduction and Family Member
FA2 Your agency’s case number for this investigation is [number will be provided].
Please confirm that this incident involves a family member who took or kept a child in violation of a
court order, written agreement or mutual understanding about custody or visitation rights.
A family member includes 1) a biological, adoptive, step or foster family
member, 2) someone acting on behalf of such a family member, or 3) the
romantic partner of a parent.
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
Box 1
If FA2=2 (case is not FA) or FA2=3 (don’t know) and respondent has no additional surveys, go to ENDSURVEY1.
If FA2=2 or FA2=3 and respondent has additional surveys, go to ENDSURVEY2.
NISMART LES-FA Time Frame
FA3 Was this violation of a court order, written agreement or mutual understanding reported between
[time frame to be established]?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
Box 2
If FA3=2 (case not in time frame) or FA2=3 (don’t know) and respondent has no additional surveys, go to
ENDSURVEY1. If FA3=2 or FA3=3 and respondent has additional surveys, go to ENDSURVEY2.
NISMART-3 Planning Papers
7 -5 5
NISMART LES-FA Criteria for Missing Child
FA4 Did your agency make a missing child report about a child involved in this incident to ... (Please
respond to both options.)
Don't know/Cannot
Yes (1)
No (2)
determine (3)
National Crime
Information Center
(NCIC)? (1)
Your state's Missing
Child Clearing House?
(2)
NISMART LES-FA criteria for Qualifying Family Abduction
FA5 Did a perpetrator in this incident … (Please respond to all statements.)
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot
determine (3)
Attempt to conceal the
taking or whereabouts
of a child with the
intent to prevent
return, contact or
visitation? (1)
Transport or intend to
transport a child from
the state for the
purpose of making
recovery more
difficult? (2)
Intend to prevent
contact with a child on
an indefinite basis? (3)
Intend to affect
custodial privileges
indefinitely? (4)
Box 3
If none of the answers to FA5 = 1 (Yes), and respondent has no additional surveys, go to ENDSURVEY1. If none
of the answers to FA5 = 1 and respondent has additional surveys, go to ENDSURVEY2.
FA6 Did the person who reported this incident primarily want law enforcement to...
Locate and recover a child whose whereabouts were not known, or (1)
Recover a child whose whereabouts were known? (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (4)
NISMART LES-FA Definition of Whereabouts Unknown
NISMART-3 Planning Papers
7 -5 6
FA7 Did the person who reported this incident have an address, telephone number or other information
that worked to contact the child or the perpetrator?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
NISMART LES-FA Definition of Violation of Custody Agreement
FA8 Did the person who reported this incident state that a specific part of a court order, written
agreement or mutual understanding about custody or visitation rights had been violated?
Yes (1)
No (2)
FA10
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
FA10
FA9 What were the conditions of the court order, written agreement or mutual understanding that this
episode violated?
[TEXT ENTRY
NISMART LES-FA Endangerment Categories
FA10 Did the person who reported this incident believe that a child was at risk of any of the following
while in the company of the perpetrator? (Please respond to all options.)
Don't know/Cannot
Yes (1)
No (2)
determine (3)
Physical assault (1)
Sexual assault (2)
Neglect of basic needs
(food, shelter,
supervision, etc.) (3)
Neglect of medical
needs (4)
Other health problem
(5)
Physical injury (6)
NISMART LES-FA Narrative of Incident
FA11 Please describe briefly what happened during this episode. To the best of your knowledge,
how did it take place and why? What happened to the child or children during and after the
incident? [TEXT ENTRY]
FA12 Did your agency ultimately determine that this incident was a criminal matter or a civil matter?
Criminal matter (1)
Civil matter (2)
FA15
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
FA15
NISMART-3 Planning Papers
7 -5 7
FA13 Did your agency consider this to be an abduction or kidnapping?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
FA15
FA14 What type of criminal incident did your agency consider this to be?
Custodial interference (1)
Child endangerment (2)
Denial of access to a child (3)
Something else (Please describe) (4)
Don't know/Cannot determine (5)
CHILD CHARACTERISTICS
FA15 Next are questions about each child involved in this incident. First, did this incident involve more
than one child victim?
Yes (Enter number of child victims) (1)
No, 1 child victim (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
FA16 Is this child a boy or a girl?
Boy (1)
Girl (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
If more than one child was involved, please start
with the oldest.
FA17 How old was this child when this incident was first reported to police?
Less than 1 year old (1)
1 year old or older (Please enter age in years) (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
FA18 Is this child Hispanic or Latino/a?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
NISMART-3 Planning Papers
7 -5 8
FA19 What is this child's race?
White (1)
Black or African American (2)
American Indian or Alaska Native (3)
Asian (4)
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander (5)
Other (Please describe) (6)
Don't know/Cannot determine (7)
FA20 Did the person who reported this incident have sole or joint custody of this child based on a court
order, written agreement or mutual understanding?
Yes, sole custody (1)
Yes, joint custody (2)
No, did not have custody (3)
Don't know/Cannot determine (4)
Box 4
If FA15=1 (multiple children) and FA20=3 (no custody) or FA20=4 (don’t know) go to Box 8.
If FA15=2 (one child) and FA20=3 or FA20=4 and respondent has no additional surveys, go to ENDSURVEY1.
If FA15=2 and FA20=3 or FA20=4 and respondent has additional surveys, go to ENDSURVEY2.
FA21 How was the person who reported this incident related to this child as a family member?
A family member includes 1) a biological, adoptive, step or foster
family member, 2) someone acting on behalf of such a family
member, or 3) the romantic partner of a parent.
Biological or adoptive mother (1)
Biological or adoptive father (2)
Step-mother (3)
Step-father (4)
Other relative such as grandparent, aunt, etc. [This option will pull up a pre-coded list.] (5)
Foster parent (6)
Legal guardian (7)
Romantic partner of a parent, or (8)
Someone acting on behalf of a family member [This option will pull up a pre-coded list.] (9)
Someone else? (Please describe) (10)
Don't know/Cannot determine (11)
NISMART-3 Planning Papers
7 -5 9
FA22 Was the perpetrator a family member of this child or acting on behalf of a family member of this
child?
A family member includes 1) a biological, adoptive, step or foster
family member, 2) someone acting on behalf of such a family
member, or 3) the romantic partner of a parent.
Yes, a family member (1)
Yes, acting on behalf of a family member (2)
No (3)
Don't know/Cannot determine (4)
Box 5
If FA15=1 (multiple children) and FA22=3 (perpetrator not family member) or FA22=4 (don’t know) go to Box 8.
If FA15=2 (one child) and FA22=3 or FA22=4 and respondent has no additional surveys, go to ENDSURVEY1.
If FA15=2 (one child) and FA22=3 or FA22=4 and respondent has additional surveys, go to ENDSURVEY2.
If FA20=2 (the reporter had joint custody) and FA22=1 (perpetrator was family member) or FA22=2 (perpetrator
was acting on behalf of a family member) go to FA23.
Otherwise go to FA25.
FA23 Did the family member responsible for this incident share joint custody of this child with the
person who reported it?
Answer “Yes” if the person responsible was acting on behalf of a family
member who shared joint custody with the reporter of the incident.
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
FA25
FA25
FA24 Who shared joint custody of this child with the person who reported this
incident? [TEXT ENTRY]
FA25 How was the perpetrator related to the child? Was the perpetrator a...
Biological or adoptive mother of the child (1)
Biological or adoptive father of the child (2)
Step-mother (3)
Step-father (4)
Other relative such as grandparent, aunt, etc. [This option will pull up a pre-coded list.] (5)
Foster parent (6)
Legal guardian (7)
Romantic partner of a parent (8)
Someone acting on behalf of a family member? [This option will pull up a pre-coded list.] (9)
Don't know/Cannot determine (10)
NISMART-3 Planning Papers
7 -6 0
FA26 What parents did this child live with when this incident began?
Two married biological parents (1)
Two married parents, one or both not biological, but both having a legal relationship to the child,
such as adoption (2)
Two unmarried parents, biological or other (3)
One unmarried parent with a live-in partner who was not the child’s parent) (4)
A single parent (no live-in partner) (5)
No parent (6)
Other situation (Please describe) (9)
Don't know/Cannot determine (10)
FA27 As far as you know, did this child have any serious or permanent physical or mental disabilities,
impairments or life threatening medical conditions when this incident was reported to police?
Yes (Please describe) (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
Box 6
If FA6=1 (reporter primarily wanted LE to locate and recover child whose whereabouts were unknown) go to
FA28. If FA6=2 (reporter primarily wanted LE to recover a child whose whereabouts were known) go to FA29.
NISMART LES-FA Definition of Recovery
FA28 What was the outcome of this incident for this child?
Returned home (1)
Located, but not returned (2)
Not returned and not located (3)
Don't know/Cannot determine (4)
NISMART LES-FA Definition of Recovery
FA29 What was the outcome of this incident for this child?
Returned home (1)
Not returned home (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (4)
FA31
FA30
FA33
FA34
FA31
FA34
FA30 Please explain why the child was not returned.
[TEXT ENTRY]
Box 7
If FA28=2 (the child was located but not returned) go to FA32.
If FA29=2 (the child was not returned) go to FA33.
NISMART-3 Planning Papers
7 -6 1
FA31 How long did the perpetrator keep the child in violation of a court order, written agreement or
mutual understanding about custody or visitation before the child was returned home? (Your best
estimate is fine.) Please enter the number of hours, days, weeks or months below.
Hours (1)
Days (2)
Weeks (3)
Months (4)
Don't know/Cannot determine (5)
FA32 How long did the perpetrator keep the child in violation of a court order, written agreement or
mutual understanding about custody or visitation before the child was located? (Your best estimate is
fine.) Please enter the number of hours, days, weeks or months below.
Hours (1)
Days (2)
Weeks (3)
Months (4)
Don't know/Cannot determine (5)
FA33 How long has the perpetrator kept the child in violation of a court order, written agreement or
mutual understanding about custody or visitation? (Your best estimate is fine.) Please enter the
number of hours, days, weeks or months below.
Hours (1)
Days (2)
Weeks (3)
Months (4)
Don't know/Cannot determine (5)
FA34 To the best of your knowledge, did this child suffer any physical or sexual abuse, neglect or injury
during this episode?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Box 8
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
Box 8
NISMART-3 Planning Papers
7 -6 2
FA35 Did any of the following occur? (Please respond to all statements.)
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot
determine (3)
The child was sexually
abused (1)
The child was physically
abused (2)
The child's basic needs
were neglected (food,
supervision) (3)
The child's medical
needs were neglected
(medications, medical
care) (4)
The child suffered an
accidental injury that
required medical
attention (5)
Something else (Please
describe) (6)
Box 8
If FA15=1 (multiple children), questions FA16—FA35 will repeat for each child. After last child, go to FA36.
PERPETRATOR CHARACTERISTICS
FA36 Did this incident involve more than one perpetrator?
Yes (Enter number of perpetrators) (1)
No, 1 perpetrator (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
FA37 Was the perpetrator male or female?
Male (1)
Female (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
NISMART-3 Planning Papers
If more than one perpetrator, please answer the
following questions about the family member who was
most responsible for the incident.
7 -6 3
FA38 As far as you know, what was this perpetrator's age at the time of the report?
Teens (1)
20s (2)
30s (3)
40s (4)
50s (5)
60s (6)
70s (7)
80s (8)
Don't know/Cannot determine (9)
FA39 Is he/she of Hispanic or Latino origin?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
FA40 What is his/her race?
White (1)
Black or African American (2)
American Indian or Alaska Native (3)
Asian (4)
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander (5)
Other (Please describe) (6)
Don't know/Cannot determine (7)
CRIME CHARACTERISTICS
FA41 As part of this incident, did the perpetrator take a child to another state or country?
Yes, another state (1)
Yes, another country (2)
No (3)
Don't know/Cannot determine (4)
NISMART-3 Planning Papers
If more than one child, please answer the next questions
about all of the children involved in the incident.
FA43
FA43
7 -6 4
FA42 Did the perpetrator take a child to another state or country for any of these reasons? (Please
respond to all options.)
Don't know/Cannot
Yes (1)
No (2)
determine (3)
To take a vacation (1)
To go to the
perpetrator's residence
(2)
To visit relatives (3)
To make the recovery
or return of a child
more difficult (4)
To make contact with a
child more difficult (5)
FA43 Did the perpetrator do any of the following at any point during this incident? (Please respond to
all options.)
Don't know/Cannot
Yes (1)
No (2)
determine (3)
Threaten violence to a
child (1)
Use force against a
child (2)
Use a weapon to
threaten or harm a
child (3)
Threaten violence to
any other person (4)
Use force against any
other person (5)
Use a weapon to
threaten or harm any
other person (6)
NISMART-3 Planning Papers
7 -6 5
POLICE INVESTIGATION
FA44 How did your agency respond to the report? (Please respond to all options.)
Don't know/Cannot
Yes (1)
No (2)
determine (3)
Took a report over the
telephone (1)
Sent officers to the
child's household or to
the scene (2)
Interviewed household
members (3)
Made a written report
(4)
Got photos of the child
or children (5)
Collected evidence
such as fingerprints or
inventory (6)
Questioned witnesses
or suspects (7)
Conducted a search for
the child/children (8)
Contacted NCMEC (11)
Made an arrest (12)
Investigated or
responded in other
ways (Please describe)
(13)
FA45 Did your agency bring other agencies into the investigation or refer the case to another agency?
Yes, brought other agency or agencies into the investigation (1)
Yes, referred the case to another agency (2)
No (3)
Don't know/Cannot determine (4)
Box 9
If FA45=3 (did not bring in or refer to other agencies) or FA45=4 (don’t know) and respondent has no additional
surveys, go to ENDSURVEY3. If FA45=3 or FA45=4 and respondent has additional surveys, go to ENDSURVEY4.
NISMART-3 Planning Papers
7 -6 6
FA46 What agencies were brought into the investigation or did you refer the case to? Please list each
agency by name, county and state.
[TEXT ENTRY]
Box 10
If FA45=1 or FA45=2 (brought in or referred to other agencies), and respondent has no additional surveys, go to
ENDSURVEY3. If FA45=1 or FA45=2 and respondent has additional surveys, go to ENDSURVEY4.
ENDSURVEY1 We are only including certain incidents in this study and this case does not qualify. There
are no further questions about this case. Thank you for your time.
ENDSURVEY2 We are only including certain incidents in this study and this case does not qualify. Please
use this link to access questions about your next case that may qualify for this study: [To be added].
ENDSURVEY3 Thank you for completing this survey. We appreciate your help and your contribution to
understanding the problem of children abducted by family members.
ENDSURVEY4 Thank you for completing this survey. We appreciate your help and your contribution to
understanding the problem of children abducted by family members. Please use this link to access
questions about your next case that may qualify for this study: [To be added].
NISMART-3 Planning Papers
7 -6 7
5. Designing an LES-MC to Estimate Missing
Children and Recovery
Background Considerations
Because of the response rate problems and likely expense involved in a household
survey to count missing children, we have recommended that the OJJDP fulfill the requirements of
the Missing Children statute by using a law enforcement agency survey (LES) to estimate two other
categories of MC required by statute: missing children reported to police and missing children whose
recovery is known to police.
The statutory language states: “The Administrator (of OJJDP) …. (will) periodically conduct
national incidence studies to determine for the given year the actual number of children reported missing each year, the
number of children who are victims of abduction by strangers, the number of children who are victims of parental
kidnappings, and the number of children who are recovered.”
The statutory language asks for the number of “reported missing” and from this
standpoint, missing child cases “reported to law enforcement” are certainly responsive to the statute.
In addition, the request for the “number of children who are recovered” also could very reasonably
be interpreted as “known to be recovered by law enforcement.”
If all that is needed is a simple count of missing-child events, the NCIC data that is
posted each year could in principle provide that. Admittedly, it is not unduplicated to the child level,
so a given child might be entered multiple times depending on the number of their episodes during
the year. Also, circumstances of the missing event are only entered for slightly less than one-half of
the cases entered. Among those, runaways comprised almost 96% of the cases for each of the years
during the 2011-2015 period. Noncustodial parent abductions were less than 1% (0.7% or 0.8% in
each of those years), and nonfamily abductions were far less (0.1%).
But the NCIC information is severely limited by (1) the fact that the circumstances are
not available for more than half of the cases entered, and (2) the circumstances that are indicated are
very rudimentary—certainly not of a standard that would be helpful to policymakers and service
practitioners. Thus, we advise an approach that collects more detailed case information from law
enforcement records.
NISMART-3 Planning Papers
7 -6 8
While an LES-based estimate of missing children will certainly be smaller than a
household estimate, and will lack some of the details from the caregivers’ point of view, an LESbased estimate has some distinct advantages:
•
It will have many more details about the law enforcement response to
and management of missing children reports.
•
It will represent the dimensions and characteristics of the problem that are closest to
practitioners and policy makers
•
It can be completed more quickly and cheaply than a household survey.
•
It can potentially form the template for a data collection system that could be
integrated at some point into other existing data systems, such as the state missing
children clearinghouses, or the federal NIBRS or NCIC.
We believe that a strong strategy can be designed to get counts required by statute and
at the same time case details of these missing child episodes using a sample of LEAs with an
expanded design relatively similar to the current LES-SK. Much has changed since the 1980s in the
systematization of agency records that would make searching, sampling and data retrieval easier.
This project, which we label LES-MC, should be separate from the LES-SK and
LES-FA so as not to interfere with the other counts. In addition, in order to expedite record
searching, it should cover a shorter reference period than a full year. It would be manageable to
LEAs if it asked them to search records for episodes that occur during a one-month period,
and
specified the one-month period at least 6 months in the past so that recovery information could be
available by the time of data collection.
From previous NISMARTs and from the NCIC we can estimate that the number of
missing children reported to (or known to) police is likely to be in the hundreds of thousands.
Based on the NISMART caregivers survey in 2011, we estimated that in the course of a year 238,000
reports of MC were made to law enforcement from caregivers. As an alternative estimate of
magnitude, the NCIC listed 460,700 missing person entries for youth under 18 in 2015.
The vast majority of these missing children reported to police, as estimated in
NISMART-2 in 1999, involved runaways (45%) or benign missing (43%) episodes (episodes where a
miscommunication or misunderstanding resulted in parental concern prompting a call to police). So
the study can expect to accommodate an estimate of 200,000-500,000, a large number that dictates a
NISMART-3 Planning Papers
7 -6 9
different strategy than the approach that is workable for Stranger Kidnaping (est. 100) or even
Family Abduction known to police (est. 30,000).
As background to planning estimation strategies, it is possible to think of missing
children cases as identifiable at 4 levels within the LE system: (1) the dispatch level, where
dispatchers enter logs on calls they get about events; (2) the case report level, where LE officers
describe and record the nature of cases and actions they took; (3) the state missing children’s
clearinghouse (MCCH), to which all MC cases are supposed to be reported; and (4) the NCIC to
which all MC cases are supposed to be reported.
In our interviews with law enforcement officials, we have been led to believe that levels
3 and 4 are nearly identical—that reports to clearinghouses almost always are also reported to NCIC.
It is not possible to obtain NCIC data for the study, since the NCIC is barred from use for research
purposes. So we will focus on the clearinghouses. Clearinghouses could be used in MC estimation
strategies and they could be validated against NCIC totals.
Possible strategy 1:
Find MC cases through a review of cases filed with state clearinghouses. Training and
statute dictate to agencies that MC cases need to be reported to clearinghouses and NCIC. A
plausible approach is to assume that most important MC cases are so reported.
Advantage: this strategy is relatively easy and can be done with the cooperation of
a fairly small number of people and agencies.
Disadvantage: state clearinghouses are organized differently and have different
functions in different states; they may not include a substantial number of reported
cases
One of the major policy problems commonly raised by MC stakeholders is the question
of how systematically cases known to local LE actually do get reported to MCCH and NCIC. There
may be tremendous variability in how MCCHs function and what state and local practices entail. A
strategy relying on the MCCH alone would not answer this question.
Possible strategy 2:
Find cases at local level among police reports. This strategy would involve selecting a
national sample of agencies and gathering information from the agency in 2 stages: first having each
agency complete a questionnaire (on paper or online) or provide an electronic file listing from their
records management system that enumerates all contacts about missing children. Ideally, this would
NISMART-3 Planning Papers
7 -7 0
be done through a review of dispatch records. In the second stage, the study would have someone
from the agency fill out an online questionnaire or be interviewed by a phone interviewer about the
information in those records (or a representative sample of those records).
Advantage: this strategy would address the question of whether there are a
substantial number of cases that do not get reported to the MCCH and would
identify the characteristics those cases.
Disadvantage: This approach is more time-consuming and burdensome for
agencies.
Possible strategy 3:
Hybrid approach. MC clearinghouses and local LEAs could be combined in an
estimation strategy, using MCCH data to assist in nonresponse adjustments on estimates in cases of
local LEA non-participation.
Recommendation
We recommend a strategy based on local LEAs either without MCCH or using MCCH
only in a supplementary way (e.g., to adjust for non-participation).
The LES-MC should select a first-stage PSU sample similar to the other LES samples.
Counties or groups of counties should be sampled first, then LEAs within the county should be
sampled. Samples with first-stage sample sizes of about 400 counties and 4000 LEAs were used
previously and should be adequate to obtain sufficient precision. Preliminary design work could
estimate the precision of the estimates from this type of design.
Once the counties have been sampled, a list of all the LEA within the county will be
developed. As mentioned before, the agencies will be asked to provide data (an inventory of cases)
for a time period of a single month that is 6 or more months prior to the present. Using a reference
period of a single month limits the number of cases that need to be identified. The 6-month window
in the LES-MC should provide ample time to measure child recovery, because the proportion of
missing children gone more than 6 months is under 1% (based on the 1999 NISMART). In the next
stage, agencies will be asked to complete questionnaires on the cases in the listing. In a few of the
largest agencies it might be necessary to draw a subsample from the case listing for the case details if
the burden is too great for them to complete case detail questionnaires on all.
NISMART-3 Planning Papers
7 -7 1
The agencies will be assigned reference months allocated over the 12 months of the year
using a sampling strategy to reduce the potential for seasonal effects on the estimates. The agencies
will be ordered within a first stage unit and the first stage units will be ordered, and then the sample
will allocated to the 12 months of year. This ordering will ensure that time of year selection is not
biased by geography.
This approach assumes that, given a total of ~400,000 cases nationwide, the 400 PSUs
will include close to one-half of those (as discussed earlier in the paper on the LES-FA design). With
~200,000 cases in the 400 PSUs, a one-month sample) will obtain about 17,000 cases, which is more
than required for reasonably precise estimates (about 5,000 cases total). Thus, further subsampling
can be accommodated, whether sampling of agencies within PSUs, of cases listed within agencies, or
both. Further design work is needed to consider the implications of these alternative sampling
designs.
The protocol for data collection should include a recruitment letter describing the study
design and providing the agencies with the reasons for the survey and the data they will be asked to
provide (counts of all calls to their dispatch system from a caregiver or caregiving agency reporting a
missing child under age 18 or trying to get help in locating such a child). Key information gathered
will be date of contact, age of child, sex of child, relationship to caller, length of time currently
missing, endangerment features, whether the case was reported to MCCH or NCIC, whether
recovery information is available, and if so date of recovery.
This should be followed by a mixed mode data collection approach. Since the vast
majority of the agencies will be capable of using the Web and this is the lowest cost (and likely the
highest quality mode), the first step will be asking them to complete and submit detailed case-level
data via the Web. After reminders (or if an agency indicates that they do not have access to the
Web), the next mode should be a mailed hard-copy questionnaire and a standard approach should
be followed. Non-respondents to the self-administered data collection can be contacted by
telephone to prompt their response or to collect the data by phone.
As noted above, it may be necessary to subsample cases in the larger agencies with great
numbers of cases. It is also possible to target only cases with specific characteristics for further data
collection with the LES-MC questionnaire. This provides the opportunity to obtain more data on
high-interest types of cases. For these follow-ups the mode of data collection might depend on the
nature of the information needed. For example, it may be better to conduct phone interviews with
police about the details of specific types of cases.
NISMART-3 Planning Papers
7 -7 2
Additional Issues for Further Design Work
Several additional issues must be addressed in further design and pilot work:
•
Can we use missing children’s clearinghouses in various states to help adjust for agency
non-participation? We need to have discussions with some clearinghouse officials and
review of their data to ascertain its quality and detail. From the look of some of the
clearinghouse publications, we are concerned that this data quality and availability are very
variable and may not provide information on geographic and agency sources.
Although LEA participation in such surveys in the past has been high, obtaining the
cooperation and careful data extraction from large agencies may prove a problem because
of the likely burden. Options should be evaluated, including possibly provisions to defray
costs and subsampling strategies, mentioned above. These should be tested in a pilot
phase. Additionally, pilot work could help in formulating the most effective agency
recruitment approach and offer some idea of how many agencies may need direct
telephone contact during the recruitment process.
NISMART-3 Planning Papers
7 -7 3
Definitions
Missing child
Because an LES-MC would not have systematic information from caregivers many of
the original NM definitions would be difficult to operationalize. For instance, the current
NISMART definition of a “reported” missing is “caretaker contacted the police or a missing
children’s agency to locate the child.” (“Note that the category “reported missing” does not include
children who were reported to the police for reasons other than locating the missing child, e.g., to
report an incident as a crime or simply to recover a child whose whereabouts were known.”)
We do not know whether there will much discrepancy between this original NM
definition and what LEAs deem to be a missing child. For example, LEAs may consider children
missing even if the whereabouts are known, and caregivers are calling primarily to recover rather
than locate.
We also do not know how difficult it will be to ascertain from police records whether
the caregiver did know the whereabouts of the child. But we presume that if recovery (rather than
location) is the primary goal, caregivers will give police substantial details about the child’s location
to assist police efforts, so that this information will be in the record.
Recommendation: a missing child would be any child for whom police help was
sought (and some record created) to either locate or recover the child.
The study would try to ascertain from the record whether the location was known or
unknown when the child was first reported. But presumably sometimes this information would not
be certain. The study would compare this information on whereabouts known with whether the case
was classified as a missing child by the LEA by such actions as the creation of a MC report.
Recovered Child
Recovery in NISMART has been defined as the child returned to the household. This
definition has never been problematic in NISMART. The key potential difficulty is whether all
LEAs make a systematic effort to ascertain whether recovery occurred and record that information.
There could be a large number of cases with missing information.
NISMART-3 Planning Papers
7 -7 4
Recommendation: define recovery according to whether the record indicates that
the child has returned to the household. If the record does not indicate a return, a
key question asked in the questionnaire will be the level of investigator confidence
that this is due to a failure to return as opposed to a failure to follow-up. The study
will make some effort to assess the amount of missing information and correct
estimates accordingly.
Endangerment
NISMART has not had a generalized category of endangered missing across all
categories. But this is a category that is structured within the LEA system because the NCIC asks
for this designation. NCIC defines endangered as: “a person who is missing under circumstances
indicating that his/her physical safety may be in danger.”
Dispatchers say they always assess for risk/endangerment when they receive a call about
a missing child. They mention assessing for elements such as drugs, serious medical conditions, and
if the situation calls for it, past suicide attempts, recent arguments or violent incidents. NISMART
findings indicated that substantial numbers of runaway/thrownaway children were also endangered
by virtue of their young age (13 years old or younger), being in the company of someone known to
be abusing drugs, or use of hard drugs by the children themselves.
Recommendation: Plans should be made to encode endangerment elements of the
episode from the police records. The plans for what measures to put into the
instrument should be refined during pilot-testing and should focus on the most
common endangerment elements known to police.
Subcategories of Missing Children
The question here is how to define/distinguish the various episode types that can lead
to missingness in an LES. These were described in the report on the NISMART-3 Household
Survey. They include family abduction (FA), non-family abduction (NFA), runaway/thrownaway
(RATA), missing injured/lost (MILI), and missing benign explanation (MBE). They raise several
problems. First, some of these categories (RATA, MILI) are not specified in the statutory language.
Nonetheless, NISMART has previously estimated them. Second, for most of these categories, fairly
detailed information was elicited from caregivers in the NISMART household survey, which
allowed clearly operationalizing these categories and distinguishing them one from another.
Certainly, in LE
NISMART-3 Planning Papers
7 -7 5
records, NISMART’s subdivision of these types will not be feasible. For example, RA distinguished
between children who left home without permission and those who were out of the home with
permission but chose not to return. It is doubtful that detailed enough information will be
systematically available in the police records to code these elements.
Recommendation: An effort should be made to classify cases into the categories
of RATA, MILI, and FA, as well as into a “Non-Family Abducted” and a residual
category of “Other.” New and simpler definitions for these categories, however, will
need to be developed for the coding of episodes from police records. One obvious
possibility would be to default to the definition of the case given by the LE record,
as indicated by the use of any categorizing words in the record such as “runaway” or
“abduction.” Finally, because of questions about the precision of these categories,
it will be best to report the findings in terms of the percentage of the total MC cases
that fall into these various subcategories rather than reporting point estimates for
them. No effort should be made to try to estimate a “non-family abduction” point
estimate from this sample, since it is likely to be very unreliable given the small
number of cases.
Omitted Subcategories of Missing Children
The NCMEC officials have raised concerns that an LES of the sort described here will
not be informative about thrownaways and abandoned children. Such children may have been
identifiable through a household survey in which caregivers acknowledged ejecting a child from the
household. But because caregivers may be unlikely to report such children as missing, they will
probably not be included in a LES-based estimation.
Several responses are possible: (1) the statute does not specify the enumeration of
this population. (2) Since NISMART-2, we have recognized that it was not easy to
distinguish RA and TA populations, so it is not clear the first NISMART provided a
good estimate of the thrownaway population. (3) This may be a population better
assessed through a study like the National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and
Neglect, rather than through NISMART.
NISMART-3 Planning Papers
7 -7 6
Draft Self-Administered LES-MC Questionnaire
PREFACE
The LES-MC will collect data about children reported missing to law enforcement agencies using a
methodology similar to those of the proposed LES-SK (stereotypical kidnappings) and LES-FA (family
abductions). The LES-MC also will use a streamlined instrument to collect case-level data, the LES-MC
SAQ, which can be self-administered online by law enforcement respondents or administered by
telephone interviewers.
As with the LES-SK and the LES–FA, the LES-MC will obtain a sample of reports about missing children
made to law enforcement agencies through a survey of agencies located in a national sample of
counties. The agency and case sampling methods will be finalized during a pilot phase of the study.
Agencies in the sample will be asked to provide an inventory of missing child reports for a specific
time period, such as a single month, that is 6 or more months in the past (to allow time for child
recovery to be determined).
LES-MC data collection will occur in two phases. First, researchers will send each agency selected for
the sample a recruitment letter explaining the reasons for the survey and asking them to provide a
count of all calls to their dispatch system from a caregiver seeking help to locate or recover a
missing child. This count could be an electronic file from their records management system listing
all contacts about missing children. In the second phase, the study will ask someone from the
agency to fill out an online questionnaire or be interviewed by a phone interviewer about the
information in those records, or in a subsample sample of the records.
Researchers will give reminders to non-responders via email or telephone call, and telephone
interviewers will call respondents to obtain data if online surveys are not completed. The online
surveys will have unique login identification numbers and will automatically indicate the agency
and case that is the subject of the online survey. The instructions to the LES-MC SAQ will direct
respondents to refer to agency records of the incident when they fill out the survey. The
research team will review submitted surveys and contact respondents when necessary to
resolve questions and acquire missing data.
An IRB-approved explanation of the survey and confidentiality will be provided at the beginning of the
LES-MC SAQ and for the first-phase survey. The SAQ will also provide contact information for the
research team (email, telephone) for respondents to use if they have questions.
NISMART-3 Planning Papers
7 -7 7
PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS
MC1 Please give your contact information here so the researchers can reach you with any questions
after they review your survey. This information will be deleted as soon as the research team verifies
that your survey is complete.
Name and title (1)
Telephone number (2)
Email address (3)
NISMART LES-MC Definition of Reported Missing
MC2 The incident number for this report is [number will be provided].
Please confirm that this incident involved a child, age 17 or younger, missing from a caretaker who
contacted your agency for help to either locate or recover the child.
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
Box 1
If MC2=2 (not child reported missing) or MC2=3 (don’t know) and respondent has no additional surveys, go to
ENDSURVEY1. If MC2=2 or MC2=3 and respondent has additional surveys, go to ENDSURVEY2.
[NISMART Time Frame]
MC3 Did the initial call occur between [time frame to be established]?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
Box 2
If MC3=2 (not in time frame) or MC3=3 (don’t know) and respondent has no additional surveys, go to
ENDSURVEY1. If MC3=2 or MC3=3 and respondent has additional surveys, go to ENDSURVEY2.
MC4 Did the person who reported this incident primarily want law enforcement to
Locate and recover a child whose whereabouts were not known, or (1)
Recover a child whose whereabouts were known? (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
MC5 Did the person who reported this incident have an address, telephone number or other
information that worked to contact the child?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
NISMART-3 Planning Papers
7 -7 8
MC5a Was this incident submitted to ... (Please respond to both options)
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot
determine (3)
National Crime
Information Center
(NCIC)? (1)
Missing Child
Clearinghouse for your
state? (2)
MC6 Was more than one child reported missing in this incident?
Yes, 2 children (1)
Yes, 3 or more children (Enter number) (2)
No, 1 child (3)
Don't know/Cannot determine (4)
MC8
MC9
MC9
MC7 How did the children know each other?
Siblings or step-siblings (1)
MC9
Related as family some other way, such as cousins (2)
MC9
Living in a group home or treatment or detention facility for juveniles (3) MC9
Friends, acquaintances or schoolmates (4)
MC9
Something else (Please describe) (5)
MC9
Don't know/Cannot determine (6)
MC9
MC8 How did the children know each other? (Please respond to all options.)
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot
determine (3)
Siblings or step-siblings
(1)
Related as family some
other way, such as
cousins (2)
Living in a group home
or treatment or
detention facility for
juveniles (3)
Friends, acquaintances
or schoolmates (4)
Something else (Please
describe) (5)
NISMART-3 Planning Papers
7 -7 9
MC9 How was the person who reported the incident related to the child?
If more than one child was involved, please answer
about the closest relationship.
Parent or step-parent (1)
Other relative [This option will provide a pre-coded pull down list.] (2)
Employee of school or daycare (3)
Employee of group home or treatment, detention or other juvenile facility (4)
Someone else (Please describe) (5)
Don't know/Cannot determine (6)
NISMART Categories of Missing Children
MC10 Does the incident log or record indicate that this episode involved any of the following? (Please
respond to all options.)
Don't know/Cannot
Yes (1)
No (2)
determine (3)
A runaway? (1)
A repeat runaway? (2)
A violation or alleged
violation of a custodial
order or agreement?
(3)
A child who was lost,
stranded, injured or too
young to know how to
return home or make
contact with caretaker?
(4)
A child reported
missing because of a
misunderstanding or
other harmless
circumstance? (4)
A child missing under
unknown
circumstances? (5)
An abduction by a nonfamily perpetrator? (6)
A stranger abduction?
(7)
NISMART-3 Planning Papers
7 -8 0
CHILD CHARACTERISTICS
MC11 Is this child male or female?
Male (1)
Female (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
If more than one child was involved, please start
with the oldest.
MC12 How old was this child at the time of the initial call?
Less than 1 year old (1)
1 year old or older (Please enter age in years) (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
MC13 Is this child Hispanic or Latino/a?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
MC14 What is this child's race?
White (1)
Black or African American (2)
American Indian or Alaska Native (3)
Asian (4)
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander (5)
Other (6)
Don't know/Cannot determine (7)
Endangerment
MC15 Was this child at risk or endangered because of a medical condition, disability or other condition
or circumstance, such as drug use?
Yes [This option will provide a pre-coded pull down list] (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
Definition of Recovery
MC16 What was the outcome of this incident for this child?
Returned (1)
Located but not returned (2)
Not returned and not located (3)
Don't know/Cannot determine (4)
NISMART-3 Planning Papers
7 -8 1
MC19
MC18
MC21
MC17 Sometimes records are not updated to show that a child has been recovered. Which do you think
is more likely?
This child has not returned home, or (1)
MC21
This child has returned but the record has not been updated (2)
MC21
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
MC21
MC18 Please explain why the child was not returned.
[TEXT ENTRY]
Box 3
If MC16=2 (located not returned), go to MC20.
MC19 (If returned)
How much time passed from the initial call to your agency until this child’s return home)? (Your best
estimate is fine.) Please enter the number of hours, days, weeks or months below.
Hours (1)
MC21
Days (2)
MC21
Weeks (3)
MC21
Months (4)
MC21
Don't know/Cannot determine (5)
MC21
MC20 How much time passed from the initial call to your agency until the child was located? (Your best
estimate is fine.) Please enter the number of hours, days, weeks or months below.
Hours (1)
Days (2)
Weeks (3)
Months (4)
Don't know/Cannot determine (5)
MC21 Was this child reported missing at any other time between [time frame of study]?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
Box 4
If MC6=1 (multiple children), questions MC11—MC21 will repeat for each child. After last child, go to MC21.
NISMART-3 Planning Papers
7 -8 2
POLICE RESPONSE
MC22 During the initial call was information logged about ... (Please respond to all options)
Don't know/Cannot
Yes (1)
No (2)
determine (3)
Where child was last
seen? (1)
Who child was with
when last seen? (2)
Child's physical
description and
clothing? (4)
Whether child has
medical conditions,
disabilities? (5)
Whether child had cell
phone? (6)
Any mode of travel for
child (walking, bicycle,
motor vehicle)? (7)
MC23 How did your agency respond to this incident? (Please answer all options.)
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot
determine (3)
Sent officers to a child's
household or to the
scene (1)
Interviewed household
members (2)
Got child photos (3)
Collected other
evidence (4)
Conducted a search (5)
Secured the scene (6)
Investigated or
responded in other
ways (Describe) (7)
NISMART-3 Planning Papers
7 -8 3
MC24 Did your agency bring other agencies into an investigation or refer the case to another agency?
Yes, brought other agency or agencies into the investigation (1)
Yes, referred the case to another agency (2)
No (3)
Don't know/Cannot determine (4)
Box 5
If MC24=3 (did not bring in/refer to other agencies) or MC24=4 (don’t know) and respondent has no additional
surveys, go to ENDSURVEY3. If MC24=3 or MC24=4 and respondent has additional surveys, go to ENDSURVEY4.
MC25 What agencies were brought into the investigation or did you refer the case to? Please list each
agency by name, county and state.
[TEXT ENTRY]
Box 6
If MC24=1 or MC24=2 (brought in or referred to other agencies), and respondent has no additional surveys, go
to ENDSURVEY3. If MC24=1 or MC24=2 and respondent has additional surveys, go to ENDSURVEY4.
ENDSURVEY1 We are only including certain incidents in this study and this case does not qualify. There
are no further questions about this case. Thank you for your time.
ENDSURVEY2 We are only including certain incidents in this study and this case does not qualify. Please
use this link to access questions about your next case that may qualify for this study: [To be added].
ENDSURVEY3 Thank you for completing this survey. We appreciate your help and your contribution to
understanding the problem of children reported missing.
ENDSURVEY4 Thank you for completing this survey. We appreciate your help and your contribution to
understanding the problem of children reported missing. Please use this link to access questions about
your next case that may qualify for this study: [To be added].
NISMART-3 Planning Papers
7 -8 4
Appendix 8
LES-SK Pilot Materials
Table of Contents
Attachment
Page
A
Pilot Survey Invitation Letter ..................................................................
8-1
B
Frequently Asked Questions ...................................................................
8-4
C
Survey Reminder by Email or Telephone ................................................
8-6
D
LES-SK Instrument ................................................................................
8-8
E
Recording Comments..............................................................................
8-31
F
Script for Telephone Follow-up Interviews .............................................
8-33
Attachment A
Pilot Survey Invitation Letter
NISMART-4 Pilot Survey Invitation Letter
8 -1
Attachment A: Pilot Survey Invitation Letter
[F_NAME L_NAME]
[DEPT NAME]
[ADDRESS]
[CITY, STATE ZIP]
[DATE OF MAILING]
Dear [INSERT TITLE, L_NAME]:
Your agency is being asked to participate in a pilot test for the National Incidence Studies of Missing,
Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children (NISMART). The study is sponsored by the Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) and managed by the National Institute of Justice
(NIJ), at the U.S. Department of Justice. NISMART was created in response to the Missing Children’s
Assistance Act for the purpose of estimating the number of missing children nationwide. We have included
a copy of the findings from the last survey. As Westat and the University of New Hampshire prepare to
conduct NISMART-4, we are asking for your assistance in pilot testing a new method of collecting case
information on cases where children are abducted by strangers.
The following case has been identified by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children
(NCMEC) as an episode of stranger abduction: [CASE ID, NAME OF VICTIM(S)]
To participate, you or the most knowledgeable investigator will be asked to answer questions about the case
identified above using a web survey. The survey is estimated to take 40 minutes, and may be completed in
parts. After the survey is completed, we will follow up with a phone call at a time of your convenience to
talk about the survey experience. For example: Did the survey allow you to say everything you wanted to say about this
case? Were there questions that were confusing because of how they were worded? This follow up conversation should
take about 20 minutes.
The pilot survey is available on our secure website. You may go to the website at any time and enter your
personal and confidential user login and password (below) to begin the survey. We ask you to complete
the web survey by Month, XX, 20XX.
Survey address: https://www.XXXXXXXX
User Login: «uID»
Password: «Password»
Your agency’s participation is voluntary and will not affect the status of your agency in any way. The survey
and post-survey phone call will be used to evaluate the utility of the survey process only. Your name and the
name of your agency will remain confidential and will not be used in any reports. We understand how busy
you are and appreciate your assistance in this important project. If you have questions about the pilot or
your participation, please call our toll free number, 1-xxx-xxx-xxxx, or email [email protected].
Sincerely,
Andrea Sedlak, Ph.D.
Westat
NISMART-4 Pilot Survey Invitation Letter
David Finkelhor, Ph.D.
University of New Hampshire
8 -2
Co-Principal Investigator
NISMART-4 Pilot Survey Invitation Letter
Co-Principal Investigator
8 -3
[BACK PAGE]
FEDERAL ASSURANCES OF CONFIDENTIALITY AND OTHER NOTICES
This data collection is authorized under the Missing Children's Assistance Act (see, 34 U.S.C. § 11293(c)).
NIJ, OJJDP, its employees, and its data collection agents will use the information you provide for statistical
or research purposes only, and will not disclose your information in identifiable form without your consent
to anyone outside of the research team. All personally identifiable data collected are protected under the
confidentiality provisions of 34 U.S.C. § 10231, and any person who violates these provisions may be
punished by a fine up to $10,000, in addition to any other penalties imposed by law. Further, under the
Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2015, your data are protected from cybersecurity risks through screening
of the systems that transmit your data. Your compliance with the request for information is entirely
voluntary, and if you choose to provide information, you may discontinue at any time without penalty of
any sort.
Under the Federal Paperwork Reduction Act, a person is not required to respond to a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. We try to create forms and instructions
that are accurate, can be easily understood, and which impose the least possible burden on you to provide
us with information. We estimate that it will take 0.67 hours to complete this questionnaire. This estimate
includes time for reviewing the instructions, searching for and gathering the data, completing the form, and
reviewing answers.
If you would like more information concerning this authorization, the confidentiality guarantee, have
comments regarding the accuracy of the burden estimate, or suggestions for making the form simpler, please
contact Benjamin Adams, Social Science Analyst, at [email protected] or 202-616-3687. If you
need assistance regarding your submission, please contact the survey director, Gail Thomas at
[email protected] or call the project’s toll free number: xxx-xxx-xxxx.
NISMART-4 Pilot Survey Invitation Letter
8 -4
Attachment B
Frequently Asked Questions
NISMART-4 F requently Asked Questions
8 -5
Attachment B: Frequently Asked Questions
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
LES-SK Pilot
What is NISMART-4?
You have been asked to participate in a pilot study of the
National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted,
Runaway, and Thrownaway Children (NISMART).
NISMART-4 is a research study created by the federal
Missing Children’s Assistance Act. Its goal is to estimate
the number of missing children, including children who
have been abducted. NISMART-4 is the fourth in a series
of studies between conducted between 1988 and 2011. It
will update numbers from the three previous studies to
determine whether there have been increases or decreases
in the number of missing or abducted children.
NISMART-4 findings will be reported to Congress and
will guide the development of policies and programs for
missing children. This study is sponsored by the Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) and
managed by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), at the
U.S. Department of Justice. Westat and the Crimes against
Children Research Center (CCRC) at the University of
New Hampshire are conducting the study, including this
pilot study.
What is a pilot study?
A pilot study is a small-scale version of a large-scale study.
Its purpose is to test and refine materials, methods and
protocols proposed for the eventual full scale study.
What is the National Law Enforcement Survey
on Abducted Children?
NISMART includes a number of different studies. The
National Law Enforcement Survey on Abducted Children
will estimate the number of children who were kidnapped
by strangers between [one-year period]. For the pilot
study, researchers will contact investigators of preidentified stereotypical kidnapping cases to ask them to
complete a new, self-administered web survey to provide
details about the specified case. Because this is a pilot
study, investigators will also be asked their opinions about
their experience completing the online survey: for
example, “Were any questions confusing?”
How did you choose this agency?
A selection of stereotypical kidnapping cases were preidentified in order to test the study pilot. Your agency
investigated one of the selected cases.
NISMART-4 F requently Asked Questions
8 -6
Why is my agency’s participation important?
Participation is voluntary, and will not affect the status of
your agency in any way. Participating in this pilot will not
entail any particular risks or benefits to you. However,
your participation will contribute to an improved
NISMART and a better reporting experience for law
enforcement officers in the future. Ultimately, your
participation and feedback will add to our national
knowledge about abducted children.
What will the pilot survey involve?
We will ask the investigator who is most knowledgeable
about a relevant case to respond to a new web survey on a
secure site to provide details about the characteristics of
offenders, victims, and case investigated. The survey will
take about 40 minutes and it can be taken in parts. After
your survey is completed and submitted, we would like to
follow up with a brief telephone interview (about 20
minutes) to ask about your reaction to the survey itself.
What about security and confidentiality
protections?
In accordance with 28 CFR Part 22, the research team
will provide administrative and physical security of
identifiable data and preserve the anonymity of persons
participating in the pilot. The online survey avoids
asking for identifying information about cases, such as
victims’ names. Throughout the pilot study, all
information that would link an agency with any specific
case details will be kept under lock and key or in secure
computer files, accessible to authorized study staff only.
What if I have questions?
If you have questions about the research, please contact the
survey director, Gail Thomas, at 301-610-5523, or
[email protected], or the study’s toll-free number
at 1-XXX-XXX-XXXX. If you have any questions about
your rights as a research subject, you may contact the
Westat Human Subjects Protection Office at 1-888-9207631. Please leave a message with your full name, the name
of the study (NISMART-4) and a phone number,
beginning with the area code. Someone will return your call
as soon as possible.
Attachment C
Survey Reminder by Email or Telephone
NISMART-4 Survey Reminder by Email or Telephone
8 -6
Attachment C: Survey Reminder by Email or Telephone
Dear [TITLE L_NAME]:
On [DATE] we sent you a letter asking you to participate in a pilot test for the National Incidence
Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children (NISMART). NISMART is
sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) and managed by
the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), at the U.S. Department of Justice. As Westat and the University
of New Hampshire prepare to conduct NISMART-4, we are writing to ask again for your assistance
in pilot testing a new method of collecting case information on cases where children are abducted by
strangers.
In the letter we sent on [DATE], we identified the name of the victim(s) in the kidnapping case
identified for us by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC). If you need
information to identify this case, or you are not the right person to complete the survey, please let us
know by calling 1-800-xxx-xxxx.
The pilot survey is available on our secure website. You may go to the website at any time and enter
your personal and confidential user login and password (below) to begin the survey. The survey should
only take about 30 minutes and we will follow up with a short debriefing call. We ask you to complete
the web survey by Month, XX, 20XX.
Survey address: https://www.XXXXXXXX
User Login: «uID»
Password: «Password»
We know you are extremely busy, but your voluntary participation in this pilot will help law
enforcement in the future.
Sincerely,
Andrea Sedlak, Ph.D.
Westat
Co-Principal Investigator
NISMART-4 Survey Reminder by Email or Telephone
David Finkelhor, Ph.D.
University of New Hampshire
Co-Principal Investigator
8 -7
Attachment D
LES-SK Instrument
NISMART-4 LES-SK Instrument
8 -8
OMB No. XXXX-XXXX
Approval Expires XX/XX/20XX
Attachment D: LES-SK Instrument
PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS
SK1.1 Thank you for participating in the NISMART pilot survey. Please provide your contact information
here so the researchers can reach you later. After your survey is completed and reviewed, we would
like to talk with you about your experience taking the survey. This information will be deleted as soon
as the research team verifies that your survey is complete.
Name and title (1) ____________________
Telephone number (2) ____________________
Email address (3) ____________________
NISMART requirements for SK
SK1.2 Your agency’s case number for this investigation is [number will be provided].
Please confirm that this case involved a child age 17 or younger abducted by someone who was not a
family member AND the child was
• Moved at least 20 feet OR
• Held for at least one hour.
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
If you are not sure what happened to the child, answer based on what
investigators in your agency think is the most likely explanation.
Box 1
If SK1.2=2 (child was not moved 20’ or held for 1 hour) or SK1.2=3 (don’t know) and respondent has no
additional surveys to complete, go to ENDSURVEY1.
If SK1.2=2 or SK1.2=3 and respondent has additional surveys to complete, go to ENDSURVEY2.
NISMART Time Frame
SK1.3
Did this incident occur between [12-month time frame to be established]?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, we cannot ask you to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. Public reporting burden for this collection is estimated to average 40 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of
information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing
this burden, to the National Institute of Justice, 810 Seventh Street NW, Washington, DC 20531.
NISMART-4 LES-SK Instrument
8 -9
Box 2
If SK1.3=2 (incident not in time frame) or SK1.3=3 (don’t know) and respondent has no additional surveys to
complete, go to ENDSURVEY1.
If SK1.3=2 or SK1.3=3 and respondent has additional surveys to complete, go to ENDSURVEY2.
NISMART definition of SK
SK1.4 Did any of the following happen in this case? (Please respond to all items.)
Don't know/Cannot
Yes (1)
No (2)
determine (3)
a. A child was held
overnight OR between
12 midnight & 5am (1)
b. A child was
transported 50 miles or
more (2)
c. A child was held for
ransom (3)
d. A child was killed (4)
e. A perpetrator
apparently intended to
keep a child
permanently (5)
Box 3
If none of the answers to SK1.4 = 1 (Yes) and respondent has no additional surveys, go to ENDSURVEY1.
If none of the answers to SK1.4 = 1 and respondent has additional surveys, go to ENDSURVEY2.
SK1.5 Did this case involve more than one perpetrator?
If number of perpetrators is unknown, please enter the number believed to have
been involved if more than one.
Yes (Enter number of perpetrators) (1) ____________________
No, 1 perpetrator (2)____________________________________________ SK1.9
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)_________________________________ SK1.9
NISMART-4 LES-SK Instrument
8 -1 0
SK1.6 How did the perpetrators know each other? (Please respond to all items.)
Don't know/Cannot
Yes (1)
No (2)
determine (3)
Married or romantic or
sexual partners (1)
Other members of a
family (2)
Members of a gang (3)
Involved together in
selling or buying drugs
(4)
Involved together in
sex trafficking (5)
Involved in some other
type of criminal
enterprise (6)
Friends, acquaintances
or schoolmates (7)
Something else (Please
describe) (8)
SK1.7 Did any of the perpetrators have a close relationship with a victim or victim’s family? This could
involve a blood or legal tie to the family, a romantic partnership with a relative of a victim, a
longstanding friendship, or another relationship that would make a perpetrator well-known to a child
victim or their family.
Yes (1)
No (2)________________________________________________________SK1.9
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)__________________________________SK1.9
SK1.8 Please describe this close relationship between a perpetrator and child victim or victim’s family.
[TEXT ENTRY]____________________________________________________________________
Box 4
If SK1.5 = 1 (multiple perpetrators) the survey will be programmed to instruct respondents to answer questions
regarding the perpetrator most responsible for the incident.
SK1.9 Did this case involve more than one child victim?
Yes, 2 child victims (1)
Yes, 3 or more child victims (Enter number) (2) ______ ________________ SK1.11
No, 1 child victim (3)_____________________________________________SK1.12
Don't know/Cannot determine (4)__________________________________SK1.12
NISMART-4 LES-SK Instrument
8 -1 1
SK1.10 How did the victims know each other?
Siblings or step-siblings (1)_______________________________________SK1.12
Related as family some other way, such as cousins (2)_________________ SK1.12
Friends, acquaintances or schoolmates (3)__________________________ SK1.12
Something else (Please describe) (4) _______ _______________________SK1.12
Don't know/Cannot determine (5) ________________________________ SK1.12
SK1.11 How did the victims know each other?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot
determine (3)
Siblings or step-siblings
(1)
Related as family some
other way, such as
cousins (2)
Friends, acquaintances
or schoolmates (3)
Something else (Please
describe) (4)
Box 5
If SK1.9 = 1 or SK1.9 = 2 (multiple child victims) the survey will be programmed to refer to plural victims or to
“any” or “each” victim and to provide other related instructions.
NISMART Definition of Stranger
SK1.12 Was the perpetrator [most responsible for this incident] a stranger to [the/any] child victim?
Stranger means a non-family perpetrator whom the child or child's family
did not know OR the perpetrator's identity is unknown but investigators
reasonably believe the perpetrator is a stranger.)
Yes, a perpetrator was a stranger (1)________________________________SK1.15
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
SK1.13 Please briefly describe how the [most responsible] perpetrator knew the child victim[s] or
families. [TEXT ENTRY] _______________________________________________________
NISMART-4 LES-SK Instrument
8 -1 2
NISMART definition of person with limited previous contact
SK1.14 Was the [most responsible] perpetrator a person with limited previous contact with [the/any]
victim?
Person with limited previous contact (Slight acquaintance) means that one of
the following statements applies to the [most responsible] perpetrator's
relationship to the [any] child victim or their family. If you are not sure, please
answer based on what investigators in your agency think is most likely about
the perpetrator/victim relationships.
(Please respond to all statements.) The perpetrator was not a family member AND before the abduction:
Don't know/Cannot
Yes (1)
No (2)
determine (3)
The perpetrator's name
was unknown to the
child or family and the
child or family did not
know the perpetrator
well enough to speak
to. (1)
The child met the
perpetrator on the
Internet but not in
person. (2)
The child or family
knew the perpetrator
for less than 6 months.
(3)
The child or family
knew the perpetrator
for longer than 6
months but saw them
less than once a
month. (4)
SK1.17 [Narrative of incident]
Box 6
Please describe
briefly
what
occurred
this
incident,
as far
know. How
didgo
thetoabduction
begin?
If all of the
answers
to SK1.14
= 2 in
(No)
and
respondent
hasasnoyou
additional
surveys,
ENDSURVEY1.
What did the
perpetrator[s]
to the =child
How
it end?surveys, go to ENDSURVEY2.
If all
of the answersdo
to SK1.14
2 andvictim[s]?
respondent
has did
additional
SK1.15 Were other law enforcement agencies involved in this case?
Yes (Please specify number of agencies involved) (1) ____________________
No (2)_________________________________________________________SK1.19
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)__________________________________ SK1.19
NISMART-4 LES-SK Instrument
8 -1 3
SK1.16 Did your agency receive the first report of this case?
Yes (1)________________________________________________________ SK1.18
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)__________________________________SK1.18
SK1.17 What agency received the first report? (Please enter the agency name, county and state.)
[TEXT ENTRY]_____________________________________________________
SK1.18 Please list the other agencies involved in this case. Please list each agency by name, county and
state.
[TEXT ENTRY]____________________________________________________________
SK1.19 What is the current status of this case in your agency?
Open (under active investigation) (1)
Open (arrest warrant issued) (2)
Cleared by arrest (3)
Closed for reasons other than arrest (exceptional clearance) (4)
Suspended (inactive investigation) (5)
Some other status (Please describe) (6) ____________________
Don't know/Cannot determine (7)
NISMART-4 LES-SK Instrument
8 -1 4
CHILD CHARACTERISTICS
SK2.1 Next are questions about [the/each] child victim in this incident. [Since there is more than one,
please start with the oldest child.] Is this child male or female?
Male (1)
Female (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
SK2.2 How old was this child at the time of the incident? (Please give your best estimate if not sure.)
Less than 1 year old (1)
1 year old or older (Please enter age in years) (2) ____________________
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
SK2.3 Is this child Hispanic or Latino/a?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
SK2.4 What is this child's race? (Please enter all that apply.)
White (1)
Black or African American (2)
American Indian or Alaska Native (3)
Asian (4)
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander (5)
Other (Please describe) (6) ____________________
Don't know/Cannot determine (7)
Box 7
If SK1.9 = 3 (one child victim) or SK1.9=4 (don’t know), go to SK2.10
If SK1.9 = 1 or If SK1.9 = 1 (multiple child victims), go to SK2.5.
SK2.5 Was the [most responsible] perpetrator in this incident a stranger to this child or their family?
Stranger means that the child or the child's family did not
know the perpetrator OR the identity of the perpetrator is
unknown but law enforcement reasonably believes it is a
stranger.
Yes (1)________________________________________________________ Box 9
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
SK2.6 Please briefly describe how this child knew the [most responsible] perpetrator.
[TEXT ENTRY]______________________________________________________
NISMART-4 LES-SK Instrument
8 -1 5
SK2.7 Was the [most responsible] perpetrator a person with limited previous contact (slight acquaintance)
of this child victim?
Person with limited previous contact means that one of the following
statements applies to the [most responsible] perpetrator's relationship to the
[any] child victim or their family. If you are not sure, please answer based on
what investigators in your agency think is most likely about the
perpetrator/victim relationships.
(Please respond to all statements.) The perpetrator was not a family member AND before the abduction:
Don't know/Cannot
Yes (1)
No (2)
determine (3)
a. The perpetrator's
name was unknown to
the child or family and
the child or family did
not know the
perpetrator well
enough to speak to (1)
b. The child met the
perpetrator on the
Internet but not in
person (2)
c. The child or family
knew the perpetrator
for less than 6 months
(3)
d. The child or family
knew the perpetrator
for longer than 6
months but saw them
less than once a month
(4)
Box 8
If all of the answers to SK2.7 = 2 (No) and there are additional victims, go to SK2.1.
If all of the answers to SK2.7 = 2 and there are no additional victims, go to SK3.1.
Box 9
If SK1.9 = 1 or If SK1.9 = 2 (multiple child victims) and SK1.4c = 1 (held for ransom), go to SK2.8.
Otherwise go to Box 10.
NISMART-4 LES-SK Instrument
8 -1 6
SK2.8 Was this child held for ransom?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
Box 10
If SK1.9 = 1 or If SK1.9 = 2 (multiple child victims) and SK1.4e = 1 (intent to keep permanently), go to SK2.9.
Otherwise go to SK.10.
SK2.9 Did [the/a] perpetrator intend to keep this child permanently?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
SK2.10 How far did the perpetrator move this victim from the beginning of the abduction to the time
the victim was released, found, escaped or killed?
20 feet or less (1)
More than 20 feet but less than 1 mile (2)
1 to 9 miles (3)
10 to 49 miles (4)
50 miles or more (5)
Child was not moved (6)
Don't know/Cannot determine (7)
SK2.11 How long did the perpetrator keep or detain this victim before he or she was released, found,
escaped or killed?
Less than 1 hour (1)______________________________________________SK2.13
1 hour to less than 24 hours (2)
1 to 3 days (3)__________________________________________________ SK2.13
4 to 7 days (4)__________________________________________________ SK2.13
More than 1 week (5)____________________________________________ SK2.13
Child was not detained (6)________________________________________ SK2.13
Don't know/Cannot determine (7)__________________________________SK2.13
SK2.12 Was this victim held or detained overnight OR for at least one hour between midnight and 5am?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
NISMART-4 LES-SK Instrument
8 -1 7
SK2.13 What parents did this child live with when this incident began?
Two married, biological parents (1)
Two married parents, one or both not biological, but both having a legal relationship to the child,
such as adoption (2)
Two unmarried parents, biological or other (3)
One unmarried parent with a live-in partner who was not the child’s parent) (4)
A single parent (no live-in partner) (5)
No parent (6)
Other situation (Please describe) (9)______________
Don't know/Cannot determine (10)
SK2.14 What type of housing did this child live in at the time of the incident?
Single family dwelling (1)
Multi-family dwelling (duplex, apartment building, for example) (2)
Other situation such as shelter, institution, etc. (3)
Don't know/Cannot determine (4)
SK2.15 At the time of the abduction, was this child impaired by any serious or permanent physical or
mental disabilities, life threatening medical conditions or other problems such as drug or alcohol use?
Yes (1)
No (2)________________________________________________________Box 11
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)_________________________________ Box 11
SK2.16 Please describe the child's disabilities, medical conditions or other impairments at the time of the
incident.
[TEXT ENTRY]__________________________________________________________________
SK2.17 Would you say that this child was mentally incompetent at the time of the episode?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
NISMART-4 LES-SK Instrument
8 -1 8
Box 11
If child is age 10 or older, go to SK2.18. If child is age 9 or younger, go to SK2.19.
SK2.18 Was this child involved in any way in... (Respond to all options.)
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot
determine (3)
The criminal justice
system (past or
current, perpetrator or
victim) (1)
Drugs, using or selling
(2)
Alcohol use (3)
SK2.19 Did this child have a parent who was involved in any way in... (Respond to all options.)
Don't know/Cannot
Yes (1)
No (2)
determine (3)
The criminal justice
system (past or
current, perpetrator or
victim) (1)
Drugs, using or selling
(2)
Definition of Recovery
SK2.20 Was this victim...
Recovered? (1)
Killed? (2)
Still missing? (3)
Don't know/Cannot determine (4)
Box 12
If SK1.9=1 or SK1.9=2 (multiple child victims), questions SK2.1—SK2.20 will repeat for each child.
After last child, go to SK3.1.
NISMART-4 LES-SK Instrument
8 -1 9
PERPETRATOR CHARACTERISTICS
SK3.1 The next questions ask about the perpetrator. [Please answer about the perpetrator most
responsible for the incident.] Is the identity of this perpetrator known?
Yes (1)________________________________________________________SK3.3
No (2)
SK3.2 Do you have any information at all, like sex, race or approximate age?
Yes (1)
No (2)_______________________________________________________SK4.1
SK3.3 How old was the [most responsible] perpetrator at the time of the incident.
Please enter age in years (1) ____________________
Don't know/Cannot determine (2)
SK3.4 Is the [most responsible] perpetrator male or female?
Male (1)
Female (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
SK3.5 Is the [most responsible] perpetrator Hispanic or Latino/a?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
SK3.6 What is the [most responsible] perpetrator's race? (Enter all that apply.)
White (1)
Black or African American (2)
American Indian or Alaska Native (3)
Asian (4)
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander (5)
Other (Please describe) (6) ____________________
Don't know/Cannot determine (7)
Box 13
If SK3.2=1 (some information about unknown perpetrator), go to SK3.7.
If SK3.1=1 (perpetrator’s identity is known), go to SK3.8.
SK3.7 Do you have any information about the perpetrator's life circumstances, like marital status,
employment or involvement with the criminal justice system?
Yes (1)
No (2)_________________________________________________________SK4.1
NISMART-4 LES-SK Instrument
8 -2 0
SK3.8 What was the [most responsible] perpetrator's marital status at the time of the crime?
Single (1)
Married (2)
Separated, divorced or widowed (3)
Living with a partner (4)
Don't know/Cannot determine (5)
SK3.9 Was the [most responsible] perpetrator’s employed either full- or part-time at the time of the
crime?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
SK3.10 At the time of this crime, did the [most responsible] perpetrator have any active or ongoing
involvement with the legal system or treatment programs?
Yes (Please describe) (1) ____________________
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
SK3.11 At the time of the episode, did the [most responsible] perpetrator have a diagnosed mental illness?
Yes (Please describe) (1) ____________________
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
SK3.12 How would you describe the [most responsible] perpetrator's overall intelligence?
Above average (1)
Average (2)
Below average (3)
Don't know/Cannot determine (4)
SK3.13 How would you describe the amount of social interaction the [most responsible] perpetrator had
in everyday life?
Above average (1)
Average (2)
Below average (3)
Don't know/Cannot determine (4)
SK3.14 Is there any indication that the [most responsible] perpetrator has any problems with drugs or
alcohol?
Yes (Please describe type of problem) (1) ____________________
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
NISMART-4 LES-SK Instrument
8 -2 1
SK3.15 Did this perpetrator have any prior arrests?
Yes (1)
No (2)________________________________________________________SK4.1
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)_________________________________ SK4.1
SK3.16 Were any of these arrests for crimes of violence?
Yes (Please describe) (1) ____________________
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
SK3.16.1 Was this perpetrator listed in the National Sex Offender Registry?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
SK3.16.2 Was this perpetrator listed in the National Sex Offender Public Website?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
SK3.17 Did this perpetrator have any prior arrests for crimes against juveniles?
Yes (1)
No (2) ________________________________________________________SK4.1
Don't know/Cannot determine (3) _________________________________ SK4.1
SK3.18 Did any of these prior arrests involve any of the following? (Please answer all options.)
Don't know/Cannot
Yes (1)
No (2)
determine (3)
Homicide of a child (1)
A sex crime against a
child (2)
Child abduction (3)
Battery or assault of a
child (4)
Something else (Please
describe) (5)
NISMART-4 LES-SK Instrument
8 -2 2
CRIME CHARACTERISTICS
SK4.1 Did a parent or other caretaker of a child victim in this case contact the police for help to locate
their missing child?
Yes, contacted police to locate missing child (1)
No, contacted police for other reason or did not contact police (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
SK4.2 Where [was the victim/were the victims] last seen before the abduction occurred?
Victim's residence or place child was staying at night, includes yard (1)
Outdoor area with public access (sidewalk, park, street, beach, etc.) (2)
Indoor area with public access (shopping mall, store, theater, etc.) (3)
Perpetrator's residence or yard (4)
Common area of apartment complex (5)
School or daycare, indoors or outdoors (6)
Vehicle (7)
Other place (Please describe) (8) ____________________
Don't know/Not sure (9)
SK4.3 Was [the/any] victim taken from a group of children?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
SK4.4 How would you characterize the perpetrator's initial approach? (Please respond to all options.)
Don't know/Cannot
No (1)
Yes (2)
determine (3)
Deceptive or nonthreatening pretext (1)
Surprise (laying in wait,
using stealth) or blitz
(sudden, overwhelming
force) (2)
Other type of approach
(Please describe) (3)
SK4.5 Did [the/any] victim go with the perpetrator voluntarily (even if duped)?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
NISMART-4 LES-SK Instrument
8 -2 3
SK4.6 During the incident did the perpetrator take or move [the/any] victim in or to any of the
following... (Please answer all options.)
Don't know/Cannot
Yes (1)
No (2)
determine (3)
A vehicle? (1)
A building? (2)
The perpetrator's
home? (3)
An outside area, like
woods? (4)
SK4.7 Did the perpetrator use physical force or any kind of threat in taking or moving [the/any] victim
from their original location?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
Box 14
If SK2.11<6 (victim was detained) or SK2.11=7 (don’t know), go to SK4.8.
If SK2.11=6 (not detained), go to Box 15.
SK4.8 Did the perpetrator use any kind of force or threat during the time [the/any] victim was detained?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
SK4.9 How isolated was the location where the victim was detained?
Very isolated (1)
Probably isolated (2)
Not isolated (3)
Don't know/Cannot determine (4)
NISMART-4 LES-SK Instrument
Isolated means the child was not able to leave on his or
her own and had no opportunity to appeal for help.
8 -2 4
Box 15
If SK4.7=1 (force or threat while taking/moving) or SK4.8=1 (force/threat during detainment), go to SK4.10.
Otherwise go to SK4.11.
SK4.10 Did the perpetrator use force or threaten [the/any] victim in any of the following ways during the
crime? (Please respond to all statements.)
Don't know/Cannot
Yes (1)
No (2)
determine (3)
Threaten a child with
or use a weapon? (1)
Harm or threaten to
harm a child's family or
pets? (2)
Force the child to walk
somewhere (3)
Other use of force
(Describe) (4)
SK4.11 During the abduction or detainment, did [any] perpetrator... (Please respond to all statements.)
Don't know/Cannot
Yes (1)
No (2)
determine (3)
Physically assault a
child victim? (1)
Neglect a victim's basic
needs (food, water,
shelter, medical
treatment, etc.)? (2)
Sexually assault a child
victim? (3)
Drug a child victim? (4)
Rob a child victim or
damage or destroy
their belongings? (5)
Harm the child some
other way (Please
describe) (6)
NISMART-4 LES-SK Instrument
8 -2 5
SK4.12 Is there any indication that this crime was connected with ... (Answer all options.)
Don't know/Cannot
Yes (1)
No (2)
determine (3)
Youth gang activity (1)
Drug trafficking (2)
Sex trafficking (3)
Serial killings (4)
Other criminal
networks or
conspiracies (Describe)
(5)
SK4.13 Is there any indication that the internet played a role in prior contact between a perpetrator and
victim or in leading up to the abduction encounter?
Yes (1)
No (2)________________________________________________________SK5.1
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)_________________________________ SK5.1
SK4.14 Please describe the role the internet played.
[TEXT ENTRY]_____________________________________________________________________
INVESTIGATION
SK5.1 Was this case submitted to ... (Please answer all options.)
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot
determine (3)
FBI's Violent Criminal
Apprehension system
(VICAP)? (1)
National Crime
Information Center
(NCIC)? (2)
National Center for
Missing & Exploited
Children (NCMEC)? (3)
SK5.2 Did a NCMEC Project Alert team participate in the investigation?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
NISMART-4 LES-SK Instrument
8 -2 6
SK5.3 Was a DNA profile entered into CODIS (Combined DNA Index System)?
Yes (1)
No (2)________________________________________________________SK5.5
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)_________________________________ SK5.5
SK5.4 Was a match found?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
SK5.5 Was a telephone hotline established?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
SK5.6 Was a leads management system established?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
SK5.7 Was an Amber Alert issued?
Yes (1)_____________________________________________________SK5.9
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)______________________________SK5.11
SK5.8 Why wasn't an Amber Alert issued? (Please answer all options.)
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot
determine (3)
Child was quickly
recovered (1)
No reasonable belief an
abduction had
occurred (2)
Child was not in
imminent danger of
serious bodily injury or
death (3)
Insufficient information
about child, vehicle,
etc. to issue Amber
Alert (4)
Other reason (Please
describe) (5)
NISMART-4 LES-SK Instrument
8 -2 7
Box 16
If SK5.7=2 (no Amber Alert), go to SK5.11.
SK5.9 Did the Amber Alert result in any information that helped to locate or recover the child or identify
the perpetrator?
Yes (1)
No (2)____________________________________________________SK5.11
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)_____________________________SK5.11
NISMART-4 LES-SK Instrument
8 -2 8
SK5.10 Please describe how the Amber Alert helped to locate and recover the child?
[TEXT ENTRY]________________________________________________________
SK5.11 Did electronic devices such as cell phones or computers provide evidence, leads, or other
information that was key to recovering [the/any] victim or identifying the perpetrator?
Yes (1)
No (2)______________________________________________________SK5.13
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)_______________________________ SK5.13
SK5.12 Please describe how electronic devices provided evidence, leads or other information.
[TEXT ENTRY]______________________________________________________________
SK5.13 Is there anything else that would be important to know about this case?
[TEXT ENTRY]____
__________________________________________________________
SK.14 If you want to clarify your answers to any of the close-ended responses above, please do so here:
SK.15 If you feel a narrative description of the kidnapping episode would help us better understand
this case, please provide a description here:
NISMART-4 LES-SK Instrument
8 -2 9
Box 17
If respondent has no additional surveys to complete, go to ENDSURVEY3.
If respondent has additional surveys to complete, go to ENDSURVEY4.
ENDSURVEY1 We are only including certain incidents in this study and this case does not qualify.
There are no further questions. Thank you for your time.
ENDSURVEY2 We are only including certain incidents in this study and this case does not qualify.
Please use this link to access questions about your next case that may qualify for this study: [To
be added].
ENDSURVEY3 Thank you for completing this survey. We appreciate your help and your
contribution to understanding the problem of child kidnapping.
ENDSURVEY4 Thank you for completing this survey. We appreciate your help and your
contribution to understanding the problem of child kidnapping. Please use this link to access
questions about your next case that may qualify for this study: [To be added].
NISMART-4 LES-SK Instrument
8 -3 0
Attachment E
Recording Comments
NISMART-4 Recording C omments
8 -3 1
Attachment E: Recording Comments
While you are taking the survey, we ask
HOW TO USE
COMMENT FIELDS IN
THE WEB SURVEY
Comment fields throughout the programmed pilot
survey will allow you to record easily any problems
you may encounter [see sidebar].
Comment fields in the
programmed
pilot
survey will allow you
to record easily any
comments
or
problems you may
encounter.
that you consciously take note of your reactions to the
questions while answering the survey questions and
telling us about this case.
Here are some possible problem areas to look for:
QUESTION WORDING
Are there questions that are confusing because of how
they are worded?
RESPONSE CATEGORIES
For multiple-choice questions, can you find the
response category you need or is a response category
missing?
CONTENT
Are there questions that were not included that you
think are important to add in order for people to
understand the case and its outcome?
To the right of each
question, you will see
an ADD COMMENT
button.
ADD COMMENT
Just click the ADD
COMMENT
button,
and
a
comment
window will open,
allowing you to type
your thoughts about
that question.
I have a question
about this question.
The perp in this
abduction
was
recogni…
NISMART-4 Recording C omments
8 -3 2
Attachment F
Script for Telephone Follow-up Interviews
NISMART-4 Script for Telephone
F ollow-up Interviews
8 -3 3
OMB No. XXXX-XXXX
Approval Expires XX/XX/20XX
Attachment F: Script for Telephone Follow-up Interviews
INTRODUCE SELF, CONFIRM SPEAKING TO SURVEY RESPONDENT
First, I want to thank you for taking time out of your very busy schedule to participate
in the NISMART pilot. As you may recall, we wanted to talk with you a little about
your experience taking the survey and possible reactions you may have had to any
of the questions.
Is this a good time to ask you a few questions about the pilot survey? We estimate
this call will take about 20 minutes.
[IF NOT A GOOD TIME, SCHEDULE CALL BACK APPOINTMENT]
First, I’d like to ask your reaction to the amount of time it took for you to complete
this survey online. I see from our management system that it looks like you completed
the survey in [1/MORE THAN 1 SESSION] and the total amount of time it took was
___ minutes. Thinking back, what was your impression about the length of the
survey?
Did the amount of time seem about appropriate or right to you?
Was it hard to find time to take the survey?
We know that with our schedules it’s not always possible to do a task from beginning
to end without interruption. Did you take any breaks or have any interruptions?
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, we cannot ask you to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. Public reporting burden for this collection is estimated to average 20 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of
information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing
this burden, to the National Institute of Justice, 810 Seventh Street NW, Washington, DC 20531.
NISMART-4 Script for Telephone
F ollow-up Interviews
8 -3 4
[QUESTIONS ABOUT DATA RETRIEVAL SHOULD BE ASKED IN LINEAR
ORDER AND INTEGRATED INTO THE DISCUSSION AND COLLECTION OF
OTHER COMMENTS. DO NOT JUMP BACK AND FORTH IN THE
INSTRUMENT.]
I want to ask you about this question [which was not answered or appears
inconsistent].
[IF EMBEDDED COMMENTS REQUIRE CLARIFICATION] Comment fields were
programmed into the survey to allow you to comment on the elements of any given
question. Your comments were very helpful and I’d like to follow up on a
comment/couple comments you left.
[GIVE OR DESCRIBE QUESTION TO HELP RESPONDENT RECALL] you wrote
[READ RESPONDENT’S COMMENT AND YOUR CLARIFYING QUESTION].
Thank you!
As researchers, we spend a great deal of time on the development of questionnaires,
scrutinizing the wording of questions and anticipating possible responses and the
information we need to capture by our questions. Despite our best efforts, sometimes
people have difficulties answering a question.
Were any questions confusing because of how they were worded?
A number of survey questions ask you to select from multiple choice answers. In
multiple-choice questions, did you always find the response category you needed to
answer the question accurately or did you feel like we missed a response category?
Were any questions left out of the survey that you expected to be asked and think are
important to add in order for people to understand the case and its outcome?
Finally, when you completed the survey, did you feel you had the opportunity to say
everything you wanted to say about this case?
Anything else?
Thank you again for being part of our pilot. We’re learning a lot and appreciate
your participation. Goodbye.
NISMART-4 Script for Telephone
F ollow-up Interviews
8 -3 5
Appendix 9
LES-SK Full Study
Table of Contents
Attachment
Page
A
Sample Letter from State Investigative Partner or State Missing
Children Clearinghouse Manager.............................................................
9-1
B
Letter of Support from NIJ .....................................................................
9-3
C
Invitation Letter, Chief of Police/Sheriff.................................................
9-6
D
Mail Survey Screener ...............................................................................
9-8
E
FAQS Mail Survey Screener ....................................................................
9-16
F
Thank you/Reminder Postcard ...............................................................
9-19
G
Second Reminder Letter..........................................................................
9-21
H
Third Reminder Letter ............................................................................
9-23
I
Shortened Four-Question Survey ............................................................
9-25
J
LES-SK Web Survey...............................................................................
9-28
K
Invitation Letter for Web Survey, Investigating Officer...........................
9-52
L
Frequently Asked Questions Phase 2: Web Survey ..................................
9-55
M
Web Survey First Reminder Email ..........................................................
9-58
N
Web Survey Third Reminder Email.........................................................
9-60
O
Web Survey Second Reminder Email ......................................................
9-62
P
Thank You Letter....................................................................................
9-64
Attachment A
Sample Letter from State Investigative Partner or
State Missing Children Clearinghouse Manager
NISMART-4 Sample Letter from State Investigative Partner
o r State M i ssi ng Chi l dr e n Cl e ar i ng ho use M anag e r
9 -1
Attachment A: Sample Letter from State Investigative Partner or
State Missing Children Clearinghouse Manager
[INSERT F_NAME L_NAME]
[INSERT DEPT NAME]
[INSERT ADDRESS 1]
[INSERT CITY], [INSERT STATE] [INSERT ZIP]
[INSERT DATE OF MAILING]
Dear [INSERT TITLE L_NAME],
Greetings! We are contacting you today to encourage your participation in the National Law
Enforcement Survey on Abducted Children, a national study designed to estimate the number of U.S.
children kidnapped by strangers. This study is part of the Fourth National Incidence Studies of Missing,
Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children (NISMART-4), and is being conducted by Westat and the
University of New Hampshire’s Crimes against Children Research Center. It is sponsored by the Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) and managed by the National Institute of Justice
(NIJ), at the U.S. Department of Justice.
This important project will generate updated national estimates of child victims of stranger abductions
and determine whether there have been any changes in the overall number or characteristics of victims.
The data will be reported to Congress and used to inform the development of future policies and
programs for missing children. Findings from the survey will be available on the NIJ and OJJDP websites.
In the next few weeks, you will receive a survey in the mail from NIJ Senior Science Analyst Benjamin
Adams with Co-Principal Investigators, Dr. Andrea Sedlak from Westat, and Dr. David Finkelhor from the
University of New Hampshire. We urge you to complete the survey. If your agency does not have
jurisdiction to conduct investigations for child abductions, you only need to complete 2 questions but it
is important that all surveys are returned!
<> is keenly interested in the success of
NISMART-4 and the National Law Enforcement Survey on Abducted Children. Your agency’s participation
will make an important contribution to the accuracy and reliability of the final study estimates and to
furthering our understanding of the problem of missing children and how to address it. Accordingly, I
strongly encourage you to take a few moments of your time to participate.
If you have any questions regarding about this request or about the study, please feel free to contact
the survey director, Gail Thomas, toll-free at 1-XXX-XXX-XXXX or [email protected].
Sincerely,
<>
NISMART-4 Sample Letter from State Investigative Partner
o r State M i ssi ng Chi l dr e n Cl e ar i ng ho use M anag e r
9 -2
Attachment B
Letter of Support from NIJ
NISMART-4 Letter of Support from NIJ
9 -3
Attachment B: Letter of Support from NIJ
[INSERT F_NAME, MID_INIT, L_NAME]
[INSERT DEPT NAME]
[INSERT ADDRESS 1]
[INSERT CITY], [INSERT STATE] [INSERT ZIP]
[INSERT DATE OF MAILING]
Dear [INSERT TITLE, L_NAME],
Westat and the University of New Hampshire’s Crimes against Children Research Center are conducting
the Fourth National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children
(NISMART-4). The study is sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
(OJJDP) and managed by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), at the U.S. Department of Justice. Your
agency has been invited to participate in this study and we would appreciate your assistance.
In response to the 1984 Missing Children’s Assistance Act, three previous national incidence studies
have been conducted to determine for a given year the actual number of children reported missing, the
number of children who are victims of abduction by strangers, the number of children who are the
victims of parental kidnappings, and the number of children who are recovered.
The current study will generate updated national estimates of child victims of stranger abductions and
determine whether there have been any changes in the overall number of victims or in specific
categories of victims. The data collected in this survey will only be used for research and statistical
purposes, as described in Title 34, USC §10231 (enclosed). The data will be reported to Congress and will
be used to inform the development of future policies and programs for missing children. Findings from
the survey will be available on the NIJ and OJJDP websites.
We understand that you receive a number of data requests throughout the year; however, we would
greatly appreciate it if you would please take the time to complete the enclosed survey. Your responses
will allow us to examine the size and nature of key aspects of the nation’s missing children problem.
If you have any comments or questions about this request, please feel free to contact me at XXX-XXXXXXX or [email protected].
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Benjamin Adams
Social Science Analyst
National Institute of Justice
NISMART-4 Letter of Support from NIJ
9 -4
[BACK PAGE]
FEDERAL ASSURANCES OF CONFIDENTIALITY AND OTHER NOTICES
This data collection is authorized under the Missing Children's Assistance Act (see, 34 U.S.C. §
11293(c)). NIJ, OJJDP, its employees, and its data collection agents will use the information you
provide for statistical or research purposes only, and will not disclose your information in identifiable
form without your consent to anyone outside of the research team. All personally identifiable data
collected are protected under the confidentiality provisions of 34 U.S.C. § 10231, and any person who
violates these provisions may be punished by a fine up to $10,000, in addition to any other penalties
imposed by law. Further, under the Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2015, your data are protected
from cybersecurity risks through screening of the systems that transmit your data. Your compliance
with the request for information is entirely voluntary, and if you choose to provide information, you
may discontinue at any time without penalty of any sort.
Under the Federal Paperwork Reduction Act, a person is not required to respond to a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. We try to create forms and
instructions that are accurate, can be easily understood, and which impose the least possible burden
on you to provide us with information. We estimate that it will take 0.25 hours to complete this
questionnaire. This estimate includes time for reviewing the instructions, searching for and gathering
the data, completing the form, and reviewing answers.
If you would like more information concerning this authorization, the confidentiality guarantee, have
comments regarding the accuracy of the burden estimate, or suggestions for making the form simpler,
please contact Benjamin Adams, Social Science Analyst, at [email protected] or 202-6163687. If you need assistance regarding your submission, please contact the survey director, Gail
Thomas at [email protected] or call the project’s toll free number: xxx-xxx-xxxx.
NISMART-4 Letter of Support from NIJ
9 -5
Attachment C
Invitation Letter, Chief of Police/Sheriff
NISMART-4 Invitation Letter, Chief of
Police/Sheriff
9 -6
Attachment C: Invitation Letter, Chief of Police/Sheriff
[INSERT F_NAME, MID_INIT, L_NAME]
[INSERT DEPT NAME]
[INSERT ADDRESS 1]
[INSERT CITY], [INSERT STATE] [INSERT ZIP]
[INSERT DATE OF MAILING]
Dear [INSERT TITLE, L_NAME],
We are asking your agency to participate in the National Law Enforcement Survey on Abducted Children, a study
designed to estimate the number of children kidnapped by strangers in the U.S.
This study is part of the Fourth National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children
(NISMART-4). The current study will update the national estimates of child victims of stranger abductions and
determine whether there have been any changes in the overall number of victims or in specific categories of victims.
This study will limit the scope of events to those known to law enforcement and so we are relying on law
enforcement agencies as the source of data.
The study is being conducted in two phases. In this first phase, we are asking your agency to complete a brief mail
screener to let us know 1) if you have jurisdiction to conduct criminal investigations of missing children and 2) if you
have had any relevant cases between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. In Phase 2, the research team will contact
investigators of the child abduction cases identified in Phase 1. They will be asked to complete a self-administered
web survey providing details about the specific case.
Enclosed is the Phase 1 survey packet for your agency. The packet includes the mail survey screener, frequently
asked questions about the study, and a pre-paid return envelope. Please review the materials enclosed, complete
the survey and return it using the enclosed prepaid envelope by <>.
In order for the results of this study to truly represent the experience of all law enforcement agencies across the
country, it is important that every questionnaire be completed and returned, even if your agency did not have any
relevant cases. You can simply note this. If your agency has a lot of eligible cases, you can call the survey director
and she will help you complete it.
Your agency’s participation is voluntary and will not affect the status of your agency in any way. Responses are
confidential and will be used for statistical purposes only, as required by federal law. The name of your agency will
also remain confidential. It will not be used in any of the results from the study. The survey identification number is
for mailing purposes only, so we can check your agency off our mailing list when your survey is returned.
This study is sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) and managed by the
National Institute of Justice (NIJ), at the U.S. Department of Justice. The results of this study will be published in a
report by OJJDP and NIJ.
We will be happy to answer your questions about this project. Please call us at our toll free number, 1-XXX-XXXXXXX, or send an e-mail to survey director Gail Thomas at [email protected]. Thank you so much for your
assistance.
Sincerely,
Andrea Sedlak, Ph.D.
Westat
Co-Principal Investigator
NISMART-4 Invitation Letter, Chief of
Police/Sheriff
David Finkelhor, Ph.D.
University of New Hampshire
Co-Principal Investigator
9 -7
Attachment D
Mail Survey Screener
NISMART-4 Mail Survey Screener
9 -8
OMB No. XXXX-XXXX
Approval Expires XX/XX/20XX
Attachment D: Mail Survey Screener
NATIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
SURVEY ON ABDUCTED CHILDREN
OMB No.
Part of the 4th National Incidence Study of
Missing, Abducted, Runaway & Thrownaway
Children (NISMART-4)
Conducted by:
Westat
1600 Research Blvd,
Rockville, MD 20850
and
Crimes against Children Research Center
University of New Hampshire
10 West Edge Drive
Durham, NH 03824
Toll free: XXX-XXX-XXXX
Sponsored by:
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Juvenile Justice &
Delinquency Prevention
Managed by:
U.S. Department of Justice
National Institute of Justice
Washington, DC 20531
Please provide the name, position, and contact information of the person completing this survey,
in case we need to clarify responses or gather additional information.
NAME:
POSITION OR TITLE:
DEPARTMENT OR UNIT:
TELEPHONE NUMBER:
(
)
Ext.
EMAIL ADDRESS:
DATE COMPLETED:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, we cannot ask you to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control
number. Public reporting burden for this collection is estimated to average 15 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of
information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing
this burden, to the National Institute of Justice, 810 Seventh Street NW, Washington, DC 20531.
NISMART-4 Mail Survey Screener
9 -9
SECTION A
1.
Does your agency have jurisdiction to conduct criminal investigations of cases in which a
child is reported as missing or abducted?
Yes
2.
Sk ip to Section G Page 7
No
Between [one-year period], did your agency investigate any cases where a child under the age of
18 was abducted by a stranger, or a person with limited previous contact (a slight acquaintance) (cf.
Glossary), or by an unknown person?
Consider all cases where your agency performed
any investigation activity b etween [one-year
period], including unsolved cases from previous
years which remained open b etween [one-year
period] including investigations that your agency
Yes
No
Sk ip to Section C, Page 4
turned over to another agency, if applicab le.
3.
Were any of these cases where…
a. The child was held overnight?...........................................................
b. The child was transported 50 miles or more?`..................................
c. The child was held for ransom? ........................................................
d. The child was killed? .........................................................................
e. The abductor apparently intended to keep the child? ......................
4.
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Did you answer “yes” to any item in Question 3?
Yes
No
Sk ip to Section C, Page 5
5. Indicate the total number of cases that your agency investigated between [one-year period]
that fit one or more of the criteria given in Question 3.
Total Number of Qualifying Cases Investigated
Between [one-year period]
Remember to include all cases that fit the
Question 3 criteria where your agency performed
any investigation activity b etween [one-year
period] regardless of when they were first reported
and regardless of the involvement of another
agency.
NISMART-4 Mail Survey Screener
IMPORTANT: Please provide specific
information about each case by completing
Section B on the next page.
9 -1 0
NISMART-4 Mail Survey Screener
SECTION B
For all abductions included in the total in Question 5 on the previous page, please provide the following information
a) Case Number
Provide your
agency’s case
numb er for
reference in our
follow-up call
1.
b) Who was the key
investigating officer or
who in your agency is
now the most
knowledgeable person
about the case?
c) Were any
other law
enforcement
agencies
involved?
d) When was
the case
reported?
(MM/DD/YY)
e) Is the case
still open?
f)
Indicate which criteria
this case appears to fit
(circle all that apply):
9 -1 1
Name
Email
Yes
No
/
/
Yes
No
Overnight, 50+ Miles, Ransom,
Killed, Intent to Keep
2.
Name
Email
Yes
No
/
/
Yes
No
Overnight, 50+ Miles, Ransom,
Killed, Intent to Keep
3.
Name
Email
Yes
No
/
/
Yes
No
Overnight, 50+ Miles, Ransom,
Killed, Intent to Keep
4.
Name
Email
Yes
No
/
/
Yes
No
Overnight, 50+ Miles, Ransom,
Killed, Intent to Keep
5.
Name
Email
Yes
No
/
/
Yes
No
Overnight, 50+ Miles, Ransom,
Killed, Intent to Keep
6.
Name
Email
Yes
No
/
/
Yes
No
Overnight, 50+ Miles, Ransom,
Killed, Intent to Keep
(Attach additional pages to continue this listing, if necessary).
SEE GLOSSARY, PAGE 7.
Continue with Section C
SECTION C
In order to ensure that NISMART-4 counts all abductions that qualify under its definition of stereotypical
abduction (see Glossary), this section asks you to take a different perspective. Here, we ask you to consider all
the cases which your agency investigated as homicides of children between [one-year period]. Some of these
cases might technically qualify under the NISMART definition because there was an element of abduction
during the course of the incident.
1.
Between [one-year period], did your agency investigate any homicides or presumed homicides where
the victim was a child?
Yes
2.
3.
Were any of these cases
where…
a.
The perpetrator or primary suspect was a stranger? ........................ Yes
b. The perpetrator or primary suspect was a person with limited
previous contact (a slight acquaintance)
(cf. Glossary)? ..................................................................................... Yes
c.
The perpetrator’s identity has not yet been established?................ Yes
No
No
No
Did you answer “yes” to any item in Question 2?
Yes
4.
Skip to Section E, Page 6
No
Skip to Section E, Page 6
No
Indicate the total number of cases that your agency investigated between [one-year period] that fit the
criteria given above in Questions 1 and 2.
Consider all cases where your agency performed any
investigation activity between [one-year period],
including unsolved cases from previous years which
remained open between [one-year period] and
including investigations that your agency turned over
to another agency, if applicable.
Total number of stranger homicides investigated
between [one-year period]
5.
Were any of these cases where, prior to the killing, it appeared that the perpetrator had…
a.
No
Moved the child (by force, threat, or lure) 20 feet or more? ........... Yes
b. Detained the child for one hour or longer? ....................................... Yes
No
6.
Did you answer “yes” to any item in Question 5?
Yes
7.
Skip to Section E, Page 7
No
Indicate the number of cases you included in your answer to Question 4 that involved one or the
other of the elements listed in Question 5.
Total Number of Stranger Abduction Homicides Investigated between [one-year period]
SEE GLOSSARY, PAGE 7.
IMPORTANT: Please provide specific information about
each case by completing Section D on the next page.
NISMART-4 Mail Survey Screener
9 -1 2
NISMART-4 Mail Survey Screener
SECTION D
For all stranger abduction homicides included in the total in Question 7 on the previous page, please provide the following information:
a) Case Number
Provide your
agency’s case
number for
reference in our
follow-up call
1.
b) Who was the key
investigating officer or
who in your agency is
now the most
knowledgeable person
about the case?
c) Were any
other law
enforcement
agencies
involved?
Name:
Email:
Yes
No
/
/
Yes
No
Moved 20+ Feet
Detained 1+ Hour
Yes
No
/
/
Yes
No
Moved 20+ Feet
Detained 1+ Hour
Yes
No
/
/
Yes
No
Moved 20+ Feet
Detained 1+ Hour
Yes
No
/
/
Yes
No
Moved 20+ Feet
Detained 1+ Hour
Yes
No
/
/
Yes
No
Moved 20+ Feet
Detained 1+ Hour
Yes
No
/
/
Yes
No
Moved 20+ Feet
Detained 1+ Hour
2.
3.
9 -1 3
4.
5.
6.
(Attach additional pages to continue this listing, if necessary).
SEE GLOSSARY, PAGE 7.
d) When was
the case
reported?
(MM/DD/YY)
e) Is the case
still open?
f) Indicate which criteria
this case appears to fit
(circle all that apply):
Skip to Section F, Page 6
SECTION E
1.
You have indicated that your agency did not investigate any cases between [one-year period] that
fit the NISMART criteria for a stereotypical abduction (see Glossary). What year did your agency
last investigate any case that fit those criteria?
2.
Are you aware of any cases of stereotypical abductions in your general area or in your state between
[one-year period]?
Yes
Indicate the county (counties) where the abduction(s) took place
No
SECTION F
1.
2.
To the extent possible, please verify your answers in the previous sections by conducting a check
of investigation records and/or discussions with your agency’s investigative unit(s). Indicate here
the way(s) you verified this information:
a.
No
Checked with other staff in your department? ................................. Yes
b. Checked with staff elsewhere in your agency? ................................. Yes
No
c.
No
Checked records? .............................................................................. Yes
d. Used a computerized information system?....................................... Yes
No
Is your specific department or unit responsible for…
a.
Investigating child abductions?................... Yes
b. Maintaining data on child abductions?....... Yes
SEE GLOSSARY, PAGE 7.
NISMART-4 Mail Survey Screener
9 -1 4
No
No
Skip to Section H, Page 7
SECTION G
You indicated in Section A that your agency does not have the jurisdiction to
conduct criminal investigations of child abductions. Please describe what
responsibilities do come under your agency’s jurisdiction.
SECTION H
Feel free to comment on this survey to offer your suggestions about other
information this research should consider.
THANK YOU FOR
COMPLETING THIS SURVEY.
PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM
IN THE POSTAGE-PAID
ENVELOPE PROVIDED.
GLOSSARY OF STUDY TERMS
Child. Person under the age of 18.
Stereotypical Abduction. An abduction by a stranger, a person with limited previous contact
(a slight acquaintance), or an unidentified person where the child was held overnight,
transported 50 miles or more, held for ransom, killed, or the abductor apparently intended to
keep the child.
Abduction. An incident where the child was moved by force, threat, or lure for a distance of
20 feet or more or was detained for one hour or longer.
Stranger. Person not known by the child or family.
Person with limited previous contact (Slight Acquaintance). A nonfamily perpetrator who
was a recent acquaintance whom 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 have seen infrequently
(e.g., less than once a month).
Unknown Person. Person whose identity has not yet been determined. Although this may
ultimately turn out to be a family member or someone known well, it is equally likely that they
turn out to be a stranger or a person with limited previous contact (slight acquaintance).
NISMART-4 Mail Survey Screener
9 -1 5
Attachment E
FAQs Mail Survey Screener
NISMART-4 F AQs Mail Survey Screener
9 -1 6
Attachment E: FAQS Mail Survey Screener
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
What is NISMART-4?
NISMART-4 is a research study created by the federal
Missing Children’s Assistance Act. Its goal is to estimate
the number of missing children, including children who
have been abducted. NISMART-4 is the fourth in a series
of studies conducted between 1988 and 2011. It will
update numbers from the three previous studies to
determine whether there have been increases or
decreases in the number of missing or abducted
children. The findings will be reported to Congress and
will guide the development of policies and programs for
missing children. The study is sponsored by the Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) and
managed by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), at the
U.S. Department of Justice. Westat and the Crimes
against Children Research Center (CCRC) at the
University of New Hampshire are conducting the study.
What is the National Law Enforcement Survey on
Stereotypical Kidnappings?
NISMART includes a number of different studies. The
National Law Enforcement Survey on Abducted Children
will estimate the number of children who were abducted
by strangers between [one-year period]. Data will be
collected in two phases from all law enforcement
agencies with authority to investigate stereotypical
kidnappings. In Phase 1, Law Enforcement Agencies will
complete a mail survey screener to identify relevant
cases. Then in Phase 2, researchers will contact
investigators of the relevant stereotypical kidnapping
cases to ask them complete a self-administered web
survey to provide details about specific cases they
investigated.
How did you choose this agency?
This mail survey is being sent to all law enforcement
agencies in a nationally representative sample of more
than 400 U.S. counties, a total of 4,727 agencies.
Why is my agency’s participation important?
Participation is voluntary, and will not affect the status
of your agency in any way. However, the sample of
agencies has been carefully designed to be nationally
representative, so your agency will make an important
contribution to the accuracy and reliability of the final
study estimates. This applies whether or not your agency
investigated any relevant cases during [one-year
period].
NISMART-4 F AQs Mail Survey Screener
Participating in this research will not entail any particular
risks or benefits to you but it will contribute to knowledge
about abducted children.
What if my agency has no cases?
Please complete the survey even if your agency did not
investigate any relevant cases during the study year
[one-year period]. Whatever your agency’s experiences,
they represent the experiences of other law
enforcement agencies like yours nationwide.
What does the mail survey screener involve?
The mail survey screener asks about the agency’s
experience with cases in which a child is reported as
abducted or missing. It takes about 15 minutes to
complete.
What about security and confidentiality protections?
In accordance with 28 CFR Part 22, the research team
will provide administrative and physical security of
identifiable data and preserve the anonymity of private
persons participating in this project. The study avoids
asking for identifying information about cases, such as
victims’ names. Throughout the research, all
information that would link an agency with any specific
case details will be kept under lock and key or in secure
computer files, accessible to authorized study staff only.
Finally, federal law requires that all information be used
for statistical purposes only—no specific agencies or
cases will be identified in any publicized materials.
What if I have questions?
If you have questions about the research, please contact
the survey director, Gail Thomas, at 301-610-5523 or
[email protected], or the study’s toll-free
number at 1-XXX-XXX-XXXX. If you have any questions
about your rights as a research subject, you may contact
the Westat Human Subjects Protection Office at 1-888920-7631. Please leave a message with your full name,
the name of the study (NISMART-4) and a phone
number, beginning with the area code. Someone will
return your call as soon as possible.
9 -1 7
Attachment F
Thank You/Reminder Postcard
NISMART-4 Thank You/Reminder Postcard
9 -1 8
Attachment F: Thank you/Reminder Postcard
Reminder to Complete the National Law Enforcement Survey on Abducted Children
We recently sent you a survey about cases in your agency involving child abductions by strangers. The
current study will update the estimates of how many children are abducted by strangers each year. The
data will be reported to Congress and will be used to inform the development of future policies and
programs for missing children.
If you have already completed the survey and returned it to us, please accept our sincere thanks. If
not, please complete the survey and send it to us as soon as possible. The survey is due on <>. We need to receive your survey, even if you do not have any stranger
abduction cases, so that the study results will accurately represent the experiences of law enforcement
agencies across the nation.
If you have questions about completing the survey, did not receive the survey, or it has been misplaced,
please call us at the following toll-free number, 1-XXX-XXX-XXXX, and we will mail another survey to you
right away.
We greatly appreciate your help!
Andrea Sedlak, Ph.D.
Westat
Co-Principal Investigator
NISMART-4 Thank You/Reminder Postcard
David Finkelhor, Ph.D.
University of New Hampshire
Co-Principal Investigator
9 -1 9
Attachment G
Second Reminder Letter
NISMART-4 Second Reminder Letter
9 -2 0
Attachment G: Second Reminder Letter
[INSERT F_NAME, MID_INIT, L_NAME]
[INSERT DEPT NAME]
[INSERT ADDRESS 1]
[INSERT CITY], [INSERT STATE]
[INSERT ZIP]
[INSERT DATE OF MAILING]
Dear [INSERT TITLE, L_NAME],
In [MONTH SURVEY SENT] we sent you a survey and a letter asking you to participate in the National
Law Enforcement Survey on Abducted Children. The survey seeks information about your agency’s
experiences with stranger abductions. The survey was due [SURVEY DUE DATE] but, as of today, we have
not received your completed survey. (If you are still filling it out or have recently returned it, please
disregard this notice.)
Our research team was asked to conduct this study to obtain an accurate estimate of the number of
children who are kidnapped by strangers. We know that crime investigators are the most
knowledgeable sources of information about such cases.
I am writing to you again because each questionnaire is significant to the usefulness of this study. Your
agency was drawn through a scientific sampling process in which every law enforcement agency in the
United States had an equal chance of being sampled. In order for the study results to truly represent the
experiences of all agencies, it is essential that each agency in the sample return the questionnaire, even
if your agency does not have any relevant cases. There is a place for you to note this on the
questionnaire.
We know you are extremely busy, but your response to this survey is an investment of time that will
help law enforcement in the future. The report we write from this study will give policy makers and
legislators vital information about cases involving stranger abductions. In case your questionnaire has
been misplaced, a replacement is enclosed. If you have any questions about this project, please send an
email to [email protected] or you can call our project’s toll-free number 1-XXX-XXX-XXXX, and
someone will return your call promptly. Thank you so much for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Andrea Sedlak, Ph.D.
Westat
Co-Principal Investigator
NISMART-4 Second Reminder Letter
David Finkelhor, Ph.D.
University of New Hampshire
Co-Principal Investigator
9 -2 1
Attachment H
Third Reminder Letter
NISMART-4 Third Reminder Letter
9 -2 2
Attachment H: Third Reminder Letter
[INSERT F_NAME, MID_INIT, L_NAME]
[INSERT DEPT NAME]
[INSERT ADDRESS 1]
[INSERT CITY], [INSERT STATE]
[INSERT ZIP]
[INSERT DATE OF MAILING]
Dear [INSERT TITLE, L_NAME],
This is the third request for your agency’s participation in the National Law Enforcement Survey on
Abducted Children. The survey seeks information about your agency’s experiences with child
kidnappings. The survey was due [SURVEY DUE DATE] but, as of today, we have not received your
completed survey. (If you have recently returned your survey, please disregard this notice.)
If you have not yet responded, we hope that you will be able to do so soon. The survey should take no
longer than 5–10 minutes to complete. We would be very grateful if you would consider helping us with
this important research. We appreciate the many demands for your time but please be assured that the
study results will help law enforcement in the future. In case your questionnaire has been misplaced, a
replacement is enclosed. If you have any questions about this project, please send an email to
[email protected] or you can call our project’s toll-free number 1-XXX-XXX-XXXX, and someone will
return your call promptly.
Thank you so much for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Andrea Sedlak, Ph.D.
Westat
Co-Principal Investigator
NISMART-4 Third Reminder Letter
David Finkelhor, Ph.D.
University of New Hampshire
Co-Principal Investigator
9 -2 3
Attachment I
Shortened Four-Question Survey
NISMART-4 Shortened F our-Question Survey
9 -2 4
OMB No. XXXX-XXXX
Approval Expires XX/XX/20XX
Attachment I: Shortened Four-Question Survey
National Law Enforcement Survey on Child Abductions
This is the fourth request for your agency’s participation in the National Law Enforcement Survey on
Child Abductions. As of today, we have not received your completed questionnaire.
The report we write from this study will help law enforcement in the future and give policy makers and
legislators vital information about cases involving stranger abductions. Your agency was drawn through
a scientific sampling process in which every law enforcement in the United States has an equal chance of
being sampled. In order for the study results to truly represent the experiences of all agencies, it is
essential that each agency in the sample respond, even if you do not have any cases to report.
To make things easier for you, we have simplified the survey to four essential questions, listed below.
Please answer them to the best of your knowledge and return this to us. If you have any questions
about this project, please send an email to [email protected] or you can call our project’s tollfree number at 1-XXX-XXX-XXXX, and someone will return your call promptly. Thank you so much for
your assistance.
Sincerely,
Andrea Sedlak, Ph.D.
Westat
Co-Principal Investigator
David Finkelhor, Ph.D.
University of New Hampshire
Co-Principal Investigator
1. Does your agency have jurisdiction to conduct criminal investigations of cases in which a
child is reported as abducted or missing?
Yes
□
No
□
2. Between <<>> and <<>> did your agency
investigate any cases where a child under the age of 18 was abducted by a stranger, or a
person with limited previous contact ( slight acquaintance) or by unknown person?
Yes
□
No
□
Does not apply
□
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, we cannot ask you to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control
number. Public reporting burden for this collection is estimated to average 5 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions,
searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send
comments regarding this burden estimate or any aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the
National Institute of Justice, 810 Seventh Street NW, Washington, DC 20531.
NISMART-4 Shortened F our-Question Survey
9 -2 5
3. Between <<>> and <<>> did your agency
investigate any homicides or presumed homicides where the victim was a child under the
age of 18 and the perpetrator or the primary suspect was a stranger, or a person with limited
previous contact ( slight acquaintance) or unknown person?
Yes
□
No
□
Does not apply
□
4. Between <<>> and <<>> did your agency have
any open cases of child abductions or presumed abductions from prior years?
Yes
□
No
□
Does not apply
□
Your Name and Title: _____________________________________
Phone Number: _________________________________________
Thank you for your time. Please refold this paper so that
the prepaid side is visible and mail it back to us.
NISMART-4 Shortened F our-Question Survey
9 -2 6
Attachment J
LES-SK Web Survey
NISMART-4 LES-SK Web Survey
9 -2 7
OMB No. XXXX-XXXX
Approval Expires XX/XX/20XX
Attachment J: LES-SK Web Survey
PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS
SK1.1 Please give your contact information here so the researchers can reach you if they have questions
after they review your survey. This information will be deleted as soon as the research team verifies that
your survey is complete.
Name and title (1) ____________________
Telephone number (2) ____________________
Email address (3) ____________________
*Note: Only the introduction is different between the pilot LES-SK and the full study LES-SK. The rest of
the survey is the same.
NISMART requirements for SK
SK1.2 Your agency’s case number for this investigation is [number will be provided].
Please confirm that this case involved a child age 17 or younger abducted by someone who was not a
family member AND the child was
• Moved at least 20 feet OR
• Held for at least one hour.
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
If you are not sure what happened to the child, answer based on what
investigators in your agency think is the most likely explanation.
Box 1
If SK1.2 = 2 (child was not moved 20’ or held for 1 hour) or SK1.2 = 3 (don’t know) and respondent has no
additional surveys to complete, go to ENDSURVEY1.
If SK1.2 = 2 or SK1.2 = 3 and respondent has additional surveys to complete, go to ENDSURVEY2.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, we cannot ask you to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid
OMB control number. Public reporting burden for this collection is estimated to average 40 minutes per response, including the time
for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and
reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any aspect of this collection of
information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the National Institute of Justice, 810 Seventh Street NW, Washington,
DC 20531.
NISMART-4 LES-SK Web Survey
9 -2 8
NISMART Time Frame
SK1.3
Did this incident occur between [12-month time frame to be established]?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
Box 2
If SK1.3 = 2 (incident not in time frame) or SK1.3 = 3 (don’t know) and respondent has no additional surveys to
complete, go to ENDSURVEY1.
If SK1.3 = 2 or SK1.3 = 3 and respondent has additional surveys to complete, go to ENDSURVEY2.
NISMART definition of SK
SK1.4 Did any of the following happen in this case? (Please respond to all items.)
Don't know/Cannot
Yes (1)
No (2)
determine (3)
a. A child was held
overnight OR between
12 midnight & 5am (1)
b. A child was
transported 50 miles or
more (2)
c. A child was held for
ransom (3)
d. A child was killed (4)
e. A perpetrator
apparently intended to
keep a child
permanently (5)
Box 3
If none of the answers to SK1.4 = 1 (Yes) and respondent has no additional surveys, go to ENDSURVEY1.
If none of the answers to SK1.4 = 1 and respondent has additional surveys, go to ENDSURVEY2.
NISMART-4 LES-SK Web Survey
9 -2 9
SK1.5 Did this case involve more than one perpetrator?
If number of perpetrators is unknown, please enter the number believed to have been
involved if more than one.
Yes (Enter number of perpetrators) (1) ____________________
No, 1 perpetrator (2)____________________________________________ SK1.9
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)_________________________________ SK1.9
SK1.6 How did the perpetrators know each other? (Please respond to all items.)
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot
determine (3)
Married or romantic or
sexual partners (1)
Other members of a
family (2)
Members of a gang (3)
Involved together in
selling or buying drugs (4)
Involved together in sex
trafficking (5)
Involved in some other
type of criminal
enterprise (6)
Friends, acquaintances or
schoolmates (7)
Something else (Please
describe) (8)
NISMART-4 LES-SK Web Survey
9 -3 0
SK1.7 Did any of the perpetrators have a close relationship with a victim or victim’s family? This could
involve a blood or legal tie to the family, a romantic partnership with a relative of a victim, a
longstanding friendship, or another relationship that would make a perpetrator well-known to a child
victim or their family.
Yes (1)
No (2)________________________________________________________SK1.9
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)__________________________________SK1.9
SK1.8 Please describe this close relationship between a perpetrator and child victim or victim’s family.
[TEXT ENTRY]____________________________________________________________________
Box 4
If SK1.5 = 1 (multiple perpetrators) the survey will be programmed to instruct respondents to answer questions
regarding the perpetrator most responsible for the incident.
SK1.9 Did this case involve more than one child victim?
Yes, 2 child victims (1)
Yes, 3 or more child victims (Enter number) (2) ______ ________________ SK1.11
No, 1 child victim (3)_____________________________________________SK1.12
Don't know/Cannot determine (4)__________________________________SK1.12
SK1.10 How did the victims know each other?
Siblings or step-siblings (1)_______________________________________SK1.12
Related as family some other way, such as cousins (2)_________________ SK1.12
Friends, acquaintances or schoolmates (3)__________________________ SK1.12
Something else (Please describe) (4) _______ _______________________SK1.12
Don't know/Cannot determine (5) ________________________________ SK1.12
SK1.11 How did the victims know each other?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot
determine (3)
Siblings or step-siblings
(1)
Related as family some
other way, such as
cousins (2)
Friends, acquaintances or
schoolmates (3)
Something else (Please
describe) (4)
NISMART-4 LES-SK Web Survey
9 -3 1
Box 5
If SK1.9 = 1 or SK1.9 = 2 (multiple child victims) the survey will be programmed to refer to plural victims or to
“any” or “each” victim and to provide other related instructions.
NISMART Definition of Stranger
SK1.12 Was the perpetrator [most responsible for this incident] a stranger to [the/any] child victim?
Stranger means a non-family perpetrator whom the child or child's family
did not know OR the perpetrator's identity is unknown but investigators
reasonably believe the perpetrator is a stranger.)
Yes, a perpetrator was a stranger (1)________________________________SK1.15
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
SK1.13 Please briefly describe how the [most responsible] perpetrator knew the child victim[s] or
families. [TEXT ENTRY] _______________________________________________________
NISMART-4 LES-SK Web Survey
9 -3 2
NISMART definition of person with limited previous contact
SK1.14 Was the [most responsible] perpetrator a person with limited previous contact with [the/any]
victim?
Person with limited previous contact (Slight acquaintance) means that one of
the following statements applies to the [most responsible] perpetrator's
relationship to the [any] child victim or their family. If you are not sure, please
answer based on what investigators in your agency think is most likely about
the perpetrator/victim relationships.
(Please respond to all statements.) The perpetrator was not a family member AND before the abduction:
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot
determine (3)
The perpetrator's name
was unknown to the child
or family and the child or
family did not know the
perpetrator well enough
to speak to. (1)
The child met the
perpetrator on the
Internet but not in
person. (2)
The child or family knew
the perpetrator for less
than 6 months. (3)
The child or family knew
the perpetrator for longer
than 6 months but saw
them less than once a
month. (4)
SK1.17 [Narrative of incident]
Box 6
Please describe briefly what occurred in this incident, as far as you know. How did the abduction begin?
What did
theofperpetrator[s]
do to the
childand
victim[s]?
How
end? surveys, go to ENDSURVEY1.
If all
the answers to SK1.14
= 2 (No)
respondent
hasdid
no it
additional
If all of the answers to SK1.14 = 2 and respondent has additional surveys, go to ENDSURVEY2.
SK1.15 Were other law enforcement agencies involved in this case?
Yes (Please specify number of agencies involved) (1) ____________________
No (2)_________________________________________________________SK1.19
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)__________________________________ SK1.19
NISMART-4 LES-SK Web Survey
9 -3 3
SK1.16 Did your agency receive the first report of this case?
Yes (1)________________________________________________________ SK1.18
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)__________________________________SK1.18
SK1.17 What agency received the first report? (Please enter the agency name, county and state.)
[TEXT ENTRY]_____________________________________________________
SK1.18 Please list the other agencies involved in this case. Please list each agency by name, county and
state.
[TEXT ENTRY]____________________________________________________________
SK1.19 What is the current status of this case in your agency?
Open (under active investigation) (1)
Open (arrest warrant issued) (2)
Cleared by arrest (3)
Closed for reasons other than arrest (exceptional clearance) (4)
Suspended (inactive investigation) (5)
Some other status (Please describe) (6) ____________________
Don't know/Cannot determine (7)
NISMART-4 LES-SK Web Survey
9 -3 4
CHILD CHARACTERISTICS
SK2.1 Next are questions about [the/each] child victim in this incident. [Since there is more than one,
please start with the oldest child.] Is this child male or female?
Male (1)
Female (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
SK2.2 How old was this child at the time of the incident? (Please give your best estimate if not sure.)
Less than 1 year old (1)
1 year old or older (Please enter age in years) (2) ____________________
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
SK2.3 Is this child Hispanic or Latino/a?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
SK2.4 What is this child's race? (Please enter all that apply.)
White (1)
Black or African American (2)
American Indian or Alaska Native (3)
Asian (4)
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander (5)
Other (Please describe) (6) ____________________
Don't know/Cannot determine (7)
Box 7
If SK1.9 = 3 (one child victim) or SK1.9 = 4 (don’t know), go to SK2.10
If SK1.9 = 1 or If SK1.9 = 1 (multiple child victims), go to SK2.5.
SK2.5 Was the [most responsible] perpetrator in this incident a stranger to this child or their family?
Stranger means that the child or the child's family did not
know the perpetrator OR the identity of the perpetrator is
unknown but law enforcement reasonably believes it is a
stranger.
Yes (1)________________________________________________________ Box 9
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
NISMART-4 LES-SK Web Survey
9 -3 5
SK2.6 Please briefly describe how this child knew the [most responsible] perpetrator.
[TEXT ENTRY]______________________________________________________
SK2.7 Was the [most responsible] perpetrator a person with limited previous contact (slight
acquaintance) of this child victim?
Person with limited previous contact means that one of the following
statements applies to the [most responsible] perpetrator's relationship to the
[any] child victim or their family. If you are not sure, please answer based on
what investigators in your agency think is most likely about the
perpetrator/victim relationships.
(Please respond to all statements.) The perpetrator was not a family member AND before the abduction:
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot
determine (3)
a. The perpetrator's name
was unknown to the child
or family and the child or
family did not know the
perpetrator well enough
to speak to (1)
b. The child met the
perpetrator on the
Internet but not in person
(2)
c. The child or family
knew the perpetrator for
less than 6 months (3)
d. The child or family
knew the perpetrator for
longer than 6 months but
saw them less than once
a month (4)
Box 8
If all of the answers to SK2.7 = 2 (No) and there are additional victims, go to SK2.1.
If all of the answers to SK2.7 = 2 and there are no additional victims, go to SK3.1.
Box 9
If SK1.9 = 1 or If SK1.9 = 2 (multiple child victims) and SK1.4c = 1 (held for ransom), go to SK2.8.
Otherwise go to Box 10.
NISMART-4 LES-SK Web Survey
9 -3 6
SK2.8 Was this child held for ransom?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
Box 10
If SK1.9 = 1 or If SK1.9 = 2 (multiple child victims) and SK1.4e = 1 (intent to keep permanently), go to SK2.9.
Otherwise go to SK.10.
SK2.9 Did [the/a] perpetrator intend to keep this child permanently?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
SK2.10 How far did the perpetrator move this victim from the beginning of the abduction to the time
the victim was released, found, escaped or killed?
20 feet or less (1)
More than 20 feet but less than 1 mile (2)
1 to 9 miles (3)
10 to 49 miles (4)
50 miles or more (5)
Child was not moved (6)
Don't know/Cannot determine (7)
SK2.11 How long did the perpetrator keep or detain this victim before he or she was released, found,
escaped or killed?
Less than 1 hour (1)______________________________________________SK2.13
1 hour to less than 24 hours (2)
1 to 3 days (3)__________________________________________________ SK2.13
4 to 7 days (4)__________________________________________________ SK2.13
More than 1 week (5)____________________________________________ SK2.13
Child was not detained (6)________________________________________ SK2.13
Don't know/Cannot determine (7)__________________________________SK2.13
SK2.12 Was this victim held or detained overnight OR for at least one hour between midnight and 5am?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
NISMART-4 LES-SK Web Survey
9 -3 7
SK2.13 What parents did this child live with when this incident began?
Two married, biological parents (1)
Two married parents, one or both not biological, but both having a legal relationship to the child,
such as adoption (2)
Two unmarried parents, biological or other (3)
One unmarried parent with a live-in partner who was not the child’s parent) (4)
A single parent (no live-in partner) (5)
No parent (6)
Other situation (Please describe) (9)______________
Don't know/Cannot determine (10)
SK2.14 What type of housing did this child live in at the time of the incident?
Single family dwelling (1)
Multi-family dwelling (duplex, apartment building, for example) (2)
Other situation such as shelter, institution, etc. (3)
Don't know/Cannot determine (4)
SK2.15 At the time of the abduction, was this child impaired by any serious or permanent physical or
mental disabilities, life threatening medical conditions or other problems such as drug or alcohol use?
Yes (1)
No (2)________________________________________________________Box 11
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)_________________________________ Box 11
SK2.16 Please describe the child's disabilities, medical conditions or other impairments at the time of
the incident.
[TEXT ENTRY]__________________________________________________________________
SK2.17 Would you say that this child was mentally incompetent at the time of the episode?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
Box 11
If child is age 10 or older, go to SK2.18. If child is age 9 or younger, go to SK2.19.
NISMART-4 LES-SK Web Survey
9 -3 8
SK2.18 Was this child involved in any way in... (Respond to all options.)
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot
determine (3)
The criminal justice
system (past or current,
perpetrator or victim) (1)
Drugs, using or selling (2)
Alcohol use (3)
SK2.19 Did this child have a parent who was involved in any way in... (Respond to all options.)
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot
determine (3)
The criminal justice
system (past or current,
perpetrator or victim) (1)
Drugs, using or selling (2)
Definition of Recovery
SK2.20 Was this victim...
Recovered? (1)
Killed? (2)
Still missing? (3)
Don't know/Cannot determine (4)
Box 12
If SK1.9 = 1 or SK1.9 = 2 (multiple child victims), questions SK2.1—SK2.20 will repeat for each child.
After last child, go to SK3.1.
NISMART-4 LES-SK Web Survey
9 -3 9
PERPETRATOR CHARACTERISTICS
SK3.1 The next questions ask about the perpetrator. [Please answer about the perpetrator most
responsible for the incident.] Is the identity of this perpetrator known?
Yes (1)________________________________________________________SK3.3
No (2)
SK3.2 Do you have any information at all, like sex, race or approximate age?
Yes (1)
No (2)_______________________________________________________SK4.1
SK3.3 How old was the [most responsible] perpetrator at the time of the incident.
Please enter age in years (1) ____________________
Don't know/Cannot determine (2)
SK3.4 Is the [most responsible] perpetrator male or female?
Male (1)
Female (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
SK3.5 Is the [most responsible] perpetrator Hispanic or Latino/a?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
SK3.6 What is the [most responsible] perpetrator's race? (Enter all that apply.)
White (1)
Black or African American (2)
American Indian or Alaska Native (3)
Asian (4)
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander (5)
Other (Please describe) (6) ____________________
Don't know/Cannot determine (7)
Box 13
If SK3.2 = 1 (some information about unknown perpetrator), go to SK3.7.
If SK3.1 = 1 (perpetrator’s identity is known), go to SK3.8.
NISMART-4 LES-SK Web Survey
9 -4 0
SK3.7 Do you have any information about the perpetrator's life circumstances, like marital status,
employment or involvement with the criminal justice system?
Yes (1)
No (2)_________________________________________________________SK4.1
SK3.8 What was the [most responsible] perpetrator's marital status at the time of the crime?
Single (1)
Married (2)
Separated, divorced or widowed (3)
Living with a partner (4)
Don't know/Cannot determine (5)
SK3.9 Was the [most responsible] perpetrator’s employed either full- or part-time at the time of the
crime?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
SK3.10 At the time of this crime, did the [most responsible] perpetrator have any active or ongoing
involvement with the legal system or treatment programs?
Yes (Please describe) (1) ____________________
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
SK3.11 At the time of the episode, did the [most responsible] perpetrator have a diagnosed mental
illness?
Yes (Please describe) (1) ____________________
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
SK3.12 How would you describe the [most responsible] perpetrator's overall intelligence?
Above average (1)
Average (2)
Below average (3)
Don't know/Cannot determine (4)
SK3.13 How would you describe the amount of social interaction the [most responsible] perpetrator had
in everyday life?
Above average (1)
Average (2)
Below average (3)
Don't know/Cannot determine (4)
NISMART-4 LES-SK Web Survey
9 -4 1
SK3.14 Is there any indication that the [most responsible] perpetrator has any problems with drugs or
alcohol?
Yes (Please describe type of problem) (1) ____________________
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
SK3.15 Did this perpetrator have any prior arrests?
Yes (1)
No (2)________________________________________________________SK4.1
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)_________________________________ SK4.1
SK3.16 Were any of these arrests for crimes of violence?
Yes (Please describe) (1) ____________________
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
SK3.16.1 Was this perpetrator list in the National Sex Offender Registry?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
SK3.16.2 Was this perpetrator listed in the National Sex Offender Public Website?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
SK3.17 Did this perpetrator have any prior arrests for crimes against juveniles?
Yes (1)
No (2) ________________________________________________________SK4.1
Don't know/Cannot determine (3) _________________________________ SK4.1
SK3.18 Did any of these prior arrests involve any of the following? (Please answer all options.)
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot
determine (3)
Homicide of a child (1)
A sex crime against a
child (2)
Child abduction (3)
Battery or assault of a
child (4)
Something else (Please
describe) (5)
NISMART-4 LES-SK Web Survey
9 -4 2
CRIME CHARACTERISTICS
SK4.1 Did a parent or other caretaker of a child victim in this case contact the police for help to locate
their missing child?
Yes, contacted police to locate missing child (1)
No, contacted police for other reason or did not contact police (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
SK4.2 Where [was the victim/were the victims] last seen before the abduction occurred?
Victim's residence or place child was staying at night, includes yard (1)
Outdoor area with public access (sidewalk, park, street, beach, etc.) (2)
Indoor area with public access (shopping mall, store, theater, etc.) (3)
Perpetrator's residence or yard (4)
Common area of apartment complex (5)
School or daycare, indoors or outdoors (6)
Vehicle (7)
Other place (Please describe) (8) ____________________
Don't know/Not sure (9)
SK4.3 Was [the/any] victim taken from a group of children?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
SK4.4 How would you characterize the perpetrator's initial approach? (Please respond to all options.)
No (1)
Yes (2)
Don't know/Cannot
determine (3)
Deceptive or nonthreatening pretext (1)
Surprise (laying in wait,
using stealth) or blitz
(sudden, overwhelming
force) (2)
Other type of approach
(Please describe) (3)
SK4.5 Did [the/any] victim go with the perpetrator voluntarily (even if duped)?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
NISMART-4 LES-SK Web Survey
9 -4 3
SK4.6 During the incident did the perpetrator take or move [the/any] victim in or to any of the
following... (Please answer all options.)
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot
determine (3)
A vehicle? (1)
A building? (2)
The perpetrator's home?
(3)
An outside area, like
woods? (4)
SK4.7 Did the perpetrator use physical force or any kind of threat in taking or moving [the/any] victim
from their original location?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
Box 14
If SK2.11 < 6 (victim was detained) or SK2.11 = 7 (don’t know), go to SK4.8.
If SK2.11 = 6 (not detained), go to Box 15.
SK4.8 Did the perpetrator use any kind of force or threat during the time [the/any] victim was detained?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
SK4.9 How isolated was the location where the victim was detained?
Isolated means the child was not able to leave on his or
her own and had no opportunity to appeal for help.
Very isolated (1)
Probably isolated (2)
Not isolated (3)
Don't know/Cannot determine (4)
NISMART-4 LES-SK Web Survey
9 -4 4
Box 15
If SK4.7 = 1 (force or threat while taking/moving) or SK4.8 = 1 (force/threat during detainment), go to SK4.10.
Otherwise go to SK4.11.
SK4.10 Did the perpetrator use force or threaten [the/any] victim in any of the following ways during the
crime? (Please respond to all statements.)
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot
determine (3)
Threaten a child with or
use a weapon? (1)
Harm or threaten to harm
a child's family or pets?
(2)
Force the child to walk
somewhere (3)
Other use of force
(Describe) (4)
SK4.11 During the abduction or detainment, did [any] perpetrator... (Please respond to all statements.)
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot
determine (3)
Physically assault a child
victim? (1)
Neglect a victim's basic
needs (food, water,
shelter, medical
treatment, etc.)? (2)
Sexually assault a child
victim? (3)
Drug a child victim? (4)
Rob a child victim or
damage or destroy their
belongings? (5)
Harm the child some
other way (Please
describe) (6)
NISMART-4 LES-SK Web Survey
9 -4 5
SK4.12 Is there any indication that this crime was connected with ... (Answer all options.)
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot
determine (3)
Youth gang activity (1)
Drug trafficking (2)
Sex trafficking (3)
Serial killings (4)
Other criminal networks
or conspiracies (Describe)
(5)
SK4.13 Is there any indication that the internet played a role in prior contact between a perpetrator and
victim or in leading up to the abduction encounter?
Yes (1)
No (2)________________________________________________________SK5.1
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)_________________________________ SK5.1
SK4.14 Please describe the role the internet played.
[TEXT ENTRY]_____________________________________________________________________
INVESTIGATION
SK5.1 Was this case submitted to ... (Please answer all options.)
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot
determine (3)
FBI's Violent Criminal
Apprehension system
(VICAP)? (1)
National Crime
Information Center
(NCIC)? (2)
National Center for
Missing & Exploited
Children (NCMEC)? (3)
SK5.2 Did a NCMEC Project Alert team participate in the investigation?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
NISMART-4 LES-SK Web Survey
9 -4 6
SK5.3 Was a DNA profile entered into CODIS (Combined DNA Index System)?
Yes (1)
No (2)________________________________________________________SK5.5
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)_________________________________ SK5.5
SK5.4 Was a match found?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
SK5.5 Was a telephone hotline established?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
SK5.6 Was a leads management system established?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
SK5.7 Was an Amber Alert issued?
Yes (1)_____________________________________________________SK5.9
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)______________________________SK5.11
SK5.8 Why wasn't an Amber Alert issued? (Please answer all options.)
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot
determine (3)
Child was quickly
recovered (1)
No reasonable belief an
abduction had occurred
(2)
Child was not in
imminent danger of
serious bodily injury or
death (3)
Insufficient information
about child, vehicle, etc.
to issue Amber Alert (4)
Other reason (Please
describe) (5)
NISMART-4 LES-SK Web Survey
9 -4 7
Box 16
If SK5.7 = 2 (no Amber Alert), go to SK5.11.
SK5.9 Did the Amber Alert result in any information that helped to locate or recover the child or identify
the perpetrator?
Yes (1)
No (2)____________________________________________________SK5.11
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)_____________________________SK5.11
SK5.10 Please describe how the Amber Alert helped to locate and recover the child?
[TEXT ENTRY]________________________________________________________
SK5.11 Did electronic devices such as cell phones or computers provide evidence, leads, or other
information that was key to recovering [the/any] victim or identifying the perpetrator?
Yes (1)
No (2)______________________________________________________SK5.13
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)_______________________________ SK5.13
SK5.12 Please describe how electronic devices provided evidence, leads or other information.
[TEXT ENTRY]______________________________________________________________
SK5.13 Is there anything else that would be important to know about this case?
[TEXT ENTRY]____
__________________________________________________________
NISMART-4 LES-SK Web Survey
9 -4 8
SK.14 If you want to clarify your answers to any of the close-ended responses above, please do so here:
SK.15 If you feel a narrative description of the kidnapping episode would help us better understand this
case, please provide a description here:
Box 17
If respondent has no additional surveys to complete, go to ENDSURVEY3.
If respondent has additional surveys to complete, go to ENDSURVEY4.
NISMART-4 LES-SK Web Survey
9 -4 9
ENDSURVEY1 We are only including certain incidents in this study and this case does not qualify. There
are no further questions. Thank you for your time.
ENDSURVEY2 We are only including certain incidents in this study and this case does not qualify. Please
use this link to access questions about your next case that may qualify for this study: [To be added].
ENDSURVEY3 Thank you for completing this survey. We appreciate your help and your contribution to
understanding the problem of child kidnapping.
ENDSURVEY4 Thank you for completing this survey. We appreciate your help and your contribution to
understanding the problem of child kidnapping. Please use this link to access questions about your next
case that may qualify for this study: [To be added].
NISMART-4 LES-SK Web Survey
9 -5 0
Attachment K
Invitation Letter for Web Survey, Investigating Officer
NISMART-4 Invitation Letter for Web Survey,
Investigating Officer
9 -5 1
Attachment K: Invitation Letter for Web Survey, Investigating Officer
[F_NAME L_NAME]
[DEPT NAME]
[ADDRESS]
[CITY, STATE ZIP]
[DATE OF MAILING]
Dear [INSERT TITLE, L_NAME]:
Your agency is participating in the National Law Enforcement Survey on Child Abductions, a study designed to
estimate the number of children abducted by strangers in the U.S.
This study is part of a larger study, sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
(OJJDP) and managed by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), which seeks to design and test methodologies
to produce accurate estimates on the number and characteristics of missing children reported to law
enforcement. The study will update the national estimates of child victims of stereotypical kidnapping and
determine whether there have been any changes in the overall number of victims or in specific categories of
victims. This study will limit the scope of events to those known to law enforcement and relying on the law
enforcement agencies as the source of data.
The following case has been identified by your agency as an episode of stranger abduction: [CASE ID]
We are asking you (or the most knowledgeable investigator) to answer questions about this case on a web
survey. In order for the results of this study to truly represent the experience of all law enforcement agencies
across the country, it is important that every questionnaire be completed. The web survey is hosted on our
secure website and will take about 30 minutes. It may be completed in one sitting or in parts. You may go to
the website at any time and enter your personal and confidential user login and password (below) to begin
the survey. We ask you to please complete the web survey by Month, XX, 20XX.
Survey address: https://www.XXXXXXXX
User Login: «uID»
Password: «Password»
Your agency’s participation is voluntary and will not affect the status of your agency in any way. Responses
will be confidential and will be used for statistical purposes only, as required by federal law. Your name and
the name of your agency will remain confidential and will not be used in any of the results from the study.
We greatly appreciate your assistance in this important project. If you have questions about the operation or
content of the web survey, have difficulty accessing the survey, or need further assistance, please call our toll
free number, 1-xxx-xxx-xxxx, or email our survey director Gail Thomas at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Andrea Sedlak, Ph.D.
Westat
Co-Principal Investigator
NISMART-4 Invitation Letter for Web Survey,
Investigating Officer
David Finkelhor, Ph.D.
University of New Hampshire
Co-Principal Investigator
9 -5 2
[BACK PAGE]
FEDERAL ASSURANCES OF CONFIDENTIALITY AND OTHER NOTICES
This data collection is authorized under the Missing Children's Assistance Act (see, 34 U.S.C. §
11293(c)). NIJ, OJJDP, its employees, and its data collection agents will use the information you
provide for statistical or research purposes only, and will not disclose your information in identifiable
form without your consent to anyone outside of the research team. All personally identifiable data
collected are protected under the confidentiality provisions of 34 U.S.C. § 10231, and any person who
violates these provisions may be punished by a fine up to $10,000, in addition to any other penalties
imposed by law. Further, under the Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2015, your data are protected
from cybersecurity risks through screening of the systems that transmit your data. Your compliance
with the request for information is entirely voluntary, and if you choose to provide information, you
may discontinue at any time without penalty of any sort.
Under the Federal Paperwork Reduction Act, a person is not required to respond to a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. We try to create forms and
instructions that are accurate, can be easily understood, and which impose the least possible burden
on you to provide us with information. We estimate that it will take 0.67 hours to complete this
questionnaire. This estimate includes time for reviewing the instructions, searching for and gathering
the data, completing the form, and reviewing answers.
If you would like more information concerning this authorization, the confidentiality guarantee, have
comments regarding the accuracy of the burden estimate, or suggestions for making the form simpler,
please contact Benjamin Adams, Social Science Analyst, at [email protected] or 202-6163687. If you need assistance regarding your submission, please contact the survey director, Gail
Thomas at [email protected] or call the project’s toll free number: xxx-xxx-xxxx.
NISMART-4 Invitation Letter for Web Survey,
Investigating Officer
9 -5 3
Attachment L
Frequently Asked Questions
Phase 2: Web Survey
NISMART-4 Frequently Asked Questions
Phase 2: Web Survey
9 -5 4
Attachment L: Frequently Asked Questions Phase 2: Web Survey
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
PHASE 2: WEB SURVEY
What is NISMART-4?
NISMART-4 is a research study created by the federal
Missing Children’s Assistance Act. Its goal is to estimate
the number of missing children, including children who
have been abducted. NISMART-4 is the fourth in a series
of studies conducted between 1988 and 2011. It will
update numbers from the three previous studies to
determine whether there have been increases or
decreases in the number of missing or abducted
children. The findings will be reported to Congress and
will guide the development of policies and programs for
missing children. The study is sponsored by the Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) and
managed by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), at the
U.S. Department of Justice. Westat and the Crimes
against Children Research Center (CCRC) at the
University of New Hampshire are conducting the study.
What is the National Law Enforcement Survey on
Abducted Children?
NISMART includes a number of different studies. The
National Law Enforcement Survey on Child Abductions
will estimate the number of children who were
kidnapped by strangers between [one-year period].
Data are being be collected in two phases from all law
enforcement agencies with authority to investigate
stereotypical kidnappings. In Phase 1, Law Enforcement
Agencies completed a mail survey screener to identify
relevant cases. Now in Phase 2, we are asking
investigators of child kidnapping cases to complete a
self-administered web survey to provide details about
specific cases investigated.
How did you choose this agency?
The initial mail survey screener was sent to all law
enforcement agencies in a nationally representative
sample of more than 400 U.S. counties, a total of 4,727
agencies. Because your agency investigated a child
abduction case, you are being asked to provide some
case details.
accuracy and reliability of the final study estimates about
child abductions. Participating in this research will not
entail any particular risks or benefits to you but it will
greatly contribute to our knowledge about abducted
children.
What will the web survey involve?
We are asking the investigator who is most
knowledgeable about a relevant case to respond to the
web survey on a secure site to provide details about the
characteristics of offenders, victims, and cases
investigated. The web survey will take about 40 minutes.
What about security and confidentiality protections? In
accordance with 28 CFR Part 22, the research team will
provide administrative and physical security of
identifiable data and preserve the anonymity of private
persons participating in this project. The study avoids
asking for identifying information about cases, such as
victims’ names. Throughout the research, all
information that would link an agency with any specific
case details will be kept under lock and key or in secure
computer files, accessible to authorized study staff only.
Finally, federal law requires that all information be used
for statistical purposes only—no specific agencies or
cases will be identified in any publicized materials.
What if I have questions?
If you have questions about the research, please
contact the survey director, Gail Thomas, at
[email protected], or 301-610-5523 or the
study’s toll-free number at 1-XXX-XXX-XXXX. If you have
any questions about your rights as a research subject,
you may contact the Westat Human Subjects
Protection Office at 1-888-920-7631. Please leave a
message with your full name, the name of the study
(NISMART-4) and a phone number, beginning with the
area code. Someone will return your call as soon as
possible.
Why is my participation important? Participation is
voluntary, and will not affect the status of your agency in
any way. However, the sample of agencies has been
carefully designed to be nationally representative, so
your agency will make an important contribution to the
NISMART-4 Frequently Asked Questions
Phase 2: Web Survey
9 -5 5
GLOSSARY OF STUDY TERMS
Child. Person under the age of 18.
Stereotypical Abduction. An abduction by a stranger, a person with limited previous contact (a slight
acquaintance), or an unidentified person where the child was held overnight, transported 50 miles or
more, held for ransom, killed, or the abductor apparently intended to keep the child.
Abduction. An incident where the child was moved by force, threat, or lure for a distance of 20 feet
or more or was detained for one hour or longer.
Stranger. Person not known by the child or family.
Person with limited previous contact (Slight Acquaintance). A nonfamily perpetrator who was a
recent acquaintance whom 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 have seen infrequently (e.g., less than once a
month).
Unknown Person. Person whose identity has not yet been determined. Although this may ultimately
turn out to be a family member or someone known well, it is equally likely that they turn out to be a
stranger or a person with limited previous contact (slight acquaintance).
NISMART-4 Frequently Asked Questions
Phase 2: Web Survey
9 -5 6
Attachment M
Web Survey First Reminder Email
NISMART-4 Web Survey F irst Reminder Email
9 -5 7
Attachment M: Web Survey First Reminder Email
Dear [TITLE L_NAME]:
On [DATE] we sent you a letter asking you to participate in the National Law Enforcement Survey on
Child Abductions. Your agency is one of a number of agencies being asked to participate in a national
study to estimate the number of children kidnapped by strangers.
In the letter we sent on [DATE], we identified the case ID of the victim(s) in the kidnapping case
identified by your agency. The survey was due on [SURVEY DUE DATE] but we have not received your
completed survey. (If you are still filling it out or have recently submitted it, please disregard this notice).
If you need information to identify this case, or you are not the right person to complete the survey,
please contact the survey director, Gail Thomas at 301-610-5523 or by email at
[email protected].
The web survey is available on our secure website. You may go to the website at any time and enter
your personal and confidential user login and password (below) to begin the survey. The survey should
only take about 30 minutes. We ask you to complete the web survey by Month, XX, 20XX.
Survey address: https://www.XXXXXXXX
User Login: «uID»
Password: «Password»
We know you are extremely busy, but your participation in this study will help law enforcement in the
future.
Sincerely,
Andrea Sedlak, Ph.D.
Westat
Co-Principal Investigator
NISMART-4 Web Survey F irst Reminder Email
David Finkelhor, Ph.D.
University of New Hampshire
Co-Principal Investigator
9 -5 8
Attachment N
Web Survey Third Reminder Email
NISMART-4 Web Survey Third Reminder Email
9 -5 9
Attachment N: Web Survey Third Reminder Email
Dear [TITLE L_NAME]:
On [DATE] we sent you a letter asking you to participate in the National Law Enforcement Survey on
Abducted Children. You were selected to participate because of your investigation of a child abduction
that fits our study. This research is designed to help estimate the number of children involved in
stranger abductions each year in the U.S. and is mandated by Congress.
In the letter we sent, we identified the case ID of the victim(s) in the kidnapping case investigated by
your agency. The survey was due on [SURVEY DUE DATE]. We will be very grateful if you could help us
with this important research and complete the survey today.
The web survey is available on our secure website. You may go to the website at any time and enter
your personal and confidential user login and password (below) to begin the survey. The survey should
only take about 30 minutes. We now ask you to complete the web survey by Month, XX, 20XX.
Survey address: https://www.XXXXXXXX
User Login: «uID»
Password: «Password»
If you need information to identify this case, or you are not the right person to complete the survey,
please let us know by contacting the survey director, Gail Thomas at 301-610-5523 or by email at
[email protected]. If you have questions about the operation or content of the web survey, have
difficulty accessing the survey, or need further assistance, please call our toll free number at xxx-xxxxxxx.
We know you are extremely busy, but your participation in this study will help law enforcement and
abducted children in the future.
Sincerely,
Andrea Sedlak, Ph.D.
Westat
Co-Principal Investigator
NISMART-4 Web Survey Third Reminder Email
David Finkelhor, Ph.D.
University of New Hampshire
Co-Principal Investigator
9 -6 0
Attachment O
Web Survey Second Reminder Email
NISMART-4 Web Survey Second Reminder Email
9 -6 1
Attachment O: Web Survey Second Reminder Email
Dear [TITLE L_NAME]:
Westat and the University of New Hampshire’s Crimes against Children Research Center are conducting
the Fourth National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children
(NISMART-4). The study is sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
(OJJDP) and managed by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), at the U.S. Department of Justice. The
study seeks to update national estimates of child victims of stereotypical kidnapping and determine
whether there have been any changes in the overall number of victims or in specific categories of
victims.
On [DATE] the research team sent you a letter asking you to participate in the web survey component of
the study by providing details about a specific case of child abduction. You were selected as the
investigator most knowledgeable about the case. The research team has not yet heard from you and I
wanted to reach out to urge you to respond.
In the original letter sent, the research team identified the case ID of the victim(s) in the kidnapping case
investigated by your agency. If you no longer have the letter and need information to identify this case,
please contact the survey director, Gail Thomas at 301-610-5523 or by email at
[email protected] and she can help you. If you have questions about the operation or content of
the web survey, have difficulty accessing the survey, or need further assistance, please call the project’s
toll free number at xxx-xxx-xxxx.
The web survey is available on the project’s secure website. You may go to the website at any time and
enter your personal and confidential user login and password (below) to begin the survey. The survey
should only take about 30 minutes. I ask you to please complete the web survey by Month, XX, 20XX.
Survey address: https://www.XXXXXXXX
User Login: «uID»
Password: «Password»
I can appreciate the many demands on your time, but please know that your participation in this study
will help law enforcement in the future.
Sincerely,
Benjamin Adams
Social Science Analyst
National Institute of Justice
NISMART-4 Web Survey Second Reminder Email
9 -6 2
Attachment P
Thank You Letter
NISMART-4 Thank You Letter
9 -6 3
Attachment P: Thank You Letter
[F_NAME L_NAME]
[DEPT NAME]
[ADDRESS]
[CITY, STATE ZIP]
[DATE OF MAILING]
Dear [INSERT TITLE, L_NAME],
The National Institute of Justice (NIJ), the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency and Prevention
(OJJDP), Westat, and the University of New Hampshire’s Crimes against Children Research Center (CCRC)
would like to thank you for your participation in in the National Law Enforcement Survey of Child
Abductions. We truly appreciate your support and your [agency’s] efforts in completing the survey. Your
participation and the data you provided will be used to produce estimates on categories of missing
children across the nation and inform the development of future policies and programs.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us at [email protected] or
[email protected].
Sincerely,
Andrea Sedlak, Ph.D.
Westat
Co-Principal Investigator
NISMART-4 Thank You Letter
David Finkelhor, Ph.D.
University of New Hampshire
Co-Principal Investigator
9 -6 4
Appendix 10
LES-FA Component 1 Materials
Table of Contents
Attachment
Page
A
Invitation Letter, Targeted to Each of the 5 LEAs ..................................
10-1
B
Mail Survey Screener ...............................................................................
10-4
C
Frequently Asked Questions ...................................................................
10-11
D
Follow-up Protocol and Questions for Search Component .....................
10-13
Attachment A
Invitation Letter, Targeted to Each of the 5 LEAs
NISMART-4 Invitation Letter, Targeted to
Each of the 5 LEAs
1 0 -1
Attachment A: Invitation Letter, Targeted to Each of the 5 LEAs
[INSERT F_NAME, MID_INIT, L_NAME]
[INSERT DEPT NAME]
[INSERT ADDRESS 1]
[INSERT CITY], [INSERT STATE] [INSERT ZIP]
[INSERT DATE OF MAILING]
Dear [INSERT TITLE, L_NAME],
We are asking your agency to participate in the first component of a pilot study for the National Law
Enforcement Survey on Family Child Abduction, a study designed to estimate the number of children abducted
by family members in the U.S.
This study is part of the Fourth National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway
Children (NISMART-4). The ultimate study will update the national estimates of child victims of family
abductions and determine whether there have been any changes in the overall number of victims or in specific
categories of victims. This study will limit the scope of events to those known to law enforcement and so we
are relying on law enforcement agencies as the source of data.
Today we are requesting your help in an important first component of this pilot study where we want to
identify how law enforcement agencies search for relevant cases in their data system and challenges they may
encounter.
Enclosed is a pilot survey packet for your agency. The packet includes the mail survey screener, glossary of
terms, frequently asked questions, and a pre-paid return envelope.
As part of the mail survey screener we will be asking you to identify specific family abduction cases
investigated by the agency. In identifying these cases we ask you to search your case management system for
codes related to “abduction” and “family offense” as well as free text searches for the word “custody”.
Additional study criteria include:
1. Involvement of a juvenile ages 0-17,
2. Involvement of a family perpetrator, and
3. The removal or detention of a child without permission.
When conducting these searches please keep track of the problems and questions you encounter as we
provide a place at the end of the survey where you can write these down. After you complete the search we
will be contacting you by telephone to ask you about your experience with the process.
Your agency’s participation is voluntary and will not affect the status of your agency in any way. The study
avoids asking for identifying information about cases, such as victims’ names. Throughout the research, all
information that would link an agency with any specific case details will be kept under lock and key or in secure
computer files, accessible to authorized study staff only. Finally, federal law requires that all information be
used for statistical purposes only—no specific agencies or cases will be identified in any publicized materials.
We will be happy to answer your questions about this project. Please call us at our toll free number, 1-XXXXXX-XXXX, or send an e-mail to survey director Kimberly Mitchell at [email protected]. Thank you so
much for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Andrea Sedlak, Ph.D.
Westat
Co-Principal Investigator
NISMART-4 Invitation Letter, Targeted to
Each of the 5 LEAs
David Finkelhor, Ph.D.
University of New Hampshire
Co-Principal Investigator
1 0 -2
[BACK PAGE]
FEDERAL ASSURANCES OF CONFIDENTIALITY AND OTHER NOTICES
This data collection is authorized under the Missing Children's Assistance Act (see, 34 U.S.C. § 11293(c)).
NIJ, OJJDP, its employees, and its data collection agents will use the information you provide for statistical
or research purposes only, and will not disclose your information in identifiable form without your consent
to anyone outside of the research team. All personally identifiable data collected are protected under the
confidentiality provisions of 34 U.S.C. § 10231, and any person who violates these provisions may be
punished by a fine up to $10,000, in addition to any other penalties imposed by law. Further, under the
Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2015, your data are protected from cybersecurity risks through screening
of the systems that transmit your data. Your compliance with the request for information is entirely
voluntary, and if you choose to provide information, you may discontinue at any time without penalty of
any sort.
Under the Federal Paperwork Reduction Act, a person is not required to respond to a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. We try to create forms and instructions
that are accurate, can be easily understood, and which impose the least possible burden on you to provide
us with information. We estimate that it will take 3 hours to complete this questionnaire. This estimate
includes time for reviewing the instructions, searching for and gathering the data, completing the form, and
reviewing answers.
If you would like more information concerning this authorization, the confidentiality guarantee, have
comments regarding the accuracy of the burden estimate, or suggestions for making the form simpler, please
contact Benjamin Adams, Social Science Analyst, at [email protected] or 202-616-3687. If you
need assistance regarding your submission, please contact the survey director, Kimberly Mitchell at
[email protected] or call the project’s toll free number: xxx-xxx-xxxx.
NISMART-4 Invitation Letter, Targeted to
Each of the 5 LEAs
1 0 -3
Attachment B
Mail Survey Screener
NISMART-4 Mail Survey Screener
1 0 -4
OMB No. XXXX-XXXX
Approval Expires XX/XX/20XX
Attachment B: Mail Survey Screener
NATIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
SURVEY ON FAMILY CHILD
ABDUCTION
OMB No.
Part of the 4th National Incidence Study of
Missing, Abducted, Runaway & Thrownaway
Children (NISMART-4)
Conducted by:
Westat
1600 Research Blvd,
Rockville, MD 20850
and
Crimes against Children Research Center
University of New Hampshire
10 West Edge Drive
Durham, NH 03824
Toll free: XXX-XXX-XXXX
Sponsored by:
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Juvenile Justice &
Delinquency Prevention
Managed by:
U.S. Department of Justice
National Institute of Justice
Washington, DC 20531
Please provide the name, position, and contact information of the person completing this survey,
in case we need to clarify responses or gather additional information.
NAME:
POSITION OR TITLE:
DEPARTMENT OR UNIT:
TELEPHONE NUMBER:
(
)
Ext.
EMAIL ADDRESS:
DATE COMPLETED:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, we cannot ask you to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control
number. Public reporting burden for this collection is estimated to average 3 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions,
searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send
comments regarding this burden estimate or any aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the
National Institute of Justice, 810 Seventh Street NW, Washington, DC 20531.
NISMART-4 Mail Survey Screener
1 0 -5
SECTION A
1.
Does your agency have jurisdiction to conduct criminal investigations of cases in which a
child is reported as missing or abducted?
Yes
2.
Between [one-year period], did your agency investigate any cases where a family member
(cf. Glossary) took or kept a child in violation of a court order, written agreement or mutual
understanding about custody or visitation rights?
Consider all cases where your agency performed
any investigation activity between [one-year
period], including unsolved cases from previous
years which remained open between [one-year
period] including investigations that your agency
turned over to another agency, if applicable.
3.
4.
Yes
Skip to Section C, Page #
No
Did any of these cases involve…
a.
An attempt to conceal the taking or whereabouts of a child with
the intent to prevent return, contact or visitation?..........................
b. Transport or intent to transport a child from the state for the
purpose of making recovery more difficult? .....................................
c.
Intent to prevent contact with a child on an indefinite basis? .........
d. Intent to affect custodial privileges indefinitely?..............................
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Did you answer “yes” to any item in Question 3?
Yes
5.
Skip to Section C, Page #
No
Skip to Section C, Page #
No
Indicate the total number of cases that your agency investigated between [one-year period]
that fit one or more of the criteria given in Question 3.
Total Number of Qualifying Cases Investigated
Between [one-year period]
Remember to include all cases that fit the
Question 3 criteria where your agency performed
any investigation activity between [one-year
period] regardless of when they were first
reported and regardless of the involvement of
another agency.
NISMART-4 Mail Survey Screener
IMPORTANT: Please provide specific
information about each case by completing
Section B on the next page.
1 0 -6
NISMART-4 Mail Survey Screener
SECTION B
For all family abductions included in the total in Question 5 on the previous page, please provide the following information. If your agency has a lot
of eligible cases you can: 1) print out the eligible cases directly and insert those pages into your returned survey; 2) add additional pages as necessary;
or 3) contact us directly and we will provide you with additional assistance.
a) Case Number
1 0 -7
b) Who was the key
investigating officer or
who in your agency is
now the most
knowledgeable person
about the case?
c) Were any
other law
enforcement
agencies
involved?
1.
Name
Email
Yes
No
/
/
Yes
No
Conceal, Transport, Prevent
Contact, Affect Custodial
Privileges
2.
Name
Email
Yes
No
/
/
Yes
No
Conceal, Transport, Prevent
Contact, Affect Custodial
Privileges
3.
Name
Email
Yes
No
/
/
Yes
No
Conceal, Transport, Prevent
Contact, Affect Custodial
Privileges
4.
Name
Email
Yes
No
/
/
Yes
No
Conceal, Transport, Prevent
Contact, Affect Custodial
Privileges
5.
Name
Email
Yes
No
/
/
Yes
No
Conceal, Transport, Prevent
Contact, Affect Custodial
Privileges
6.
Name
Email
Yes
No
/
/
Yes
No
Conceal, Transport, Prevent
Contact, Affect Custodial
Privileges
Provide your
agency’s case
number for
reference in our
follow-up call
d) When was
the case
reported?
(MM/DD/YY)
e) Is the case
still open?
f) Indicate which criteria
this case appears to fit
(circle all that apply):
Continue with Section C
SEE GLOSSARY, PAGE #.
SECTION C
1.
You have indicated that your agency did not investigate any cases between [one-year period] that
fit the NISMART criteria for a family child abduction (see Glossary). What year did your agency last
investigate any case that fit those criteria?
2.
Are you aware of any cases of family child abductions in your general area or in your state between
[one-year period]?
Yes
Indicate the county (counties) where the abduction(s) took place
No
SECTION D
1.
To the extent possible, please verify your answers in the previous sections by conducting a check
of investigation records and/or discussions with your agency’s investigative unit(s). Indicate here
the way(s) you verified this information:
a.
No
Checked with other staff in your department? ................................. Yes
b. Checked with staff elsewhere in your agency? ................................. Yes
No
c.
No
Checked records? .............................................................................. Yes
d. Used a computerized information system?....................................... Yes
No
2.
Is your specific department or unit responsible for…..
a.
Investigating missing children? .................. Yes
b. Maintaining data on missing children? ...... Yes
No
No
Skip to Section F, Page #
SEE GLOSSARY, PAGE #.
SECTION E
You indicated in Section A that your agency does not have the jurisdiction to conduct criminal
investigations of child family abductions. Please describe what responsibilities do come under
your agency’s jurisdiction.
NISMART-4 Mail Survey Screener
1 0 -8
SECTION F
Please use this section to note the problems and questions you encountered as you conducted a
search with the criteria we provided. Please also note if there are additional criteria you used to
find these cases in your system.
THANK YOU FOR COMPLETING THIS
SURVEY. PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM IN
THE POSTAGE-PAID ENVELOPE PROVIDED.
NISMART-4 Mail Survey Screener
1 0 -9
GLOSSARY OF STUDY TERMS
Child. Person under the age of 18.
Family abduction: The taking or keeping of a child by a family member in violation of a court order,
written agreement or mutual understanding about custody or visitation rights
Family member: A biological, adoptive, step- or foster family member; someone acting on behalf of such
a family member; or the romantic partner of a parent
Missing child: A child whose caregiver contacted the police in order to recover or locate the child.
Whereabouts unknown: The person who reported this incident did not have an address, telephone
number or other information that works to contact the child or the perpetrator.
Endangerment: Caregiver believed that child was at risk of physical assault, sexual abuse, physical injury,
or health problem in the company of the perpetrator.
Recovery: Child was returned or came back to the custody of the aggrieved caregiver
Violation of custody agreement: An aggrieved parent is stating that a specific part of a court order,
written agreement or mutual understanding about custody or visitation rights has been violated
NISMART-4 F requently Asked Questions
1 0 -1 0
Attachment C
Frequently Asked Questions
NISMART-4 Mail Survey Screener
1 0 -1 1
Attachment C: Frequently Asked Questions
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
PHASE 1: SEARCHES
What is NISMART-4?
NISMART-4 is a research study created by the federal Missing
Children’s Assistance Act. Its goal is to estimate the number
of missing children, including children who have been
abducted by family members. NISMART-4 is the fourth in a
series of studies conducted between 1988 and 2011. It will
update numbers from the three previous studies to
determine whether there have been increases or decreases
in the number of missing or abducted children. The finding s
will be reported to Congress and will guide the development
of policies and programs for missing children. The study is
sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention (OJJDP) and managed by the National Institute of
Justice (NIJ), at the U.S. Department of Justice. Westat and
the Crimes against Children Research Center (CCRC) at the
University of New Hampshire are conducting the study.
knowledge about family abductions.
What will the pilot involve?
We are asking you to search your records for cases of children
abducted by family members during [one-year period]. After
you have completed the search and recorded your results on
the mail survey, we will follow up with a telephone call about
your experience. Depending on the number of cases found, we
anticipate the search and telephone interview will take about 3
hours.
What is my agency has a lot of eligible cases?
If your agency has a lot of eligible cases making it difficult to
complete this survey you can: 1) print out the eligible cases
directly and insert those pages into your returned survey; 2)
add additional pages as necessary; or 3) contact us directly and
What is the National Law Enforcement Survey on Family we will provide you with additional assistance.
Child Abduction?
NISMART includes a number of different studies. The What about security and confidentiality protections? In
National Law Enforcement Survey on Family Child accordance with 28 CFR Part 22, the research team will
Abductions will estimate the number of children who were provide administrative and physical security of identifiable
kidnapped by family members between [one-year period]. data and preserve the anonymity of private persons
Data will be collected in two phases from all law enforcement participating in this project. The study avoids asking for
agencies with authority to investigate missing children. In identifying information about cases, such as victims’ names.
Phase 1, Law Enforcement Agencies will complete a mail Throughout the research, all information that would link an
survey screener to identify relevant cases. In Phase 2, we will agency with any specific case details will be kept under lock
ask investigators of child family abduction cases to complete and key or in secure computer files, accessible to authorized
a self-administered web survey to provide details about study staff only. Finally, federal law requires that all
information be used for statistical purposes only—no
specific cases investigated.
specific agencies or cases will be identified in any publicized
We are asking you to participate in a pilot of Phase 1.
materials.
How did you choose this agency?
This initial mail survey screener is being sent to a sample of What if I have questions?
30 law enforcement agencies of different sizes across the U.S. If you have questions about the research, please contact the
survey
director,
Kimberly
Mitchell
at
as part of the pilot.
[email protected], or 301-610-5523 or the study’s
Why is my participation important? Participation is toll-free number at 1-XXX-XXX-XXXX. If you have any
voluntary, and will not affect the status of your agency in any questions about your rights as a research subject, you may
way. However, the information you provide in testing this contact the Westat Human Subjects Protection Office at 1mail screener will help us design a better instrument for the 888-920-7631. Please leave a message with your full name,
national study. This will lead to more accurate and reliable the name of the study (NISMART-4) and a phone number,
final study estimates about family child abductions. beginning with the area code. Someone will return your call
Participating in this research will not entail any particular as soon as possible.
risks or benefits to you but it will greatly contribute to our
NISMART-4 F requently Asked Questions
1 0 -1 2
Attachment D
Follow-up Protocol and Questions for Search Component
NISMART-4 Follow-up Protocol and
Questions for Search Component
1 0 -1 3
OMB No. XXXX-XXXX
Approval Expires XX/XX/20XX
Attachment D: Follow-up Protocol and Questions for Search Component
Hi Det/Lt/Chief XXXX,
My name is XXXXX. I am part of the research team conducting The National Law Enforcement Survey on
Family Child Abduction. I want to thank you for completing the pilot mail survey we sent you. We would
now like to ask you just a few questions about your experiences searching for and identifying these
cases in your agency’s system. This should only take about 20 minutes. Is now a good time to talk?
Questions for telephone interview
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
On a scale of 1 (very difficult) to 5 (very easy), how easy was it for you to identify these cases?
Was there a specific search terms or terms that identified most of your cases?
Were there other search terms you used?
What did you find challenging about this search?
(IF APPLICABLE): We asked NCMEC and your state’s Missing Children Clearinghouse for all cases of
family abductions reported to them by your agency during the study period. They identified these
X cases which don’t appear to have come up in your search. Let’s review these cases to see why
they did not come up in your search.
Is there anything else you would like us to know about this process?
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, we cannot ask you to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. Public reporting burden for this collection is estimated to average 20 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of
information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing
this burden, to the National Institute of Justice, 810 Seventh Street NW, Washington, DC 20531.
NISMART-4 Follow-up Protocol and
Questions for Search Component
1 0 -1 4
Appendix 11
LES-FA Component 2 Materials
Table of Contents
Attachment
Page
A
Invitation Letter, Targeted to Each of the 25 LEAs ................................
11-1
B
Mail Survey Screener ...............................................................................
11-5
C
Frequently Asked Questions ...................................................................
11-12
D
Thank you/Reminder Postcard ...............................................................
11-14
E
Second Reminder Letter..........................................................................
11-16
F
Third Reminder Letter ............................................................................
11-19
G
Shortened Three-Question Survey...........................................................
11-21
Attachment A
Invitation Letter, Targeted to Each of the 25 LEAs
NISMART-4 Invitation Letter, Targeted to
Each of the 25 LEAs
1 1 -1
Attachment A: Invitation Letter, Targeted to Each of the 25 LEAs
[INSERT F_NAME, MID_INIT, L_NAME]
[INSERT DEPT NAME]
[INSERT ADDRESS 1]
[INSERT CITY], [INSERT STATE] [INSERT ZIP]
[INSERT DATE OF MAILING]
Dear [INSERT TITLE, L_NAME],
We are asking your agency to participate in the first component of a pilot study for the National Law
Enforcement Survey on Family Child Abduction, a study designed to estimate the number of children abducted
by family members in the U.S.
This study is part of the Fourth National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway
Children (NISMART-4). The ultimate study will update the national estimates of child victims of family
abductions and determine whether there have been any changes in the overall number of victims or in specific
categories of victims. This study will limit the scope of events to those known to law enforcement and so we
are relying on law enforcement agencies as the source of data.
Today we are requesting your help in an important first component of this pilot study where we want to
identify how law enforcement agencies search for relevant cases in their data system and challenges they may
encounter.
The study is being conducted in two phases. In this first phase, we are asking your agency to complete a brief
mail screener to let us know 1) if you have jurisdiction to conduct investigations of missing children and 2) if
you have had any relevant cases between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. In Phase 2, the research team will
contact investigators of the child family abduction cases identified in Phase 1. They will be asked to complete a
[self-administered web survey or telephone interview providing details about the specific case.
Enclosed is the Phase 1 survey packet for your agency. The packet includes the mail survey screener, glossary
of terms, frequently asked questions, and a pre-paid return envelope.
As part of this Phase 1 mail survey screener we will be asking you to identify specific family abduction cases
investigated by the agency. In identifying these cases we ask you to search your case management system for
codes related to “abduction” and “family offense” as well as free text searches for the word “custody”.
Additional study criteria include:
1. Involvement of a juvenile ages 0-17,
2. Involvement of a family perpetrator, and
3. The removal or detention of a child without permission.
When conducting these searches please keep track of the problems and questions you encounter as we
provide a place at the end of the survey where you can log these problems and questions. After you complete
the search we will be contacting you by telephone to ask you about your experience with the process.
NISMART-4 Invitation Letter, Targeted to
Each of the 25 LEAs
1 1 -2
Your agency’s participation is voluntary and will not affect the status of your agency in any way. The study
avoids asking for identifying information about cases, such as victims’ names. Throughout the research, all
information that would link an agency with any specific case details will be kept under lock and key or in secure
computer files, accessible to authorized study staff only. Finally, federal law requires that all information be
used for statistical purposes only—no specific agencies or cases will be identified in any publicized materials.
We will be happy to answer your questions about this project. Please call us at our toll free number, 1-XXXXXX-XXXX, or send an e-mail to survey director Kimberly Mitchell at [email protected]. Thank you so
much for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Andrea Sedlak, Ph.D.
Westat
Co-Principal Investigator
NISMART-4 Invitation Letter, Targeted to
Each of the 25 LEAs
David Finkelhor, Ph.D.
University of New Hampshire
Co-Principal Investigator
1 1 -3
FEDERAL ASSURANCES OF CONFIDENTIALITY AND OTHER NOTICES
This data collection is authorized under the Missing Children's Assistance Act (see, 34 U.S.C. § 11293(c)).
NIJ, OJJDP, its employees, and its data collection agents will use the information you provide for statistical
or research purposes only, and will not disclose your information in identifiable form without your consent
to anyone outside of the research team. All personally identifiable data collected are protected under the
confidentiality provisions of 34 U.S.C. § 10231, and any person who violates these provisions may be
punished by a fine up to $10,000, in addition to any other penalties imposed by law. Further, under the
Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2015, your data are protected from cybersecurity risks through screening
of the systems that transmit your data. Your compliance with the request for information is entirely
voluntary, and if you choose to provide information, you may discontinue at any time without penalty of
any sort.
Under the Federal Paperwork Reduction Act, a person is not required to respond to a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. We try to create forms and instructions
that are accurate, can be easily understood, and which impose the least possible burden on you to provide
us with information. We estimate that it will take 3 hours to complete this questionnaire. This estimate
includes time for reviewing the instructions, searching for and gathering the data, completing the form, and
reviewing answers.
If you would like more information concerning this authorization, the confidentiality guarantee, have
comments regarding the accuracy of the burden estimate, or suggestions for making the form simpler, please
contact Benjamin Adams, Social Science Analyst, at [email protected] or 202-616-3687. If you
need assistance regarding your submission, please contact the survey director, Kimberly Mitchell at
[email protected] or call the project’s toll free number: xxx-xxx-xxxx.
NISMART-4 Invitation Letter, Targeted to
Each of the 25 LEAs
1 1 -4
Attachment B
Mail Survey Screener
NISMART-4 Mail Survey Screener
1 1 -5
OMB No. XXXX-XXXX
Approval Expires XX/XX/20XX
Attachment B: Mail Survey Screener
NATIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
SURVEY ON FAMILY CHILD
ABDUCTION
OMB No.
Part of the 4th National Incidence Study of
Missing, Abducted, Runaway & Thrownaway
Children (NISMART-4)
Conducted by:
Westat
1600 Research Blvd,
Rockville, MD 20850
and
Crimes against Children Research Center
University of New Hampshire
10 West Edge Drive
Durham, NH 03824
Toll free: XXX-XXX-XXXX
Sponsored by:
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Juvenile Justice &
Delinquency Prevention
Washington, DC 20531
Managed by:
U.S. Department of Justice
National Institute of Justice
Washington, DC 20531
Please provide the name, position, and contact information of the person completing this survey,
in case we need to clarify responses or gather additional information.
NAME:
POSITION OR TITLE:
DEPARTMENT OR UNIT:
TELEPHONE NUMBER:
(
)
Ext.
EMAIL ADDRESS:
DATE COMPLETED:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, we cannot ask you to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control
number. Public reporting burden for this collection is estimated to average 3 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions,
searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send
comments regarding this burden estimate or any aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the
National Institute of Justice, 810 Seventh Street NW, Washington, DC 20531.
NISMART-4 Mail Survey Screener
1 1 -6
SECTION A
1.
Does your agency have jurisdiction to conduct criminal investigations of cases in which a child is
reported as missing or abducted?
Yes
2.
Between [one-year period], did your agency investigate any cases where a family member
(cf. Glossary) took or kept a child in violation of a court order, written agreement or mutual
understanding about custody or visitation rights?
Consider all cases where your agency performed
any investigation activity between [one-year
period], including unsolved cases from previous
years which remained open between [one-year
period] including investigations that your agency
turned over to another agency, if applicable.
3.
4.
Yes
Skip to Section C, Page #
No
Did any of these cases involve…
a.
An attempt to conceal the taking or whereabouts of a child with
the intent to prevent return, contact or visitation?..........................
b. Transport or intent to transport a child from the state for the
purpose of making recovery more difficult? .....................................
c.
Intent to prevent contact with a child on an indefinite basis? .........
d. Intent to affect custodial privileges indefinitely?..............................
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Did you answer “yes” to any item in Question 3?
Yes
5.
Skip to Section C, Page #
No
Skip to Section C, Page #
No
Indicate the total number of cases that your agency investigated between [one-year period]
that fit one or more of the criteria given in Question 3.
Total Number of Qualifying Cases Investigated
Between [one-year period]
Remember to include all cases that fit the
Question 3 criteria where your agency performed
any investigation activity between [one-year
period] regardless of when they were first
reported and regardless of the involvement of
IMPORTANT: Please provide specific
information about each case by completing
Section B on the next page.
another agency.
NISMART-4 Mail Survey Screener
1 1 -7
NISMART-4 Mail Survey Screener
SECTION B
For all family abductions included in the total in Question 5 on the previous page, please provide the following information. If your agency has a lot
of eligible cases you can: 1) print out the eligible cases directly and insert those pages into your returned survey; 2) add additional pages as necessary;
or 3) contact us directly and we will provide you with additional assistance.
a) Case Number
Provide your
agency’s case
number for
reference in our
follow-up call
1.
b) Who was the key
investigating officer or
who in your agency is
now the most
knowledgeable person
about the case?
c) Were any
other law
enforcement
agencies
involved?
d) When was
the case
reported?
(MM/DD/YY)
e) Is the case
still open?
f) Indicate which criteria
this case appears to fit
(circle all that apply):
Yes
No
/
/
Yes
No
Conceal, Transport, Prevent
Contact, Affect Custodial
Privileges
2.
Name
Email
Yes
No
/
/
Yes
No
Conceal, Transport, Prevent
Contact, Affect Custodial
Privileges
3.
Name
Email
Yes
No
/
/
Yes
No
Conceal, Transport, Prevent
Contact, Affect Custodial
Privileges
4.
Name
Email
Yes
No
/
/
Yes
No
Conceal, Transport, Prevent
Contact, Affect Custodial
Privileges
5.
Name
Email
Yes
No
/
/
Yes
No
Conceal, Transport, Prevent
Contact, Affect Custodial
Privileges
6.
Name
Email
Yes
No
/
/
Yes
No
Conceal, Transport, Prevent
Contact, Affect Custodial
Privileges
1 1 -8
Name
Email
SEE GLOSSARY, PAGE #.
Continue with Section C
SECTION C
1.
You have indicated that your agency did not investigate any cases between [one-year period] that
fit the NISMART criteria for a family child abduction (see Glossary). What year did your agency last
investigate any case that fit those criteria?
2.
Are you aware of any cases of family child abductions in your general area or in your state between
[one-year period]?
Yes
Indicate the county (counties) where the abduction(s) took place
No
SECTION D
1.
To the extent possible, please verify your answers in the previous sections by conducting a check
of investigation records and/or discussions with your agency’s investigative unit(s). Indicate here
the way(s) you verified this information:
a.
No
Checked with other staff in your department? ................................. Yes
b. Checked with staff elsewhere in your agency? ................................. Yes
No
c.
No
Checked records? .............................................................................. Yes
d. Used a computerized information system?....................................... Yes
No
2.
Is your specific department or unit responsible for…..
a.
Investigating missing children? .................. Yes
b. Maintaining data on missing children? ...... Yes
No
No
Skip to Section F, Page #
SEE GLOSSARY, PAGE #.
NISMART-4 Mail Survey Screener
1 1 -9
SECTION E
You indicated in Section A that your agency does not have the jurisdiction to
conduct criminal investigations of child family abductions. Please describe what
responsibilities do come under your agency’s jurisdiction.
SECTION F
Please use this section to note the problems and questions you encountered as you
conducted a search with the criteria we provided. Please also note if there are
additional criteria you used to find these cases in your system.
THANK YOU FOR
COMPLETING THIS SURVEY.
PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM
IN THE POSTAGE-PAID
ENVELOPE PROVIDED.
NISMART-4 Mail Survey Screener
1 1 -1 0
GLOSSARY OF STUDY TERMS
Child. Person under the age of 18.
Family abduction: The taking or keeping of a child by a family member in violation of a court order,
written agreement or mutual understanding about custody or visitation rights
Family member: A biological, adoptive, step- or foster family member; someone acting on behalf of
such a family member; or the romantic partner of a parent
Missing child: A child whose caregiver contacted the police in order to recover or locate the child.
Whereabouts unknown: The person who reported this incident did not have an address, telephone
number or other information that works to contact the child or the perpetrator.
Endangerment: Caregiver believed that child was at risk of physical assault, sexual abuse, physical
injury, or health problem in the company of the perpetrator.
Recovery: Child was returned or came back to the custody of the aggrieved caregiver
Violation of custody agreement: An aggrieved parent is stating that a specific part of a court order,
written agreement or mutual understanding about custody or visitation rights has been violated
NISMART-4 F requently Asked Questions
1 1 -1 1
Attachment C
Frequently Asked Questions
NISMART-4 Mail Survey Screener
1 1 -1 2
Attachment C: Frequently Asked Questions
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
PHASE 1: SEARCHES
What is NISMART-4?
NISMART-4 is a research study created by the federal Missing risks or benefits to you but it will greatly contribute to our
Children’s Assistance Act. Its goal is to estimate the number knowledge about abducted children.
of missing children, including children who have been
abducted by family members. NISMART-4 is the fourth in a What will the pilot involve?
series of studies conducted between 1988 and 2011. It will We are asking you to search your records for cases of children
update numbers from the three previous studies to abducted by family members during [one-year period]. After
determine whether there have been increases or decreases you have completed the search and recorded your results on
in the number of missing or abducted children. The finding s the mail survey, we will follow up with a telephone call about
will be reported to Congress and will guide the development your experience. Depending on the number of cases found,
of policies and programs for missing children. The study is we anticipate the search and telephone interview will take
sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency about 3 hours.
Prevention (OJJDP) and managed by the National Institute of
Justice (NIJ), at the U.S. Department of Justice. Westat and What is my agency has a lot of eligible cases?
the Crimes against Children Research Center (CCRC) at the If your agency has a lot of eligible cases making it difficult to
complete this survey you can: 1) print out the eligible cases
University of New Hampshire are conducting the study.
directly and insert those pages into your returned survey; 2)
What is the National Law Enforcement Survey on Family add additional pages as necessary; or 3) contact us directly and
we will provide you with additional assistance.
Child Abduction?
NISMART includes a number of different studies. The
National Law Enforcement Survey on Family Child What about security and confidentiality protections? In
Abductions will estimate the number of children who were accordance with 28 CFR Part 22, the research team will
kidnapped by family members between [one-year period]. provide administrative and physical security of identifiable
Data will be collected in two phases from all law enforcement data and preserve the anonymity of private persons
agencies with authority to investigate missing children. In participating in this project. The study avoids asking for
Phase 1, Law Enforcement Agencies will complete a mail identifying information about cases, such as victims’ names.
survey screener to identify relevant cases. In Phase 2, we will Throughout the research, all information that would link an
ask investigators of child family abduction cases to complete agency with any specific case details will be kept under lock
a self-administered web survey to provide details about and key or in secure computer files, accessible to authorized
study staff only. Finally, federal law requires that all
specific cases investigated.
information be used for statistical purposes only—no
We are asking you to participate in a pilot of Phase 1.
specific agencies or cases will be identified in any publicized
materials.
How did you choose this agency?
This initial mail survey screener is being sent to a sample of
30 law enforcement agencies of different sizes across the U.S. What if I have questions?
If you have questions about the research, please contact the
as part of the pilot.
survey
director,
Kimberly
Mitchell
at
Why is my participation important? Participation is [email protected], or 301-610-5523 or the study’s
voluntary, and will not affect the status of your agency in any toll-free number at 1-XXX-XXX-XXXX. If you have any
way. However, the information you provide in testing this questions about your rights as a research subject, you may
mail screener will help us design a better instrument for the contact the Westat Human Subjects Protection Office at 1888-920-7631. Please leave a message with your full name,
national study. This will lead to more accurate and
the name of the study (NISMART-4) and a phone number,
reliable final study estimates about family child abductions. beginning with the area code. Someone will return your call
as soon as possible.
Participating in this research will not entail any particular
NISMART-4 F requently Asked Questions
1 1 -1 3
Attachment D
Thank You/Reminder Postcard
NISMART-4 Thank You/Reminder Postcard
1 1 -1 4
Attachment D: Thank you/Reminder Postcard
Reminder to Complete the National Law Enforcement Survey on Family Child Abduction
We recently sent you a letter asking your agency to participate in a pilot study for the National Law
Enforcement Survey on Family Child Abduction, a study designed to estimate the number of children
abducted by family members in the U.S. The data from the main study will be reported to Congress and
will be used to inform the development of future policies and programs for missing children.
If you have already completed the survey and returned it to us, please accept our sincere thanks. If
not, please complete the survey and send it to us as soon as possible. The survey is due on <>. We need to receive your survey, even if you do not have any family
abduction cases, so that the study results will accurately represent the experiences of law enforcement
agencies.
If you have questions about completing the survey, did not receive the survey, or it has been misplaced,
please call us at the following toll-free number, 1-XXX-XXX-XXXX, and we will mail another survey to you
right away.
We greatly appreciate your help!
Andrea Sedlak, Ph.D.
Westat
Co-Principal Investigator
NISMART-4 Thank You/Reminder Postcard
David Finkelhor, Ph.D.
University of New Hampshire
Co-Principal Investigator
1 1 -1 5
Attachment E
Second Reminder Letter
NISMART-4 Second Reminder Letter
1 1 -1 6
Attachment E: Second Reminder Letter
[INSERT F_NAME, MID_INIT, L_NAME]
[INSERT DEPT NAME]
[INSERT ADDRESS 1]
[INSERT CITY], [INSERT STATE]
[INSERT ZIP]
[INSERT DATE OF MAILING]
Dear [INSERT TITLE, L_NAME],
In [MONTH SURVEY SENT] we sent you a survey and a letter asking you to participate in a pilot study for the
National Law Enforcement Survey on Family Child Abduction. The survey seeks information about your
agency’s experiences with abductions by family members. The survey was due [SURVEY DUE DATE] but, as of
today, we have not received your completed survey. (If you are still filling it out or have recently returned it,
please disregard this notice.)
Our research team was asked to conduct this study to obtain an accurate estimate of the number of children
who are abducted by family members. We know that crime investigators are the most knowledgeable sources
of information about such cases.
I am writing to you again because each questionnaire is significant to the usefulness of this study. In order for
the study results to truly represent the experiences of all agencies, it is essential that each agency in the
sample return the questionnaire, even if your agency does not have any relevant cases. There is a place for you
to note this on the questionnaire. If your agency has a lot of eligible cases, you can call the survey director
and she will help you complete it.
The study is being conducted in two phases. In this first phase, we are asking your agency to complete a brief
mail screener to let us know 1) if you have jurisdiction to conduct criminal investigations of missing children
and 2) if you have had any relevant cases between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. In Phase 2, the research team
will contact investigators of the child family abduction cases identified in Phase 1. They will be asked to
complete a self-administered web survey/telephone interview providing details about the specific case.
Enclosed is the Phase 1 survey packet for your agency. Enclosed is a pilot survey packet for your agency. We
are also interested in understanding the process through which you search for these types of cases in your
system. In identifying these cases we ask you to search your case management system for codes related to
“abduction” and “family offense” as well as free text searches for the word “custody”. Additional study criteria
include:
1. Involvement of a juvenile ages 0-17,
2. Involvement of a family perpetrator, and
3. The removal or detention of a child without permission.
When conducting these searches please keep track of the problems and questions you encounter as we
provide a place at the end of the survey where you can write these down. After you complete the search we
will be contacting you by telephone to ask you about your experience with the process.
NISMART-4 Second Reminder Letter
1 1 -1 7
We know you are extremely busy, but your response to this survey is an investment of time that will help law
enforcement in the future. The report we write from this study will give policy makers and legislators vital
information about cases involving stranger abductions. In case your questionnaire has been misplaced, a
replacement is enclosed. If you have any questions about this project, please send an email to Kimberly
Mitchell at [email protected] or you can call our project’s toll-free number 1-XXX-XXX-XXXX, and
someone will return your call promptly. Thank you so much for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Andrea Sedlak, Ph.D.
Westat
Co-Principal Investigator
NISMART-4 Second Reminder Letter
David Finkelhor, Ph.D.
University of New Hampshire
Co-Principal Investigator
1 1 -1 8
Attachment F
Third Reminder Letter
NISMART-4 Third Reminder Letter
1 1 -1 9
Attachment F: Third Reminder Letter
[INSERT F_NAME, MID_INIT, L_NAME]
[INSERT DEPT NAME]
[INSERT ADDRESS 1]
[INSERT CITY], [INSERT STATE]
[INSERT ZIP]
[INSERT DATE OF MAILING]
Dear [INSERT TITLE, L_NAME],
This is the third request for your agency’s participation in the pilot study for the National Law
Enforcement Survey on Family Child Abduction. The survey seeks information about your agency’s
experiences with child abductions by family members. The survey was due [SURVEY DUE DATE] but, as
of today, we have not received your completed survey. (If you have recently returned your survey,
please disregard this notice.)
If you have not yet responded, we hope that you will be able to do so soon. We would be very grateful if
you would consider helping us with this important research. We appreciate the many demands for your
time but please be assured that the study results will help law enforcement in the future. In case your
questionnaire has been misplaced, a replacement is enclosed. If you have any questions about this
project, please send an email to [email protected] or you can call our project’s toll-free number 1XXX-XXX-XXXX, and someone will return your call promptly.
Thank you so much for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Andrea Sedlak, Ph.D.
Westat
Co-Principal Investigator
NISMART-4 Third Reminder Letter
David Finkelhor, Ph.D.
University of New Hampshire
Co-Principal Investigator
1 1 -2 0
Attachment G
Shortened Three-Question Survey
NISMART-4 Shortened Three-Question Survey 1 1 -2 1
OMB No. XXXX-XXXX
Approval Expires XX/XX/20XX
Attachment G: Shortened Three-Question Survey
National Law Enforcement Survey on Family Child Abductions
This is the fourth request for your agency’s participation in the pilot study for the National Law
Enforcement Survey on Family Child Abduction. As of today, we have not received your completed
questionnaire.
The report we write from this study will help law enforcement in the future and give policy makers and
legislators vital information about cases involving family abductions. In order for the study results to
truly represent the experiences of all agencies, it is essential that each agency in the sample respond,
even if you do not have any cases to report.
To make things easier for you, we have simplified the survey to three essential questions, listed below.
Please answer them to the best of your knowledge and return this to us. If you have any questions
about this project, please send an email to Kimberly Mitchell at [email protected] or you can
call our project’s toll-free number at 1-XXX-XXX-XXXX, and someone will return your call promptly.
Thank you so much for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Andrea Sedlak, Ph.D.
Westat
Co-Principal Investigator
David Finkelhor, Ph.D.
University of New Hampshire
Co-Principal Investigator
1. Does your agency have jurisdiction to conduct criminal investigations of cases in which a
child is reported as abducted or missing?
Yes
□
No
□
2. Between [one-year period], did your agency investigate any cases where a family member
took or kept a child in violation of a court order, written agreement or mutual
understanding about custody or visitation rights?
Yes
□
No
□
Does not apply
□
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, we cannot ask you to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. Public reporting burden for this collection is estimated to average 5 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of
information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing
this burden, to the National Institute of Justice, 810 Seventh Street NW, Washington, DC 20531.
NISMART-4 Shortened Three-Question Survey 1 1 -2 2
3. Between <<>> and <<>> did your agency have
any open cases of child family abduction5s or presumed family abductions from prior years?
Yes
□
No
□
Does not apply
□
Your Name and Title: _____________________________________
Phone Number: _________________________________________
Thank you for your time. Please refold this paper so that
the prepaid side is visible and mail it back to us.
NISMART-4 Shortened Three-Question Survey 1 1 -2 3
Appendix 12
LES-FA Component 3
Table of Contents
Attachment
Page
A
Draft LES-FA Questionnaire .................................................................
12-1
B
Web Survey Email Invite for Telephone Interview (10 Cases).................
12-17
C
Telephone Case Interview Introduction (10 Cases) .................................
12-20
D
Web Survey Email Invite.........................................................................
12-22
E
Invitation Letter for Web Survey, Investigating Officer...........................
12-25
F
Frequently Asked Questions ...................................................................
12-28
G
Web Survey First Reminder Email ..........................................................
12-31
H
Web Survey Third Reminder Email.........................................................
12-33
I
Web Survey Second Reminder Email ......................................................
12-35
J
Script for Telephone Follow-Up Interviews ............................................
12-37
Attachment A
Draft LES-FA Questionnaire
NISMART-4 D raft LES-F A Questionnaire
1 2 -1
OMB No. XXXX-XXXX
Approval Expires XX/XX/20XX
Attachment A: Draft LES-FA Survey
FA1 Please give your contact information here so the researchers can reach you with any questions after
they review your survey. This information will be deleted as soon as the research team verifies that your
survey is complete.
Name and title (1) _________________________________________
Telephone number (2) ______________________________________
Email address (3) __________________________________________
NISMART LES-FA Definitions of Family Abduction and Family Member
FA2 Your agency’s case number for this investigation is [number will be provided].
Please confirm that this incident involves a family member who took or kept a child in violation of a
court order, written agreement or mutual understanding about custody or visitation rights.
A family member includes 1) a biological, adoptive, step or foster family
member, 2) someone acting on behalf of such a family member, or 3) the
romantic partner of a parent.
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
Box 1
If FA2 = 2 (case is not FA) or FA2 = 3 (don’t know) and respondent has no additional surveys, go to
ENDSURVEY1. If FA2 = 2 or FA2 = 3 and respondent has additional surveys, go to ENDSURVEY2.
NISMART LES-FA Time Frame
FA3 Was this violation of a court order, written agreement or mutual understanding reported between
[time frame to be established]?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, we cannot ask you to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. Public reporting burden for this collection is estimated to average 15 minutes per response as web survey and 30 minutes as
telephone interview, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed,
and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any aspect of this collection of
information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the National Institute of Justice, 810 Seventh Street NW, Washington, DC 20531.
NISMART-4 D raft LES-F A Questionnaire
1 2 -2
Box 2
If FA3 = 2 (case not in time frame) or FA2 = 3 (don’t know) and respondent has no additional surveys, go to
ENDSURVEY1. If FA3 = 2 or FA3 = 3 and respondent has additional surveys, go to ENDSURVEY2.
NISMART LES-FA Criteria for Missing Child
FA4 Did your agency make a missing child report about a child involved in this incident to ... (Please
respond to both options.)
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot
determine (3)
National Crime
Information Center
(NCIC)? (1)
Your state's Missing Child
Clearing House? (2)
NISMART LES-FA criteria for Qualifying Family Abduction
FA5 Did a perpetrator in this incident … (Please respond to all statements.)
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot
determine (3)
Attempt to conceal the
taking or whereabouts of
a child with the intent to
prevent return, contact or
visitation? (1)
Transport or intend to
transport a child from the
state for the purpose of
making recovery more
difficult? (2)
Intend to prevent contact
with a child on an
indefinite basis? (3)
Intend to affect custodial
privileges indefinitely? (4)
Box 3
If none of the answers to FA5 = 1 (Yes), and respondent has no additional surveys, go to ENDSURVEY1. If none
of the answers to FA5 = 1 and respondent has additional surveys, go to ENDSURVEY2.
NISMART-4 D raft LES-F A Questionnaire
1 2 -3
FA6 Did the person who reported this incident primarily want law enforcement to...
Locate and recover a child whose whereabouts were not known, or (1)
Recover a child whose whereabouts were known? (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (4)
NISMART LES-FA Definition of Whereabouts Unknown
FA7 Did the person who reported this incident have an address, telephone number or other information
that worked to contact the child or the perpetrator?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
NISMART LES-FA Definition of Violation of Custody Agreement
FA8 Did the person who reported this incident state that a specific part of a court order, written
agreement or mutual understanding about custody or visitation rights had been violated?
Yes (1)
No (2)____________________________________________________FA10
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)_____________________________ FA10
FA9 What were the conditions of the court order, written agreement or mutual understanding that this
episode violated?
[TEXT ENTRY_________________________________________________
NISMART-4 D raft LES-F A Questionnaire
1 2 -4
NISMART LES-FA Endangerment Categories
FA10 Did the person who reported this incident believe that a child was at risk of any of the following
while in the company of the perpetrator? (Please respond to all options.)
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot
determine (3)
Physical assault (1)
Sexual assault (2)
Neglect of basic needs
(food, shelter,
supervision, etc.) (3)
Neglect of medical needs
(4)
Other health problem (5)
Physical injury (6)
NISMART LES-FA Narrative of Incident
FA11 Please describe briefly what happened during this episode. To the best of your knowledge, how
did it take place and why? What happened to the child or children during and after the incident?
[TEXT ENTRY]________________________________________________
FA12 Did your agency ultimately determine that this incident was a criminal matter or a civil matter?
Criminal matter (1)
Civil matter (2)_____________________________________________FA15
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)_____________________________ FA15
FA13 Did your agency consider this to be an abduction or kidnapping?
Yes (1)___________________________________________________ FA15
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
FA14 What type of criminal incident did your agency consider this to be?
Custodial interference (1)
Child endangerment (2)
Denial of access to a child (3)
Something else (Please describe) (4) ___________________________
Don't know/Cannot determine (5)
NISMART-4 D raft LES-F A Questionnaire
1 2 -5
CHILD CHARACTERISTICS
FA15 Next are questions about each child involved in this incident. First, did this incident involve more
than one child victim?
Yes (Enter number of child victims) (1) ____
No, 1 child victim (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
If more than one child was involved, please start
with the oldest.
FA16 Is this child a boy or a girl?
Boy (1)
Girl (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
FA17 How old was this child when this incident was first reported to police?
Less than 1 year old (1)
1 year old or older (Please enter age in years) (2) ____________________
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
FA18 Is this child Hispanic or Latino/a?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
FA19 What is this child's race?
White (1)
Black or African American (2)
American Indian or Alaska Native (3)
Asian (4)
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander (5)
Other (Please describe) (6) __________________________________
Don't know/Cannot determine (7)
NISMART-4 D raft LES-F A Questionnaire
1 2 -6
FA20 Did the person who reported this incident have sole or joint custody of this child based on a court
order, written agreement or mutual understanding?
Yes, sole custody (1)
Yes, joint custody (2)
No, did not have custody (3)
Don't know/Cannot determine (4)
Box 4
If FA15 = 1 (multiple children) and FA20 = 3 (no custody) or FA20 = 4 (don’t know) go to Box 8.
If FA15 = 2 (one child) and FA20 = 3 or FA20 = 4 and respondent has no additional surveys, go to ENDSURVEY1.
If FA15 = 2 and FA20 = 3 or FA20 = 4 and respondent has additional surveys, go to ENDSURVEY2.
FA21 How was the person who reported this incident related to this child as a family member?
A family member includes 1) a biological, adoptive, step or foster
family member, 2) someone acting on behalf of such a family
member, or 3) the romantic partner of a parent.
Biological or adoptive mother (1)
Biological or adoptive father (2)
Step-mother (3)
Step-father (4)
Other relative such as grandparent, aunt, etc. [This option will pull up a pre-coded list.] (5)
Foster parent (6)
Legal guardian (7)
Romantic partner of a parent, or (8)
Someone acting on behalf of a family member [This option will pull up a pre-coded list.] (9)
Someone else? (Please describe) (10) ___________________________
Don't know/Cannot determine (11)
NISMART-4 D raft LES-F A Questionnaire
1 2 -7
FA22 Was the perpetrator a family member of this child or acting on behalf of a family member of this
child?
A family member includes 1) a biological, adoptive, step or foster
family member, 2) someone acting on behalf of such a family
member, or 3) the romantic partner of a parent.
Yes, a family member (1)
Yes, acting on behalf of a family member (2)
No (3)
Don't know/Cannot determine (4)
Box 5
If FA15 = 1 (multiple children) and FA22 = 3 (perpetrator not family member) or FA22 = 4 (don’t know) go to
Box 8. If FA15 = 2 (one child) and FA22 = 3 or FA22 = 4 and respondent has no additional surveys, go to
ENDSURVEY1.
If FA15 = 2 (one child) and FA22 = 3 or FA22 = 4 and respondent has additional surveys, go to ENDSURVEY2.
If FA20 = 2 (the reporter had joint custody) and FA22 = 1 (perpetrator was family member) or FA22 = 2
(perpetrator was acting on behalf of a family member) go to FA23.
Otherwise go to FA25.
FA23 Did the family member responsible for this incident share joint custody of this child with the
person who reported it?
Answer “Yes” if the person responsible was acting on behalf of a family
member who shared joint custody with the reporter of the incident.
Yes (1)___________________________________________________ FA25
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)_____________________________ FA25
FA24 Who shared joint custody of this child with the person who reported this incident?
[TEXT ENTRY] ________________________________________________
NISMART-4 D raft LES-F A Questionnaire
1 2 -8
FA25 How was the perpetrator related to the child? Was the perpetrator a...
Biological or adoptive mother of the child (1)
Biological or adoptive father of the child (2)
Step-mother (3)
Step-father (4)
Other relative such as grandparent, aunt, etc. [This option will pull up a pre-coded list.] (5)
Foster parent (6)
Legal guardian (7)
Romantic partner of a parent (8)
Someone acting on behalf of a family member? [This option will pull up a pre-coded list.] (9)
Don't know/Cannot determine (10)
FA26 What parents did this child live with when this incident began?
Two married biological parents (1)
Two married parents, one or both not biological, but both having a legal relationship to the child,
such as adoption (2)
Two unmarried parents, biological or other (3)
One unmarried parent with a live-in partner who was not the child’s parent) (4)
A single parent (no live-in partner) (5)
No parent (6)
Other situation (Please describe) (9)______________
Don't know/Cannot determine (10)
FA27 As far as you know, did this child have any serious or permanent physical or mental disabilities,
impairments or life threatening medical conditions when this incident was reported to police?
Yes (Please describe) (1) ____________________________________
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
Box 6
If FA6 = 1 (reporter primarily wanted LE to locate and recover child whose whereabouts were unknown) go to
FA28. If FA6 = 2 (reporter primarily wanted LE to recover a child whose whereabouts were known) go to FA29.
NISMART-4 D raft LES-F A Questionnaire
1 2 -9
NISMART LES-FA Definition of Recovery
FA28 What was the outcome of this incident for this child?
Returned home (1)_________________________________________FA31
Located, but not returned (2)_________________________________FA30
Not returned and not located (3)______________________________FA33
Don't know/Cannot determine (4)_____________________________FA34
NISMART LES-FA Definition of Recovery
FA29 What was the outcome of this incident for this child?
Returned home (1)_________________________________________FA31
Not returned home (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (4)_____________________________FA34
FA30 Please explain why the child was not returned.
[TEXT ENTRY]_________________________________________________
Box 7
If FA28 = 2 (the child was located but not returned) go to FA32.
If FA29 = 2 (the child was not returned) go to FA33.
FA31 How long did the perpetrator keep the child in violation of a court order, written agreement or
mutual understanding about custody or visitation before the child was returned home? (Your best
estimate is fine.) Please enter the number of hours, days, weeks or months below.
Hours (1) ____________________
Days (2) ____________________
Weeks (3) ____________________
Months (4) ____________________
Don't know/Cannot determine (5)
NISMART-4 D raft LES-F A Questionnaire
1 2 -1 0
FA32 How long did the perpetrator keep the child in violation of a court order, written agreement or
mutual understanding about custody or visitation before the child was located? (Your best estimate is
fine.) Please enter the number of hours, days, weeks or months below.
Hours (1) ____________________
Days (2) ____________________
Weeks (3) ____________________
Months (4) ____________________
Don't know/Cannot determine (5)
FA33 How long has the perpetrator kept the child in violation of a court order, written agreement or
mutual understanding about custody or visitation? (Your best estimate is fine.) Please enter the number
of hours, days, weeks or months below.
Hours (1) ____________________
Days (2) ____________________
Weeks (3) ____________________
Months (4) ____________________
Don't know/Cannot determine (5)
FA34 To the best of your knowledge, did this child suffer any physical or sexual abuse, neglect or injury
during this episode?
Yes (1)
No (2)___________________________________________________ Box 8
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)_____________________________Box 8
NISMART-4 D raft LES-F A Questionnaire
1 2 -1 1
FA35 Did any of the following occur? (Please respond to all statements.)
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot
determine (3)
The child was sexually
abused (1)
The child was physically
abused (2)
The child's basic needs
were neglected (food,
supervision) (3)
The child's medical needs
were neglected
(medications, medical
care) (4)
The child suffered an
accidental injury that
required medical
attention (5)
Something else (Please
describe) (6)
Box 8
If FA15=1 (multiple children), questions FA16—FA35 will repeat for each child. After last child, go to FA36.
PERPETRATOR CHARACTERISTICS
FA36 Did this incident involve more than one perpetrator?
Yes (Enter number of perpetrators) (1) _________________________
No, 1 perpetrator (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
FA37 Was the perpetrator male or female?
Male (1)
Female (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
NISMART-4 D raft LES-F A Questionnaire
If more than one perpetrator, please answer the
following questions about the family member who was
most responsible for the incident.
1 2 -1 2
FA38 As far as you know, what was this perpetrator's age at the time of the report?
Teens (1)
20s (2)
30s (3)
40s (4)
50s (5)
60s (6)
70s (7)
80s (8)
Don't know/Cannot determine (9)
FA39 Is he/she of Hispanic or Latino origin?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
FA40 What is his/her race?
White (1)
Black or African American (2)
American Indian or Alaska Native (3)
Asian (4)
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander (5)
Other (Please describe) (6) ____________________
Don't know/Cannot determine (7)
CRIME CHARACTERISTICS
FA41 As part of this incident, did the perpetrator take a child to another state or country?
If more than one child, please answer the next questions
about all of the children involved in the incident.
Yes, another state (1)
Yes, another country (2)
No (3)____________________________________________________FA43
Don't know/Cannot determine (4)_____________________________ FA43
NISMART-4 D raft LES-F A Questionnaire
1 2 -1 3
FA42 Did the perpetrator take a child to another state or country for any of these reasons? (Please
respond to all options.)
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot
determine (3)
To take a vacation (1)
To go to the perpetrator's
residence (2)
To visit relatives (3)
To make the recovery or
return of a child more
difficult (4)
To make contact with a
child more difficult (5)
FA43 Did the perpetrator do any of the following at any point during this incident? (Please respond to all
options.)
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot
determine (3)
Threaten violence to a
child (1)
Use force against a child
(2)
Use a weapon to
threaten or harm a child
(3)
Threaten violence to any
other person (4)
Use force against any
other person (5)
Use a weapon to
threaten or harm any
other person (6)
NISMART-4 D raft LES-F A Questionnaire
1 2 -1 4
POLICE INVESTIGATION
FA44 How did your agency respond to the report? (Please respond to all options.)
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot
determine (3)
Took a report over the
telephone (1)
Sent officers to the child's
household or to the scene
(2)
Interviewed household
members (3)
Made a written report (4)
Got photos of the child or
children (5)
Collected evidence such
as fingerprints or
inventory (6)
Questioned witnesses or
suspects (7)
Conducted a search for
the child/children (8)
Contacted NCMEC (11)
Made an arrest (12)
Investigated or
responded in other ways
(Please describe) (13)
FA45 Did your agency bring other agencies into the investigation or refer the case to another agency?
Yes, brought other agency or agencies into the investigation (1)
Yes, referred the case to another agency (2)
No (3)
Don't know/Cannot determine (4)
Box 9
If FA45 = 3 (did not bring in or refer to other agencies) or FA45 = 4 (don’t know) and respondent has no
additional surveys, go to ENDSURVEY3. If FA45 = 3 or FA45 = 4 and respondent has additional surveys, go to
ENDSURVEY4.
NISMART-4 D raft LES-F A Questionnaire
1 2 -1 5
FA46 What agencies were brought into the investigation or did you refer the case to? Please list each
agency by name, county and state.
[TEXT ENTRY]_________________________________________________
Box 10
If FA45 = 1 or FA45 = 2 (brought in or referred to other agencies), and respondent has no additional surveys, go
to ENDSURVEY3. If FA45 = 1 or FA45 = 2 and respondent has additional surveys, go to ENDSURVEY4.
We would now like to ask you just a few questions about your experiences answering questions about
this case.
FA47
First, did you find any questions difficult to answer? If so, which ones and what them difficult?
FA48
Are there any questions I should have asked about this case but didn’t? If yes, what other parts
of the case should we know about?
FA49
How did you feel about the length of the survey?
ENDSURVEY1 We are only including certain incidents in this study and this case does not qualify. There
are no further questions about this case. Thank you for your time.
ENDSURVEY2 We are only including certain incidents in this study and this case does not qualify. Please
use this link to access questions about your next case that may qualify for this study: [To be added].
ENDSURVEY3 Thank you for completing this survey. We appreciate your help and your contribution to
understanding the problem of children abducted by family members.
ENDSURVEY4 Thank you for completing this survey. We appreciate your help and your contribution to
understanding the problem of children abducted by family members. Please use this link to access
questions about your next case that may qualify for this study: [To be added].
NISMART-4 D raft LES-F A Questionnaire
1 2 -1 6
Attachment B
Web Survey Email Invite for Telephone Interview (10 Cases)
NISMART-4 Web Survey Email Invite for
Telephone Interview (10 Cases)
1 2 -1 7
Attachment B: Web Survey Email Invite for Telephone Interview (10 Cases)
National Law Enforcement Survey on Family Child Abduction
Dear Det/Inv/Lt XXXXX,
We are conducting the pilot study for the National Law Enforcement Survey on Family Child Abduction.
Chief XXXX from your agency completed a mail survey for us gave us your name and email address so
you could complete an online survey about Case #####. The survey will take approximately 30 minutes
to complete as a computerized telephone interview.
This study is part of the Fourth National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and
Thrownaway Children (NISMART-4). The ultimate study will update the national estimates of child
victims of family abductions and determine whether there have been any changes in the overall number
of victims or in specific categories of victims. This study will limit the scope of events to those known to
law enforcement and so we are relying on law enforcement agencies as the source of data.
Your participation is voluntary and will not affect your status in your agency in any way. The study avoids
asking for identifying information about cases, such as victims’ names. Throughout the research, all
information that would link an agency with any specific case details will be kept under lock and key or in
secure computer files, accessible to authorized study staff only. Finally, federal law requires that all
information be used for statistical purposes only—no specific agencies or cases will be identified in any
publicized materials.
An interviewer will be contacting you shortly to complete the interview. If you have any questions about
this project, please call us at our toll free number, 1-XXX-XXX-XXXX, or send an e-mail to survey director
Kimberly Mitchell at [email protected]. Thank you so much for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Andrea Sedlak, Ph.D.
Westat
Co-Principal Investigator
NISMART-4 Web Survey Email Invite for
Telephone Interview (10 Cases)
David Finkelhor, Ph.D.
University of New Hampshire
Co-Principal Investigator
1 2 -1 8
FEDERAL ASSURANCES OF CONFIDENTIALITY AND OTHER NOTICES
This data collection is authorized under the Missing Children's Assistance Act (see, 34 U.S.C. §
11293(c)). NIJ, OJJDP, its employees, and its data collection agents will use the information you
provide for statistical or research purposes only, and will not disclose your information in identifiable
form without your consent to anyone outside of the research team. All personally identifiable data
collected are protected under the confidentiality provisions of 34 U.S.C. § 10231, and any person who
violates these provisions may be punished by a fine up to $10,000, in addition to any other penalties
imposed by law. Further, under the Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2015, your data are protected
from cybersecurity risks through screening of the systems that transmit your data. Your compliance
with the request for information is entirely voluntary, and if you choose to provide information, you
may discontinue at any time without penalty of any sort.
Under the Federal Paperwork Reduction Act, a person is not required to respond to a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. We try to create forms and
instructions that are accurate, can be easily understood, and which impose the least possible burden
on you to provide us with information. We estimate that it will take 0.5 hours to complete this
questionnaire. This estimate includes time for reviewing the instructions, searching for and gathering
the data, completing the form, and reviewing answers.
If you would like more information concerning this authorization, the confidentiality guarantee, have
comments regarding the accuracy of the burden estimate, or suggestions for making the form simpler,
please contact Benjamin Adams, Social Science Analyst, at [email protected] or 202-6163687. If you need assistance regarding your submission, please contact the survey director, Kimberly
Mitchell at [email protected] or call the project’s toll free number: xxx-xxx-xxxx.
NISMART-4 Web Survey Email Invite for
Telephone Interview (10 Cases)
1 2 -1 9
Attachment C
Telephone Case Interview Introduction (10 Cases)
NISMART-4 Telephone C ase Interview
Introduction (10 Cases)
1 2 -2 0
Attachment C: Telephone Case Interview Introduction (10 Cases)
Hi, my name is XXXXX and I am part of the research team conducting the pilot study for the National Law
Enforcement Survey on Family Child Abduction. Chief XXXX from your agency completed a mail survey for
us gave us your name and telephone number so we could follow-up with you about Case #####. Is now a
good time to talk?
Let me just take a minute to let you know how this interview works. This interview is run through a
computer system which only allows me to see one question at a time. Most questions require a simple
Yes or No answer, while others are more detailed. If at any time during this interview you do not want to
answer any question, you are free to decline to answer. Also, if at any time during this interview you think
of something relevant to something mentioned earlier, just let me know and I will make a note.
Also, you should be aware that our research reports will not contain any information that could identify
you or your agency, or any suspects or victims in this case.
In 3 or 4 sentences, can you give me a brief description of what happened in this case?”
TAKE NOTES BY HAND.
See Attachment A for the computerized survey.
NISMART-4 Telephone C ase Interview
Introduction (10 Cases)
1 2 -2 1
Attachment D
Web Survey Email Invite (20 Cases)
NISMART-4 Web Survey Email Invite (20 Cases)
1 2 -2 2
Attachment D: Web Survey Email Invite (20 Cases)
National Law Enforcement Survey on Family Child Abduction
Dear Det/Inv/Lt XXXXX,
We are conducting the pilot study for the National Law Enforcement Survey on Family Child Abduction.
Chief XXXX from your agency completed a mail survey for us gave us your name and email address so
you could complete an online survey about Case #####. The survey will take approximately 15 minutes
to complete and you will be able to pause the survey and go back to it at any time. After the survey is
completed, we will follow up with a phone call at a time of your convenience to talk about the survey
experience. For example: Did the survey allow you to say everything you wanted to say about this case?
Were there questions that were confusing because of how they were worded? This follow up
conversation should take about 20 minutes.
This study is part of the Fourth National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and
Thrownaway Children (NISMART-4). The ultimate study will update the national estimates of child
victims of family abductions and determine whether there have been any changes in the overall number
of victims or in specific categories of victims. This study will limit the scope of events to those known to
law enforcement and so we are relying on law enforcement agencies as the source of data.
Your participation is voluntary and will not affect your status in your agency in any way. The study avoids
asking for identifying information about cases, such as victims’ names. Throughout the research, all
information that would link an agency with any specific case details will be kept under lock and key or in
secure computer files, accessible to authorized study staff only. Finally, federal law requires that all
information be used for statistical purposes only—no specific agencies or cases will be identified in any
publicized materials.
CLICK HERE to access the survey.
We will be happy to answer your questions about this project. Please call us at our toll free number,
1-XXX-XXX-XXXX, or send an e-mail to survey director Kimberly Mitchell at [email protected].
Thank you so much for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Andrea Sedlak, Ph.D.
Westat
Co-Principal Investigator
NISMART-4 Web Survey Email Invite (2 0 C ases) 1 2 -2 3
David Finkelhor, Ph.D.
University of New Hampshire
Co-Principal Investigator
FEDERAL ASSURANCES OF CONFIDENTIALITY AND OTHER NOTICES
This data collection is authorized under the Missing Children's Assistance Act (see, 34 U.S.C. §
11293(c)). NIJ, OJJDP, its employees, and its data collection agents will use the information you
provide for statistical or research purposes only, and will not disclose your information in identifiable
form without your consent to anyone outside of the research team. All personally identifiable data
collected are protected under the confidentiality provisions of 34 U.S.C. § 10231, and any person who
violates these provisions may be punished by a fine up to $10,000, in addition to any other penalties
imposed by law. Further, under the Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2015, your data are protected
from cybersecurity risks through screening of the systems that transmit your data. Your compliance
with the request for information is entirely voluntary, and if you choose to provide information, you
may discontinue at any time without penalty of any sort.
Under the Federal Paperwork Reduction Act, a person is not required to respond to a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. We try to create forms and
instructions that are accurate, can be easily understood, and which impose the least possible burden
on you to provide us with information. We estimate that it will take 0.25 hours to complete this
questionnaire. This estimate includes time for reviewing the instructions, searching for and gathering
the data, completing the form, and reviewing answers.
If you would like more information concerning this authorization, the confidentiality guarantee, have
comments regarding the accuracy of the burden estimate, or suggestions for making the form simpler,
please contact Benjamin Adams, Social Science Analyst, at [email protected] or 202-6163687. If you need assistance regarding your submission, please contact the survey director, Kimberly
Mitchell at [email protected] or call the project’s toll free number: xxx-xxx-xxxx.
NISMART-4 Web Survey Email Invite (2 0 C ases) 1 2 -2 4
Attachment E
Invitation Letter for Web Survey, Investigating Officer
NISMART-4 Invitation Letter for Web Survey,
Investigating Officer
1 2 -2 5
Attachment E: Invitation Letter for Web Survey, Investigating Officer
[F_NAME L_NAME]
[DEPT NAME]
[ADDRESS]
[CITY, STATE ZIP]
[DATE OF MAILING]
Dear [INSERT TITLE, L_NAME]:
Your agency is participating in the National Law Enforcement Survey on Family Child Abductions, a study
designed to estimate the number of children abducted by family members in the U.S.
This study is part of a larger study, sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention (OJJDP) and managed by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), which seeks to design and test
methodologies to produce accurate estimates on the number and characteristics of missing children
reported to law enforcement. The study will update the national estimates of child victims of family
abductions and determine whether there have been any changes in the overall number of victims or in
specific categories of victims. This study will limit the scope of events to those known to law
enforcement and relying on the law enforcement agencies as the source of data.
The following case has been identified by your agency as an episode of family abduction: [CASE ID]
We are asking you (or the most knowledgeable investigator) to answer questions about this case on a
web survey. In order for the results of this study to truly represent the experience of all law
enforcement agencies across the country, it is important that every questionnaire be completed. The
web survey is hosted on our secure website and will take about 15 minutes. It may be completed in one
sitting or in parts. You may go to the website at any time and enter your personal and confidential user
login and password (below) to begin the survey. We ask you to please complete the web survey by
Month, XX, 20XX.
Survey address: https://www.XXXXXXXX
User Login: «uID»
Password: «Password»
Your agency’s participation is voluntary and will not affect the status of your agency in any way.
Responses will be confidential and will be used for statistical purposes only, as required by federal law.
Your name and the name of your agency will remain confidential and will not be used in any of the
results from the study. We greatly appreciate your assistance in this important project. If you have
questions about the operation or content of the web survey, have difficulty accessing the survey, or
need further assistance, please call our toll free number, 1-xxx-xxx-xxxx, or email our survey director
Kimberly Mitchell at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Andrea Sedlak, Ph.D.
Westat
NISMART-4 Invitation Letter for Web Survey,
Investigating Officer
David Finkelhor, Ph.D.
University of New Hampshire
1 2 -2 6
Co-Principal Investigator
NISMART-4 Invitation Letter for Web Survey,
Investigating Officer
Co-Principal Investigator
1 2 -2 7
FEDERAL ASSURANCES OF CONFIDENTIALITY AND OTHER NOTICES
This data collection is authorized under the Missing Children's Assistance Act (see, 34 U.S.C. §
11293(c)). NIJ, OJJDP, its employees, and its data collection agents will use the information you
provide for statistical or research purposes only, and will not disclose your information in
identifiable form without your consent to anyone outside of the research team. All personally
identifiable data collected are protected under the confidentiality provisions of 34 U.S.C. § 10231,
and any person who violates these provisions may be punished by a fine up to $10,000, in addition
to any other penalties imposed by law. Further, under the Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2015,
your data are protected from cybersecurity risks through screening of the systems that transmit your
data. Your compliance with the request for information is entirely voluntary, and if you choose to
provide information, you may discontinue at any time without penalty of any sort.
Under the Federal Paperwork Reduction Act, a person is not required to respond to a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. We try to create forms and
instructions that are accurate, can be easily understood, and which impose the least possible burden
on you to provide us with information. We estimate that it will take 0.25 hours to complete this
questionnaire. This estimate includes time for reviewing the instructions, searching for and gathering
the data, completing the form, and reviewing
answers.
If you would like more information concerning this authorization, the confidentiality guarantee,
have comments regarding the accuracy of the burden estimate, or suggestions for making the form
simpler, please contact Benjamin Adams, Social Science Analyst, at [email protected] or
202-616-3687. If you need assistance regarding your submission, please contact the survey director,
Kimberly Mitchell at [email protected] or call the project’s toll free number: xxx-xxxxxxx.
NISMART-4 Invitation Letter for Web Survey,
Investigating Officer
1 2 -2 8
Attachment F
Frequently Asked Questions
NISMART-4 F requently Asked Questions
1 2 -2 9
Attachment F: Frequently Asked Questions
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
PHASE 2: SURVEY
What is NISMART-4?
NISMART-4 is a research study created by the federal
Missing Children’s Assistance Act. Its goal is to estimate
the number of missing children, including children who
have been abducted by family members. NISMART-4 is the
fourth in a series of studies conducted between 1988 and
2011. It will update numbers from the three previous
studies to determine whether there have been increases
or decreases in the number of missing or abducted
children. The findings will be reported to Congress and will
guide the development of policies and programs for
missing children. The study is sponsored by the Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) and
managed by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), at the
U.S. Department of Justice. Westat and the Crimes against
Children Research Center (CCRC) at the University of New
Hampshire are conducting the study.
What is the National Law Enforcement Survey on Family
Child Abduction?
NISMART includes a number of different studies. The
National Law Enforcement Survey on Family Child
Abductions will estimate the number of children who were
kidnapped by family members between [one-year
period]. Data are being be collected in two phases from all
law enforcement agencies with authority to investigate
missing children. In Phase 1, Law Enforcement Agencies
completed a mail survey screener to identify relevant
cases. Now in Phase 2, we are asking investigators of child
family abduction cases to complete a self-administered
web survey or telephone interview to provide details
about specific cases investigated.
How did you choose this agency?
The initial mail survey screener was sent to 30 law
enforcement agencies across the U.S. Because your agency
investigated a child abduction case, you are being asked to
provide some case details.
Why is my participation important? Participation is
voluntary, and will not affect the status of your agency in
any way. However, the information you provide in testing
this survey will help us design the best instrument for the
NISMART-4 F requently Asked Questions
national study. This will lead to more accurate and reliable
final study estimates about family child abductions.
Participating in this research will not entail any particular
risks or benefits to you but it will greatly contribute to our
knowledge about family abductions.
What will the survey involve?
We are asking the investigator who is most knowledgeable
about a relevant case to respond to a telephone interview
or a web survey on a secure site to provide details about
the characteristics of offenders, victims, and cases
investigated, as described in the survey invitation letter. If
you complete the web survey, we will followup up by
telephone to ask about your experience. The web survey
and followup will take about 35 minutes.
What about security and confidentiality protections? In
accordance with 28 CFR Part 22, the research team will
provide administrative and physical security of
identifiable data and preserve the anonymity of private
persons participating in this project. The study avoids
asking for identifying information about cases, such as
victims’ names. Throughout the research, all information
that would link an agency with any specific case details
will be kept under lock and key or in secure computer
files, accessible to authorized study staff only. Finally,
federal law requires that all information be used for
statistical purposes only—no specific agencies or cases
will be identified in any publicized materials.
What if I have questions?
If you have questions about the research, please contact
the survey director, Kimberly Mitchell at
[email protected], or 301-610-5523 or the
study’s toll-free number at 1-XXX-XXX-XXXX. If you have
any questions about your rights as a research subject,
you may contact the Westat Human Subjects Protection
Office at 1-888-920-7631. Please leave a message with
your full name, the name of the study (NISMART-4) and a
phone number, beginning with the area code. Someone
will return your call as soon as possible.
1 2 -3 0
GLOSSARY OF STUDY TERMS
Child. Person under the age of 18.
Family abduction: The taking or keeping of a child by a family member in violation of a court order,
written agreement or mutual understanding about custody or visitation rights
Family member: A biological, adoptive, step- or foster family member; someone acting on behalf of
such a family member; or the romantic partner of a parent
Missing child: A child whose caregiver contacted the police in order to recover or locate the child.
Whereabouts unknown: The person who reported this incident did not have an address, telephone
number or other information that works to contact the child or the perpetrator.
Endangerment: Caregiver believed that child was at risk of physical assault, sexual abuse, physical
injury, or health problem in the company of the perpetrator.
Recovery: Child was returned or came back to the custody of the aggrieved caregiver
Violation of custody agreement: An aggrieved parent is stating that a specific part of a court order,
written agreement or mutual understanding about custody or visitation rights has been violated
NISMART-4 F requently Asked Questions
1 2 -3 1
Attachment G
Web Survey First Reminder Email
NISMART-4 Web Survey F irst Reminder Email
1 2 -3 2
Attachment G: Web Survey First Reminder Email
Dear [TITLE L_NAME]:
On [DATE] we sent you a letter asking you to participate in the National Law Enforcement Survey on
Family Child Abductions. Your agency is one of a number of agencies being asked to participate in a
national study to estimate the number of children kidnapped by family members.
In the letter we sent on [DATE], we identified the case ID of the victim(s) in the family abduction case
identified by your agency. The survey was due on [SURVEY DUE DATE] but we have not received your
completed survey. (If you are still filling it out or have recently submitted it, please disregard this notice).
If you need information to identify this case, or you are not the right person to complete the survey,
please contact the survey director, Kimberly Mitchell at [email protected]. Or call the
project’s toll free number: xxx-xxx-xxxx.
The web survey is available on our secure website. You may go to the website at any time and enter
your personal and confidential user login and password (below) to begin the survey. The survey should
only take about 30 minutes. We ask you to complete the web survey by Month, XX, 20XX.
Survey address: https://www.XXXXXXXX
User Login: «uID»
Password: «Password»
We know you are extremely busy, but your participation in this study will help law enforcement in the
future.
Sincerely,
Andrea Sedlak, Ph.D.
Westat
Co-Principal Investigator
NISMART-4 Web Survey F irst Reminder Email
David Finkelhor, Ph.D.
University of New Hampshire
Co-Principal Investigator
1 2 -3 3
Attachment H
Web Survey Third Reminder Email
NISMART-4 Web Survey Third Reminder Email 1 2 -3 4
Attachment H: Web Survey Third Reminder Email
Dear [TITLE L_NAME]:
On [DATE] we sent you a letter asking you to participate in the National Law Enforcement Survey on
Family Child Abductions. You were selected to participate because of your investigation of a child
abduction that fits our study. This research is designed to generate estimates of the number of children
involved in family abductions each year in the U.S. and is mandated by Congress.
In the letter we sent, we identified the case ID of the victim(s) in the family kidnapping case investigated
by your agency. The survey was due on [SURVEY DUE DATE]. We will be very grateful if you could help us
with this important research and complete the survey today.
The web survey is available on our secure website. You may go to the website at any time and enter your
personal and confidential user login and password (below) to begin the survey. The survey should only
take about 15 minutes. We now ask you to complete the web survey by Month, XX, 20XX.
Survey address: https://www.XXXXXXXX
User Login: «uID»
Password: «Password»
If you need information to identify this case, or you are not the right person to complete the survey,
please let us know by contacting the survey director, Kimberly Mitchell at [email protected]
or call the project’s toll free number: xxx-xxx-xxxx. If you have questions about the operation or content
of the web survey, have difficulty accessing the survey, or need further assistance, please call our toll
free number at xxx-xxx-xxxx.
We know you are extremely busy, but your participation in this study will help law enforcement and
abducted children in the future.
Sincerely,
Andrea Sedlak, Ph.D.
Westat
Co-Principal Investigator
NISMART-4 Web Survey Third Reminder Email 1 2 -3 5
David Finkelhor, Ph.D.
University of New Hampshire
Co-Principal Investigator
Attachment I
Web Survey Second Reminder Email
NISMART-4 Web Survey Second Reminder Email 1 2 -3 6
Attachment I: Web Survey Second Reminder Email
Dear [TITLE L_NAME]:
Westat and the University of New Hampshire’s Crimes against Children Research Center are conducting
the Fourth National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children
(NISMART-4). The study is sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
(OJJDP) and managed by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), at the U.S. Department of Justice. The
study seeks to update national estimates of child victims of family abduction and determine whether
there have been any changes in the overall number of victims or in specific categories of victims.
On [DATE] the research team sent you a letter asking you to participate in the web survey component of
the study by providing details about a specific case of child abduction. You were selected as the
investigator most knowledgeable about the case. The research team has not yet heard from you and I
wanted to reach out to urge you to respond.
In the original letter sent, the research team identified the case ID of the victim(s) in the family
abduction case investigated by your agency. If you no longer have the letter and need information to
identify this case, please contact the survey director, Kimberly Mitchell at [email protected]
and she can help you. If you have questions about the operation or content of the web survey, have
difficulty accessing the survey, or need further assistance, please call the project’s toll free number at
xxx-xxx-xxxx.
The web survey is available on the project’s secure website. You may go to the website at any time and
enter your personal and confidential user login and password (below) to begin the survey. The survey
should only take about 30 minutes. I ask you to please complete the web survey by Month, XX, 20XX.
Survey address: https://www.XXXXXXXX
User Login: «uID»
Password: «Password»
I can appreciate the many demands on your time, but please know that your participation in this study
will help law enforcement in the future.
Sincerely,
Benjamin Adams
Social Science Analyst
National Institute of Justice
NISMART-4 Web Survey Second Reminder Email 1 2 -3 7
Attachment J
Script for Telephone Follow-up Interviews
NISMART-4 Script for Telephone Follow-up
Interviews
1 2 -3 8
OMB No. XXXX-XXXX
Approval Expires XX/XX/20XX
Attachment J: Script for Telephone Follow-up Interviews
INTRODUCE SELF, CONFIRM SPEAKING TO SURVEY RESPONDENT
First, I want to thank you for taking time out of your very busy schedule to
participate in the NISMART pilot. As you may recall, we wanted to talk with you a
little about your experience taking the survey and possible reactions you may have
had to any of the questions.
Is this a good time to ask you a few questions about the pilot survey? We estimate
this call will take about 20 minutes.
[IF NOT A GOOD TIME, SCHEDULE CALL BACK APPOINTMENT]
First, I’d like to ask your reaction to the amount of time it took for you to complete
this survey online. I see from our management system that it looks like you
completed the survey in [1/MORE THAN 1 SESSION] and the total amount of time
it took was ___ minutes. Thinking back, what was your impression about the
length of the survey?
Did the amount of time seem about appropriate or right to you?
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, we cannot ask you to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. Public reporting burden for this collection is estimated to average 20 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of
information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing
this burden, to the National Institute of Justice, 810 Seventh Street NW, Washington, DC 20531.
NISMART-4 Script for Telephone Follow-up
Interviews
1 2 -3 9
Was it hard to find time to take the survey?
We know that with our schedules it’s not always possible to do a task from
beginning to end without interruption. Did you take any breaks or have any
interruptions?
[QUESTIONS ABOUT DATA RETRIEVAL SHOULD BE ASKED IN LINEAR ORDER AND
INTEGRATED INTO THE DISCUSSION AND COLLECTION OF OTHER COMMENTS. DO
NOT JUMP BACK AND FORTH IN THE INSTRUMENT.]
I want to ask you about this question [which was not answered or appears
inconsistent].
[IF EMBEDDED COMMENTS REQUIRE CLARIFICATION] Comment fields were
programmed into the survey to allow you to comment on the elements of any
given question. Your comments were very helpful and I’d like to follow up on a
comment/couple comments you left.
[GIVE OR DESCRIBE QUESTION TO HELP RESPONDENT RECALL] you wrote [READ
RESPONDENT’S COMMENT AND YOUR CLARIFYING QUESTION].
Thank you!
As researchers, we spend a great deal of time on the development of
questionnaires, scrutinizing the wording of questions and anticipating possible
responses and the information we need to capture by our questions. Despite our
best efforts, sometimes people have difficulties answering a question.
Were any questions confusing because of how they were worded?
NISMART-4 Script for Telephone Follow-up
Interviews
1 2 -4 0
A number of survey questions ask you to select from multiple choice answers. In
multiple-choice questions, did you always find the response category you needed
to answer the question accurately or did you feel like we missed a response
category?
Were any questions left out of the survey that you expected to be asked and think
are important to add in order for people to understand the case and its outcome?
Finally, when you completed the survey, did you feel you had the opportunity to
say everything you wanted to say about this case?
Anything else?
Thank you again for being part of our pilot. We’re learning a lot and appreciate
your participation. Goodbye.
NISMART-4 Script for Telephone Follow-up
Interviews
1 2 -4 1
Appendix 13
LES-MC Component 1 Materials
Table of Contents
Attachment
Page
A
Invitation Letter, Targeted to Each of the 5 LEAs ..................................
13-1
B
Mail Survey Screener ...............................................................................
13-4
C
Frequently Asked Questions ...................................................................
13-12
D
Follow-up Protocol and Questions for Search Component .....................
13-14
Attachment A
Invitation Letter, Targeted to Each of the 5 LEAs
NISMART-4 Invitation Letter, Targeted to
Each of the 5 LEAs
1 3 -1
Attachment A: Invitation Letter, Targeted to each of the 5 LEAs
[INSERT F_NAME, MID_INIT, L_NAME]
[INSERT DEPT NAME]
[INSERT ADDRESS 1]
[INSERT CITY], [INSERT STATE] [INSERT ZIP]
[INSERT DATE OF MAILING]
Dear [INSERT TITLE, L_NAME],
We are asking your agency to participate in the first component of a pilot study for the National Law
Enforcement Survey on Missing Children and Recovery, a study designed to estimate the number of
missing and recovered children in the U.S.
This study is part of the Fourth National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and
Thrownaway Children (NISMART-4). The ultimate study will update the national estimates of the
number of children who go missing and the number recovered over the course of one year as well as
determine whether there have been any changes in the overall number of victims or in specific
categories of victims. This study will limit the scope of events to those known to law enforcement and so
we are relying on law enforcement agencies as the source of data.
Today we are requesting your help in an important first component of this pilot study where we want to
identify how law enforcement agencies search for relevant cases in their data system and challenges
they may encounter.
Enclosed is a pilot survey packet for your agency. The packet includes the mail survey screener, glossary
of terms, frequently asked questions and a pre-paid return envelope.
As part of the mail survey screener we will be asking you to identify specific missing children cases
investigated by the agency. In identifying these cases you can search your case management system for
codes related to “missing person” as well as a free text search for the word “missing child.” Additional
study criteria include involvement of a juvenile ages 0-17.
When conducting these searches please keep track of the problems and questions you encounter as we
provide a place at the end of the survey where you can write these down. After you complete the search
we will be contacting you by telephone to ask you about your experience with the process.
Your agency’s participation is voluntary and will not affect the status of your agency in any way. The
study avoids asking for identifying information about cases, such as victims’ names. Throughout the
research, all information that would link an agency with any specific case details will be kept under lock
and key or in secure computer files, accessible to authorized study staff only. Finally, federal law
requires that all information be used for statistical purposes only—no specific agencies or cases will be
identified in any publicized materials.
We will be happy to answer your questions about this project. Please call us at our toll free number, 1XXX-XXX-XXXX, or send an e-mail to survey director Kimberly Mitchell at [email protected].
Thank you so much for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Andrea Sedlak, Ph.D.
Westat
Co-Principal Investigator
NISMART-4 Invitation Letter, Targeted to
Each of the 5 LEAs
David Finkelhor, Ph.D.
University of New Hampshire
Co-Principal Investigator
1 3 -2
[BACK PAGE]
FEDERAL ASSURANCES OF CONFIDENTIALITY AND OTHER NOTICES
This data collection is authorized under the Missing Children's Assistance Act (see, 34 U.S.C. §
11293(c)). NIJ, OJJDP, its employees, and its data collection agents will use the information you
provide for statistical or research purposes only, and will not disclose your information in identifiable
form without your consent to anyone outside of the research team. All personally identifiable data
collected are protected under the confidentiality provisions of 34 U.S.C. § 10231, and any person who
violates these provisions may be punished by a fine up to $10,000, in addition to any other penalties
imposed by law. Further, under the Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2015, your data are protected
from cybersecurity risks through screening of the systems that transmit your data. Your compliance
with the request for information is entirely voluntary, and if you choose to provide information, you
may discontinue at any time without penalty of any sort.
Under the Federal Paperwork Reduction Act, a person is not required to respond to a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. We try to create forms and
instructions that are accurate, can be easily understood, and which impose the least possible burden
on you to provide us with information. We estimate that it will take 3 hours to complete this
questionnaire. This estimate includes time for reviewing the instructions, searching for and gathering
the data, completing the form, and reviewing answers.
If you would like more information concerning this authorization, the confidentiality guarantee, have
comments regarding the accuracy of the burden estimate, or suggestions for making the form simpler,
please contact Benjamin Adams, Social Science Analyst, at [email protected] or 202-6163687. If you need assistance regarding your submission, please contact the survey director, Kimberly
Mitchell at [email protected] or call the project’s toll free number: xxx-xxx-xxxx.
NISMART-4 Invitation Letter, Targeted to
Each of the 5 LEAs
1 3 -3
Attachment B
Mail Survey Screener
NISMART-4 Mail Survey Screener
1 3 -4
OMB No. XXXX-XXXX
Approval Expires XX/XX/20XX
Attachment B: Mail Survey Screener
NATIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
SURVEY ON MISSING CHILDREN &
RECOVERY
OMB No.
Part of the 4th National Incidence Study of
Missing, Abducted, Runaway & Thrownaway
Children (NISMART-4)
Conducted by:
Westat
1600 Research Blvd,
Rockville, MD 20850
and
Crimes against Children Research Center
University of New Hampshire
10 West Edge Drive
Durham, NH 03824
Toll free: XXX-XXX-XXXX
Sponsored by:
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Juvenile Justice &
Delinquency Prevention
Managed by:
U.S. Department of Justice
National Institute of Justice
Washington, DC 20531
Please provide the name, position, and contact information of the person completing this survey,
in case we need to clarify responses or gather additional information.
NAME:
POSITION OR TITLE:
DEPARTMENT OR UNIT:
TELEPHONE NUMBER:
(
)
Ext.
EMAIL ADDRESS:
DATE COMPLETED:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, we cannot ask you to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control
number. Public reporting burden for this collection is estimated to average 3 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions,
searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send
comments regarding this burden estimate or any aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the
National Institute of Justice, 810 Seventh Street NW, Washington, DC 20531.
NISMART-4 Mail Survey Screener
1 3 -5
SECTION A
1.
Does your agency have jurisdiction to conduct criminal investigations of cases in which a
child is reported as missing or abducted?
Yes
2.
Between [time period], did your agency investigate any cases where child, ages 17 or younger, was
reported missing from a caretaker who contacted your agency for help to either locate or recover
the child?
Consider all cases where your agency performed
any investigation activity between [one-year
period], including unsolved cases from previous
years which remained open between [one-year
period] including investigations that your agency
turned over to another agency, if applicable.
3.
4.
Yes
Skip to Section C, Page #
No
Did any of these cases involve…
a.
A runaway or repeat runaway? .........................................................
b. A violation or alleged violation of a custodial order or agreement?
c.
A child who was lost, stranded, injured or too young to know how
to return home or make contact with the caretaker? ......................
d. A child reported missing because of a misunderstanding or other
harmless circumstance? ....................................................................
e. A child missing under unknown circumstances? ..............................
f.
An abduction by a non-family perpetrator?......................................
g.
A stranger abduction? .......................................................................
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Did you answer “yes” to any item in Question 3?
Yes
5.
Skip to Section E, Page #
No
Skip to Section C, Page #
No
Indicate the total number of cases that your agency investigated between [time period] that
fit one or more of the criteria given in Question 3.
Total Number of Qualifying Cases Investigated
Between [time period]
Remember to include all cases that fit the
Question 3 criteria where your agency
performed any investigation activity between
[one-year period] regardless of when they were
first reported and regardless of the involvement
of another agency.
NISMART-4 Mail Survey Screener
IMPORTANT: Please provide specific
information about each case by completing
Section B on the next page.
1 3 -6
NISMART-4 Mail Survey Screener
SECTION B
For all missing children cases included in the total in Question 5 on the previous page, please provide the following information. If your agency has
a lot of eligible cases you can: 1) print out the eligible cases directly and insert those pages into your returned survey; 2) add additional pages as
necessary; or 3) contact us directly and we will provide you with additional assistance.
a) Case Number
Provide your
agency’s case
number for
reference in our
follow-up call
1.
b) Who was the key
investigating officer or
who in your agency is
now the most
knowledgeable person
about the case?
c) Were any
other law
enforcement
agencies
involved?
/
/
Yes
1 3 -7
No
No
Runaway, Custodial Order/
Agreement, Lost/Stranded/
Injured, Misunderstanding,
Unknown Circumstances, Nonfamily Abduction, Stranger
Abduction
No
/
/
Yes
No
Runaway, Custodial Order/
Agreement, Lost/Stranded/
Injured, Misunderstanding,
Unknown Circumstances, Nonfamily Abduction, Stranger
Abduction
No
Runaway, Custodial Order/
Agreement, Lost/Stranded/
Injured, Misunderstanding,
Unknown Circumstances, Nonfamily Abduction, Stranger
Abduction
Name
Email
Yes
4.
No
No
/
/
Yes
Name
Email
Yes
No
/
/
Yes
f) Indicate which criteria
this case appears to fit
(circle all that apply):
Runaway, Custodial Order/
Agreement, Lost/Stranded/
Injured, Misunderstanding,
Unknown Circumstances, Nonfamily Abduction, Stranger
Abduction
Name
Email
Yes
3.
e) Is the case
still open?
Name
Email
Yes
2.
d) When was
the case
reported?
(MM/DD/YY)
5.
NISMART-4 Mail Survey Screener
Name
Email
Yes
6.
No
/
/
Yes
No
Runaway, Custodial Order/
Agreement, Lost/Stranded/
Injured, Misunderstanding,
Unknown Circumstances, Nonfamily Abduction, Stranger
Abduction
No
Runaway, Custodial Order/
Agreement, Lost/Stranded/
Injured, Misunderstanding,
Unknown Circumstances, Nonfamily Abduction, Stranger
Abduction
Name
Email
Yes
SEE GLOSSARY, PAGE #.
No
/
/
Yes
Skip to Section D
1 3 -8
SECTION C
1.
You have indicated that your agency did not investigate any cases between [timetime period] that
fit the NISMART criteria for a missing child (see Glossary). What year did your agency last
investigate any case that fit those criteria?
2.
Are you aware of any cases of missing children in your general area or in your state between [time
period]?
Yes
Indicate the county (counties) where the abduction(s) took place
No
SECTION D
1.
To the extent possible, please verify your answers in the previous sections by conducting a check
of investigation records and/or discussions with your agency’s investigative unit(s). Indicate here
the way(s) you verified this information:
a.
b.
c.
d.
2.
Checked with other staff in your department? .................................
Checked with staff elsewhere in your agency? .................................
Checked records? ..............................................................................
Used a computerized information system?.......................................
Is your specific department or unit responsible for…..
a.
Investigating missing children? .................. Yes
b. Maintaining data on missing children? ...... Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
Skip to Section F, Page #
SEE GLOSSARY, PAGE #.
SECTION E
You indicated in Section A that your agency does not have the jurisdiction to conduct criminal
investigations of missing children. Please describe what responsibilities do come under your
agency’s jurisdiction.
NISMART-4 Mail Survey Screener
1 3 -9
SECTION F
Please use this section to note the problems and questions you encountered as you conducted a
search with the criteria we provided. Please also note if there are additional criteria you used to
find these cases in your system.
THANK YOU FOR COMPLETING THIS
SURVEY. PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM IN
THE POSTAGE-PAID ENVELOPE PROVIDED.
NISMART-4 Mail Survey Screener
1 3 -1 0
GLOSSARY OF STUDY TERMS
Child. Person under the age of 18.
Family abduction: The taking or keeping of a child by a family member in violation of a court order,
written agreement or mutual understanding about custody or visitation rights
Family member: A biological, adoptive, step- or foster family member; someone acting on behalf of
such a family member; or the romantic partner of a parent
Missing child: A child whose caregiver contacted the police in order to recover or locate the child.
Whereabouts unknown: The person who reported this incident did not have an address, telephone
number or other information that works to contact the child or the perpetrator.
Endangerment: Caregiver believed that child was at risk of physical assault, sexual abuse, physical
injury, or health problem in the company of the perpetrator.
Recovery: Child was returned or came back to the custody of the aggrieved caregiver
Violation of custody agreement: An aggrieved parent is stating that a specific part of a court order,
written agreement or mutual understanding about custody or visitation rights has been violated
NISMART-4 Mail Survey Screener
1 3 -1 1
Attachment C
Frequently Asked Questions
NISMART-4 F requently Asked Questions
1 3 -1 2
Attachment C: Frequently Asked Questions
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
PHASE 1: SEARCHES
What is NISMART-4?
NISMART-4 is a research study created by the federal Missing
Children’s Assistance Act. Its goal is to estimate the number
of missing children. NISMART-4 is the fourth in a series of
studies conducted between 1988 and 2011. It will update
numbers from the three previous studies to determine
whether there have been increases or decreases in the
number of missing or abducted children. The findings will be
reported to Congress and will guide the development of
policies and programs for missing children. The study is
sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention (OJJDP) and managed by the National Institute of
Justice (NIJ), at the U.S. Department of Justice. Westat and
the Crimes against Children Research Center (CCRC) at the
University of New Hampshire are conducting the study.
What is the National Law Enforcement Survey on Missing
Children?
NISMART includes a number of different studies. The
National Law Enforcement Survey on Missing Children will
estimate the number of missing children between [time
period]. Data will be collected in two phases from all law
enforcement agencies with authority to investigate missing
children. In Phase 1, Law Enforcement Agencies will
complete a mail survey screener to identify relevant cases. In
Phase 2, we will ask investigators of missing child cases to
complete a self-administered web survey or telephone
interview to provide details about specific cases investigated.
We are asking you to participate in a pilot of Phase 1.
How did you choose this agency?
This initial mail survey screener is being sent to a sample of
30 law enforcement agencies of different sizes across the U.S.
as part of the pilot.
Why is my participation important? Participation is
voluntary, and will not affect the status of your agency in any
way. However, the information you provide in testing this
mail screener will help us design a better instrument for the
national study. This will lead to more accurate and reliable
final study estimates about missing children. Participating in
this research will not entail any particular risks or benefits to
you but it will greatly contribute to our knowledge about
missing children.
NISMART-4 F requently Asked Questions
What will the pilot involve?
We are asking you to search your records for cases of missing
children during [time period]. After you have completed the
search and recorded your results on the mail survey, we will
follow up with a telephone call about your experience.
Depending on the number of cases found, we anticipate the
search and telephone interview will take about 3 hours.
What is my agency has a lot of eligible cases?
If your agency has a lot of eligible cases making it difficult to
complete this survey you can: 1) print out the eligible cases
directly and insert those pages into your returned survey; 2)
add additional pages as necessary; or 3) contact us directly and
we will provide you with additional assistance.
What about security and confidentiality protections? In
accordance with 28 CFR Part 22, the research team will
provide administrative and physical security of identifiable
data and preserve the anonymity of private persons
participating in this project. The study avoids asking for
identifying information about cases, such as victims’ names.
Throughout the research, all information that would link an
agency with any specific case details will be kept under lock
and key or in secure computer files, accessible to authorized
study staff only. Finally, federal law requires that all
information be used for statistical purposes only—no
specific agencies or cases will be identified in any publicized
materials.
What if I have questions?
If you have questions about the research, please contact the
survey
director,
Kimberly
Mitchell
at
[email protected], or 301-610-5523 or the study’s
toll-free number at 1-XXX-XXX-XXXX. If you have any
questions about your rights as a research subject, you may
contact the Westat Human Subjects Protection Office at 1888-920-7631. Please leave a message with your full name,
the name of the study (NISMART-4) and a phone number,
beginning with the area code. Someone will return your call
as soon as possible.
1 3 -1 3
Attachment D
Follow-up Protocol and Questions for Search Component
NISMART-4 Follow-up Protocol and
Questions for Search Component
1 3 -1 4
OMB No. XXXX-XXXX
Approval Expires XX/XX/20XX
Attachment D: Follow-up Protocol and Questions for Search Component
Hi Det/Lt/Chief XXXX,
My name is XXXXX. I am part of the research team conducting The National Law Enforcement Survey on
Missing Children and Recovery. I want to thank you for completing the pilot mail survey we sent you.
We would now like to ask you just a few questions about your experiences searching for and identifying
these cases in your agency’s system. This should only take about 20 minutes. Is now a good time to talk?
Questions for telephone interview
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
On a scale of 1 (very difficult) to 5 (very easy), how easy was it for you to identify these cases?
Was there a specific search terms or terms that identified most of your cases?
Were there other search terms you used?
What did you find challenging about this search?
(IF APPLICABLE): We asked NCMEC and your state’s Missing Children Clearinghouse for all cases of
missing children reported to them by your agency during the study period. They identified these X
cases which don’t appear to have come up in your search. Let’s review these cases to see why they
did not come up in your search.
Is there anything else you would like us to know about this process?
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, we cannot ask you to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. Public reporting burden for this collection is estimated to average 20 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of
information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing
this burden, to the National Institute of Justice, 810 Seventh Street NW, Washington, DC 20531.
NISMART-4 Follow-up Protocol and
Questions for Search Component
1 3 -1 5
Appendix 14
LES-MC Component 2 Materials
Table of Contents
Attachment
Page
A
Invitation Letter, Targeted to Each of the 25 LEAs ................................
14-1
B
Mail Survey Screener ...............................................................................
14-5
C
Frequently Asked Questions ...................................................................
14-13
D
Thank You/Reminder Postcard ..............................................................
14-15
E
Second Reminder Letter..........................................................................
14-17
F
Third Reminder Letter ............................................................................
14-20
G
Shortened Three-Question Survey...........................................................
14-22
Attachment A
Invitation Letter, Targeted to Each of the 25 LEAs
NISMART-4 Invitation Letter, Targeted to
Each of the 25 LEAs
1 4 -1
Attachment A: Invitation Letter, Targeted to each of the 25 LEAs
[INSERT F_NAME, MID_INIT, L_NAME]
[INSERT DEPT NAME]
[INSERT ADDRESS 1]
[INSERT CITY], [INSERT STATE] [INSERT ZIP]
[INSERT DATE OF MAILING]
Dear [INSERT TITLE, L_NAME],
We are asking your agency to participate in the first component of a pilot study for the National Law
Enforcement Survey on Missing Children and Recovery, a study designed to estimate the number of missing
and recovered children in the U.S.
This study is part of the Fourth National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway
Children (NISMART-4). The ultimate study will update the national estimates of the number of children who go
missing and the number recovered over the course of one year as well as determine whether there have been
any changes in the overall number of victims or in specific categories of victims. This study will limit the scope
of events to those known to law enforcement and so we are relying on law enforcement agencies as the
source of data.
Today we are requesting your help in an important first component of this pilot study where we want to
identify how law enforcement agencies search for relevant cases in their data system and challenges they may
encounter.
The study is being conducted in two phases. In this first phase, we are asking your agency to complete a mail
screener to let us know 1) if you have jurisdiction to conduct investigations of missing children and 2) if you
have had any relevant cases between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. In Phase 2, the research team will contact
investigators of missing children cases identified in Phase 1. They will be asked to complete a self-administered
web survey or telephone interview providing details about the specific case.
Enclosed is the Phase 1 survey packet for your agency. The packet includes the mail survey screener, glossary
of terms, frequently asked questions and a pre-paid return envelope.
As part of this Phase 1 mail survey screener we will be asking you to identify specific missing children cases
investigated by the agency. In identifying these cases you can search your case management system for codes
related to “missing person” as well as a free text search for the word “missing child.” Additional study criteria
include involvement of a juvenile ages 0-17.
When conducting these searches please keep track of the problems and questions you encounter as we
provide a place at the end of the survey where you can log these problems and questions. After you complete
the search we will be contacting you by telephone to ask you about your experience with the process.
Your agency’s participation is voluntary and will not affect the status of your agency in any way. The study
avoids asking for identifying information about cases, such as victims’ names. Throughout the research, all
information that would link an agency with any specific case details will be kept under lock and key or in secure
computer files, accessible to authorized study staff only. Finally, federal law requires that all information be
used for statistical purposes only—no specific agencies or cases will be identified in any publicized materials.
NISMART-4 Invitation Letter, Targeted to
Each of the 25 LEAs
1 4 -2
We will be happy to answer your questions about this project. Please call us at our toll free number, 1-XXXXXX-XXXX, or send an e-mail to survey director Kimberly Mitchell at [email protected]. Thank you so
much for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Andrea Sedlak, Ph.D.
Westat
Co-Principal Investigator
NISMART-4 Invitation Letter, Targeted to
Each of the 25 LEAs
David Finkelhor, Ph.D.
University of New Hampshire
Co-Principal Investigator
1 4 -3
FEDERAL ASSURANCES OF CONFIDENTIALITY AND OTHER NOTICES
This data collection is authorized under the Missing Children's Assistance Act (see, 34 U.S.C. § 11293(c)).
NIJ, OJJDP, its employees, and its data collection agents will use the information you provide for statistical
or research purposes only, and will not disclose your information in identifiable form without your consent
to anyone outside of the research team. All personally identifiable data collected are protected under the
confidentiality provisions of 34 U.S.C. § 10231, and any person who violates these provisions may be
punished by a fine up to $10,000, in addition to any other penalties imposed by law. Further, under the
Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2015, your data are protected from cybersecurity risks through screening
of the systems that transmit your data. Your compliance with the request for information is entirely
voluntary, and if you choose to provide information, you may discontinue at any time without penalty of
any sort.
Under the Federal Paperwork Reduction Act, a person is not required to respond to a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. We try to create forms and instructions
that are accurate, can be easily understood, and which impose the least possible burden on you to provide
us with information. We estimate that it will take 3 hours to complete this questionnaire. This estimate
includes time for reviewing the instructions, searching for and gathering the data, completing the form, and
reviewing answers.
If you would like more information concerning this authorization, the confidentiality guarantee, have
comments regarding the accuracy of the burden estimate, or suggestions for making the form simpler, please
contact Benjamin Adams, Social Science Analyst, at [email protected] or 202-616-3687. If you
need assistance regarding your submission, please contact the survey director, Kimberly Mitchell at
[email protected] or call the project’s toll free number: xxx-xxx-xxxx.
NISMART-4 Invitation Letter, Targeted to
Each of the 25 LEAs
1 4 -4
Attachment B
Mail Survey Screener
NISMART-4 Mail Survey Screener
1 4 -5
OMB No. XXXX-XXXX
Approval Expires XX/XX/20XX
Attachment B: Mail Survey Screener
NATIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
SURVEY ON MISSING CHILDREN &
RECOVERY
OMB No.
Part of the 4th National Incidence Study of
Missing, Abducted, Runaway & Thrownaway
Children (NISMART-4)
Conducted by:
Westat
1600 Research Blvd,
Rockville, MD 20850
and
Crimes against Children Research Center
University of New Hampshire
10 West Edge Drive
Durham, NH 03824
Toll free: XXX-XXX-XXXX
Sponsored by:
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Juvenile Justice &
Delinquency Prevention
Managed by:
U.S. Department of Justice
National Institute of Justice
Washington, DC 20531
Please provide the name, position, and contact information of the person completing this survey,
in case we need to clarify responses or gather additional information.
NAME:
POSITION OR TITLE:
DEPARTMENT OR UNIT:
TELEPHONE NUMBER:
(
)
Ext.
EMAIL ADDRESS:
DATE COMPLETED:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, we cannot ask you to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control
number. Public reporting burden for this collection is estimated to average 3 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions,
searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send
comments regarding this burden estimate or any aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the
National Institute of Justice, 810 Seventh Street NW, Washington, DC 20531.
NISMART-4 Mail Survey Screener
1 4 -6
SECTION A
1.
Does your agency have jurisdiction to conduct criminal investigations of cases in which a
child is reported as missing or abducted?
Skip to Section C, Page #
Yes
No
2.
Between [timeperiod], did your agency investigate any cases where child, ages 17 or younger, was
reported missing from a caretaker who contacted your agency for help to either locate or recover
the child?
3.
Consider all cases where your agency performed
any investigation activity between [one-year
period], including unsolved cases from previous
years which remained open between [one-year
period] including investigations that your agency
turned over to another agency, if applicable.
4.
5.
Skip to Section C, Page #
No
Did any of these cases involve…
a.
A runaway or repeat runaway? .........................................................
b. A violation or alleged violation of a custodial order or agreement?
c.
A child who was lost, stranded, injured or too young to know how
to return home or make contact with the caretaker? ......................
d. A child reported missing because of a misunderstanding or other
harmless circumstance? ....................................................................
e. A child missing under unknown circumstances? ..............................
f.
An abduction by a non-family perpetrator?......................................
g.
A stranger abduction? .......................................................................
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Did you answer “yes” to any item in Question 3?
Yes
6.
Yes
Skip to Section C, Page #
No
Indicate the total number of cases that your agency investigated between [time period] that
fit one or more of the criteria given in Question 3.
Total Number of Qualifying Cases Investigated
Remember to include all cases that fit the
Between [time period]
Question 3 criteria where your agency performed
any investigation activity between [one-year
period] regardless of when they were first
reported and regardless of the involvement of
IMPORTANT: Please provide specific
information about each case by completing
Section B on the next page.
another agency.
NISMART-4 Mail Survey Screener
1 4 -7
NISMART-4 Mail Survey Screener
SECTION B
For all missing children cases included in the total in Question 5 on the previous page, please provide the following information. If your agency has
a lot of eligible cases you can: 1) print out the eligible cases directly and insert those pages into your returned survey; 2) add additional pages as
necessary; or 3) contact us directly and we will provide you with additional assistance.
a) Case Number
Provide your
agency’s case
number for
reference in our
follow-up call
1.
b) Who was the key
investigating officer or
who in your agency is
now the most
knowledgeable person
about the case?
c) Were any
other law
enforcement
agencies
involved?
/
/
Yes
1 4 -8
No
No
Runaway, Custodial Order/
Agreement, Lost/Stranded/
Injured, Misunderstanding,
Unknown Circumstances, Nonfamily Abduction, Stranger
Abduction
No
/
/
Yes
No
Runaway, Custodial Order/
Agreement, Lost/Stranded/
Injured, Misunderstanding,
Unknown Circumstances, Nonfamily Abduction, Stranger
Abduction
No
Runaway, Custodial Order/
Agreement, Lost/Stranded/
Injured, Misunderstanding,
Unknown Circumstances, Nonfamily Abduction, Stranger
Abduction
Name
Email
Yes
4.
No
No
/
/
Yes
Name
Email
Yes
No
/
/
Yes
f) Indicate which criteria
this case appears to fit
(circle all that apply):
Runaway, Custodial Order/
Agreement, Lost/Stranded/
Injured, Misunderstanding,
Unknown Circumstances, Nonfamily Abduction, Stranger
Abduction
Name
Email
Yes
3.
e) Is the case
still open?
Name
Email
Yes
2.
d) When was
the case
reported?
(MM/DD/YY)
NISMART-4 Mail Survey Screener
5.
Name
Email
Yes
6.
No
/
/
Yes
No
Runaway, Custodial Order/
Agreement, Lost/Stranded/
Injured, Misunderstanding,
Unknown Circumstances, Nonfamily Abduction, Stranger
Abduction
No
Runaway, Custodial Order/
Agreement, Lost/Stranded/
Injured, Misunderstanding,
Unknown Circumstances, Nonfamily Abduction, Stranger
Abduction
Name
Email
Yes
SEE GLOSSARY, PAGE #.
No
/
/
Yes
Skip to Section D
1 4 -9
SECTION C
1.
You have indicated that your agency did not investigate any cases between [time period] that fit
the NISMART criteria for a missing child (see Glossary). What year did your agency last investigate
any case that fit those criteria?
2.
Are you aware of any cases of missing children in your general area or in your state between [time
period]?
Yes
Indicate the county (counties) where the abduction(s) took place
No
SECTION D
1.
To the extent possible, please verify your answers in the previous sections by conducting a check
of investigation records and/or discussions with your agency’s investigative unit(s). Indicate here
the way(s) you verified this information:
a.
b.
c.
d.
2.
Checked with other staff in your department? .................................
Checked with staff elsewhere in your agency? .................................
Checked records? ..............................................................................
Used a computerized information system?.......................................
Is your specific department or unit responsible for…..
a.
Investigating missing children? .................. Yes
b. Maintaining data on missing children? ...... Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
Skip to Section F, Page #
SEE GLOSSARY, PAGE #.
NISMART-4 Mail Survey Screener
1 4 -1 0
SECTION E
You indicated in Section A that your agency does not have the jurisdiction to conduct
criminal investigations of missing children. Please describe what responsibilities do come
under your agency’s jurisdiction.
SECTION F
Please use this section to note the problems and questions you encountered as you
conducted a search with the criteria we provided. Please also note if there are additional
criteria you used to find these cases in your system.
THANK YOU FOR
COMPLETING THIS SURVEY.
PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM
IN THE POSTAGE-PAID
ENVELOPE PROVIDED.
NISMART-4 Mail Survey Screener
1 4 -1 1
GLOSSARY OF STUDY TERMS
Child. Person under the age of 18.
Family abduction: The taking or keeping of a child by a family member in violation of a court order,
written agreement or mutual understanding about custody or visitation rights
Family member: A biological, adoptive, step- or foster family member; someone acting on behalf of such
a family member; or the romantic partner of a parent
Missing child: A child whose caregiver contacted the police in order to recover or locate the child.
Whereabouts unknown: The person who reported this incident did not have an address, telephone
number or other information that works to contact the child or the perpetrator.
Endangerment: Caregiver believed that child was at risk of physical assault, sexual abuse, physical injury,
or health problem in the company of the perpetrator.
Recovery: Child was returned or came back to the custody of the aggrieved caregiver
Violation of custody agreement: An aggrieved parent is stating that a specific part of a court order,
written agreement or mutual understanding about custody or visitation rights has been violated
NISMART-4 Mail Survey Screener
1 4 -1 2
Attachment C
Frequently Asked Questions
NISMART-4 F requently Asked Questions
1 4 -1 3
Attachment C: Frequently Asked Questions
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
PHASE 1: SEARCHES
What is NISMART-4?
NISMART-4 is a research study created by the federal Missing
Children’s Assistance Act. Its goal is to estimate the number
of missing children. NISMART-4 is the fourth in a series of
studies conducted between 1988 and 2011. It will update
numbers from the three previous studies to determine
whether there have been increases or decreases in the
number of missing or abducted children. The findings will be
reported to Congress and will guide the development of
policies and programs for missing children. The study is
sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention (OJJDP) and managed by the National Institute of
Justice (NIJ), at the U.S. Department of Justice. Westat and
the Crimes against Children Research Center (CCRC) at the
University of New Hampshire are conducting the study.
What is the National Law Enforcement Survey on Missing
Children?
NISMART includes a number of different studies. The
National Law Enforcement Survey on Missing Children will
estimate the number of missing children between [time
period]. Data will be collected in two phases from all law
enforcement agencies with authority to investigate missing
children. In Phase 1, Law Enforcement Agencies will
complete a mail survey screener to identify relevant cases. In
Phase 2, we will ask investigators of missing child cases to
complete a self-administered web survey or telephone
interview to provide details about specific cases investigated.
We are asking you to participate in a pilot of Phase 1.
How did you choose this agency?
This initial mail survey screener is being sent to a sample of
30 law enforcement agencies of different sizes across the U.S.
as part of the pilot.
Why is my participation important? Participation is
voluntary, and will not affect the status of your agency in any
way. However, the information you provide in testing this
mail screener will help us design a better instrument for the
national study. This will lead to more accurate and reliable
final study estimates about missing children. Participating in
this research will not entail any particular risks or benefits to
you but it will greatly contribute to our knowledge about
missing children.
NISMART-4 F requently Asked Questions
What will the pilot involve?
We are asking you to search your records for cases of missing
children during [time period]. After you have completed the
search and recorded your results on the mail survey, we will
follow up with a telephone call about your experience.
Depending on the number of cases found, we anticipate the
search and telephone interview will take about 3 hours.
What is my agency has a lot of eligible cases?
If your agency has a lot of eligible cases making it difficult to
complete this survey you can: 1) print out the eligible cases
directly and insert those pages into your returned survey; 2)
add additional pages as necessary; or 3) contact us directly and
we will provide you with additional assistance.
What about security and confidentiality protections? In
accordance with 28 CFR Part 22, the research team will
provide administrative and physical security of identifiable
data and preserve the anonymity of private persons
participating in this project. The study avoids asking for
identifying information about cases, such as victims’ names.
Throughout the research, all information that would link an
agency with any specific case details will be kept under lock
and key or in secure computer files, accessible to authorized
study staff only. Finally, federal law requires that all
information be used for statistical purposes only—no
specific agencies or cases will be identified in any publicized
materials.
What if I have questions?
If you have questions about the research, please contact the
survey
director,
Kimberly
Mitchell
at
[email protected], or 301-610-5523 or the study’s
toll-free number at 1-XXX-XXX-XXXX. If you have any
questions about your rights as a research subject, you may
contact the Westat Human Subjects Protection Office at 1888-920-7631. Please leave a message with your full name,
the name of the study (NISMART-4) and a phone number,
beginning with the area code. Someone will return your call
as soon as possible.
1 4 -1 4
Attachment D
Thank You/Reminder Postcard
NISMART-4 Thank You/Reminder Postcard
1 4 -1 5
Attachment D: Thank You/Reminder Postcard
Reminder to Complete the National Law Enforcement Survey on Missing Children and Recovery
We recently sent you a letter asking your agency to participate in a pilot study for the National Law
Enforcement Survey on Missing Children and Recovery, a study designed to estimate the number of
children who go missing each year in the U.S. The data from the main study will be reported to Congress
and will be used to inform the development of future policies and programs for missing children.
If you have already completed the survey and returned it to us, please accept our sincere thanks. If
not, please complete the survey and send it to us as soon as possible. The survey is due on <>. We need to receive your survey, even if you do not have any family
abduction cases, so that the study results will accurately represent the experiences of law enforcement
agencies.
If you have questions about completing the survey, did not receive the survey, or it has been misplaced,
please call us at the following toll-free number, 1-XXX-XXX-XXXX, and we will mail another survey to you
right away.
We greatly appreciate your help!
Andrea Sedlak, Ph.D.
Westat
Co-Principal Investigator
NISMART-4 Thank You/Reminder Postcard
David Finkelhor, Ph.D.
University of New Hampshire
Co-Principal Investigator
1 4 -1 6
Attachment E
Second Reminder Letter
NISMART-4 Second Reminder Letter
1 4 -1 7
Attachment E: Second Reminder Letter
[INSERT F_NAME, MID_INIT, L_NAME]
[INSERT DEPT NAME]
[INSERT ADDRESS 1]
[INSERT CITY], [INSERT STATE]
[INSERT ZIP]
[INSERT DATE OF MAILING]
Dear [INSERT TITLE, L_NAME],
In [MONTH SURVEY SENT] we sent you a survey and a letter asking you to participate in a pilot study for the
National Law Enforcement Survey on Missing Children and Recovery. The survey seeks information about your
agency’s experiences with missing children. The survey was due [SURVEY DUE DATE] but, as of today, we have
not received your completed survey. (If you are still filling it out or have recently returned it, please disregard
this notice.)
Our research team was asked to conduct this study to obtain an accurate estimate of the number of children
who go missing and the number who are recovered. We know that crime investigators are the most
knowledgeable sources of information about such cases.
I am writing to you again because each questionnaire is significant to the usefulness of this study. In order for
the study results to truly represent the experiences of all agencies, it is essential that each agency in the sample
return the questionnaire, even if your agency does not have any relevant cases. There is a place for you to note
this on the questionnaire. If your agency has a lot of eligible cases, you can call the survey director and she will
help you complete it.
The study is being conducted in two phases. In this first phase, we are asking your agency to complete a brief
mail screener to let us know 1) if you have jurisdiction to conduct criminal investigations of missing children
and 2) if you have had any relevant cases between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. In Phase 2, the research team
will contact investigators of the missing children cases identified in Phase 1. They will be asked to complete a
self-administered web survey or telephone interview providing details about the specific case.
Enclosed is the Phase 1 survey packet for your agency. Enclosed is a pilot survey packet for your agency. We
are also interested in understanding the process through which you search for these types of cases in your
system. In identifying these cases you can search your case management system for codes related to “missing
person” as well as a free text search for the word “missing child”. Additional study criteria include involvement
of a juvenile ages 0-17.
When conducting these searches please keep track of the problems and questions you encounter as we
provide a place at the end of the survey where you can write these down. After you complete the search we
will be contacting you by telephone to ask you about your experience with the process.
We know you are extremely busy, but your response to this survey is an investment of time that will help law
enforcement in the future. The report we write from this study will give policy makers and legislators vital
NISMART-4 Second Reminder Letter
1 4 -1 8
information about cases involving missing children. In case your questionnaire has been misplaced, a
replacement is enclosed. If you have any questions about this project, please send an email to Kimberly
Mitchell at [email protected] or you can call our project’s toll-free number 1-XXX-XXX-XXXX, and
someone will return your call promptly. Thank you so much for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Andrea Sedlak, Ph.D.
Westat
Co-Principal Investigator
NISMART-4 Second Reminder Letter
David Finkelhor, Ph.D.
University of New Hampshire
Co-Principal Investigator
1 4 -1 9
Attachment F
Third Reminder Letter
NISMART-4 Third Reminder Letter
1 4 -2 0
Attachment F: Third Reminder Letter
[INSERT F_NAME, MID_INIT, L_NAME]
[INSERT DEPT NAME]
[INSERT ADDRESS 1]
[INSERT CITY], [INSERT STATE]
[INSERT ZIP]
[INSERT DATE OF MAILING]
Dear [INSERT TITLE, L_NAME],
This is the third request for your agency’s participation in the pilot study for the National Law
Enforcement Survey on Missing Children and Recovery. The survey seeks information about your
agency’s experiences with missing children. The survey was due [SURVEY DUE DATE] but, as of today, we
have not received your completed survey. (If you have recently returned your survey, please disregard
this notice.)
If you have not yet responded, we hope that you will be able to do so soon. The survey should take no
longer than 5–10 minutes to complete. We would be very grateful if you would consider helping us with
this important research. We appreciate the many demands for your time but please be assured that the
study results will help law enforcement in the future. In case your questionnaire has been misplaced, a
replacement is enclosed. If you have any questions about this project, please send an email to
[email protected] or you can call our project’s toll-free number 1-XXX-XXX-XXXX, and someone will
return your call promptly.
Thank you so much for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Andrea Sedlak, Ph.D.
Westat
Co-Principal Investigator
NISMART-4 Third Reminder Letter
David Finkelhor, Ph.D.
University of New Hampshire
Co-Principal Investigator
1 4 -2 1
Attachment G
Shortened Three-Question Survey
NISMART-4 Shortened Three-Question Survey 1 4 -2 2
OMB No. XXXX-XXXX
Approval Expires XX/XX/20XX
Attachment G: Shortened Three-Question Survey
National Law Enforcement Survey on Missing Children and Recovery
This is the fourth request for your agency’s participation in the pilot study for the National Law
Enforcement Survey on Missing Children and Recovery. As of today, we have not received your
completed questionnaire.
The report we write from this study will help law enforcement in the future and give policy makers and
legislators vital information about cases involving missing children. In order for the study results to truly
represent the experiences of all agencies, it is essential that each agency in the sample respond, even if
you do not have any cases to report.
To make things easier for you, we have simplified the survey to three essential questions, listed below.
Please answer them to the best of your knowledge and return this to us. If you have any questions
about this project, please send an email to Kimberly Mitchell at [email protected] or you can
call our project’s toll-free number at 1-XXX-XXX-XXXX, and someone will return your call promptly.
Thank you so much for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Andrea Sedlak, Ph.D.
Westat
Co-Principal Investigator
David Finkelhor, Ph.D.
University of New Hampshire
Co-Principal Investigator
1. Does your agency have jurisdiction to conduct criminal investigations of cases in which a
child is reported as abducted or missing?
Yes
□
No
□
2. Between [time period], did your agency investigate any cases where child, ages 17 or
younger, was reported missing from a caretaker who contacted your agency for help to
either locate or recover the child?
Yes
□
No
□
Does not apply
□
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, we cannot ask you to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. Public reporting burden for this collection is estimated to average 5 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of
information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing
this burden, to the National Institute of Justice, 810 Seventh Street NW, Washington, DC 20531.
NISMART-4 Shortened Three-Question Survey 1 4 -2 3
3. Between <<>> and <<>> did your agency have
any open cases of missing children from prior years?
Yes
□
No
□
Does not apply
□
Your Name and Title: _____________________________________
Phone Number: _________________________________________
Thank you for your time. Please refold this paper so that
the prepaid side is visible and mail it back to us.
NISMART-4 Shortened Three-Question Survey 1 4 -2 4
Appendix 15
LES-MC Component 3
Table of Contents
Attachment
Page
A
Draft LES-MC Questionnaire .................................................................
15-1
B
Web Survey Email Invite for Telephone Interview (10 Cases).................
15-12
C
Telephone Case Interview Introduction (10 Cases) .................................
15-15
D
Web Survey Email Invite (20 Cases)........................................................
15-17
E
Invitation Letter for Web Survey, Investigating Officer...........................
15-20
F
Frequently Asked Questions ...................................................................
15-23
G
Web Survey First Reminder Email ..........................................................
15-26
H
Web Survey Third Reminder Email.........................................................
15-28
I
Web Survey Second Reminder Email ......................................................
15-30
J
Script for Telephone Follow-Up Interviews ............................................
15-32
Attachment A
Draft LES-MC Questionnaire
NISMART-4 Draft LES-MC Questionnaire
1 5 -1
OMB No. XXXX-XXXX
Approval Expires XX/XX/20XX
Attachment A: Draft LES-MC Questionnaire
PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS
MC1 Please give your contact information here so the researchers can reach you with any questions
after they review your survey. This information will be deleted as soon as the research team verifies that
your survey is complete.
Name and title (1) ____________________
Telephone number (2) ____________________
Email address (3) ____________________
NISMART LES-MC Definition of Reported Missing
MC2 The incident number for this report is [number will be provided].
Please confirm that this incident involved a child, age 17 or younger, missing from a caretaker who
contacted your agency for help to either locate or recover the child.
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
Box 1
If MC2 = 2 (not child reported missing) or MC2 = 3 (don’t know) and respondent has no additional surveys, go
to ENDSURVEY1. If MC2 = 2 or MC2 = 3 and respondent has additional surveys, go to ENDSURVEY2.
[NISMART Time Frame]
MC3 Did the initial call occur between [time frame to be established]?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, we cannot ask you to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. Public reporting burden for this collection is estimated to average 15 minutes per response for web administration and 30
minutes for telephone administration, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining
the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any aspect of
this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the National Institute of Justice, 810 Seventh Street NW,
Washington, DC 20531.
NISMART-4 D raft LES-MC Questionnaire
1 5 -2
Box 2
If MC3 = 2 (not in time frame) or MC3 = 3 (don’t know) and respondent has no additional surveys, go to
ENDSURVEY1. If MC3 = 2 or MC3 = 3 and respondent has additional surveys, go to ENDSURVEY2.
MC4 Did the person who reported this incident primarily want law enforcement to
Locate and recover a child whose whereabouts were not known, or (1)
Recover a child whose whereabouts were known? (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
MC5 Did the person who reported this incident have an address, telephone number or other
information that worked to contact the child?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
MC5a Was this incident submitted to ... (Please respond to both options)
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot
determine (3)
National Crime
Information Center
(NCIC)? (1)
Missing Child
Clearinghouse for your
state? (2)
MC6 Was more than one child reported missing in this incident?
Yes, 2 children (1)
Yes, 3 or more children (Enter number) (2) ____ _______________________MC8
No, 1 child (3)___________________________________________________ MC9
Don't know/Cannot determine (4)___________________________________MC9
NISMART-4 D raft LES-MC Questionnaire
1 5 -3
MC7 How did the children know each other?
Siblings or step-siblings (1)_________________________________________MC9
Related as family some other way, such as cousins (2)___________________MC9
Living in a group home or treatment or detention facility for juveniles (3)___ MC9
Friends, acquaintances or schoolmates (4)____________________________ MC9
Something else (Please describe) (5) ____________________ ___________ MC9
Don't know/Cannot determine (6)__________________________________ MC9
MC8 How did the children know each other? (Please respond to all options.)
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot
determine (3)
Siblings or step-siblings
(1)
Related as family some
other way, such as
cousins (2)
Living in a group home or
treatment or detention
facility for juveniles (3)
Friends, acquaintances or
schoolmates (4)
Something else (Please
describe) (5)
MC9 How was the person who reported the incident related to the child?
If more than one child was involved, please answer
about the closest relationship.
Parent or step-parent (1)
Other relative [This option will provide a pre-coded pull down list.] (2)
Employee of school or daycare (3)
Employee of group home or treatment, detention or other juvenile facility (4)
Someone else (Please describe) (5) ____________________
Don't know/Cannot determine (6)
NISMART-4 D raft LES-MC Questionnaire
1 5 -4
NISMART Categories of Missing Children
MC10 Does the incident log or record indicate that this episode involved any of the following? (Please
respond to all options.)
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot
determine (3)
A runaway? (1)
A repeat runaway? (2)
A violation or alleged
violation of a custodial
order or agreement? (3)
A child who was lost,
stranded, injured or too
young to know how to
return home or make
contact with caretaker?
(4)
A child reported missing
because of a
misunderstanding or
other harmless
circumstance? (4)
A child missing under
unknown circumstances?
(5)
An abduction by a nonfamily perpetrator? (6)
A stranger abduction? (7)
NISMART-4 D raft LES-MC Questionnaire
1 5 -5
CHILD CHARACTERISTICS
MC11 Is this child male or female?
Male (1)
Female (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
If more than one child was involved, please start
with the oldest.
MC12 How old was this child at the time of the initial call?
Less than 1 year old (1)
1 year old or older (Please enter age in years) (2) ____________________
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
MC13 Is this child Hispanic or Latino/a?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
MC14 What is this child's race?
White (1)
Black or African American (2)
American Indian or Alaska Native (3)
Asian (4)
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander (5)
Other (6) ____________________
Don't know/Cannot determine (7)
Endangerment
MC15 Was this child at risk or endangered because of a medical condition, disability or other condition
or circumstance, such as drug use?
Yes [This option will provide a pre-coded pull down list] (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
NISMART-4 D raft LES-MC Questionnaire
1 5 -6
Definition of Recovery
MC16 What was the outcome of this incident for this child?
Returned (1)___________________________________________________MC19
Located but not returned (2)______________________________________MC18
Not returned and not located (3)
Don't know/Cannot determine (4)_________________________________ MC21
MC17 Sometimes records are not updated to show that a child has been recovered. Which do you think
is more likely?
This child has not returned home, or (1)_____________________________ MC21
This child has returned but the record has not been updated (2)__________ MC21
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)__________________________________ MC21
MC18 Please explain why the child was not returned.
[TEXT ENTRY]_________________________________________________
Box 3
If MC16 = 2 (located not returned), go to MC20.
MC19 (If returned)
How much time passed from the initial call to your agency until this child’s return home)? (Your best
estimate is fine.) Please enter the number of hours, days, weeks or months below.
Hours (1) __________ ___________________________________________MC21
Days (2) ___________ ___________________________________________MC21
Weeks (3) _________ ___________________________________________MC21
Months (4) ________ ___________________________________________MC21
Don't know/Cannot determine (5)__________________________________ MC21
NISMART-4 D raft LES-MC Questionnaire
1 5 -7
MC20 How much time passed from the initial call to your agency until the child was located? (Your best
estimate is fine.) Please enter the number of hours, days, weeks or months below.
Hours (1) ____________________
Days (2) ____________________
Weeks (3) ____________________
Months (4) ____________________
Don't know/Cannot determine (5)
MC21 Was this child reported missing at any other time between [time frame of study]?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot determine (3)
Box 4
If MC6 = 1 (multiple children), questions MC11—MC21 will repeat for each child. After last child, go to MC21.
NISMART-4 D raft LES-MC Questionnaire
1 5 -8
POLICE RESPONSE
MC22 During the initial call was information logged about ... (Please respond to all options)
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot
determine (3)
Where child was last
seen? (1)
Who child was with when
last seen? (2)
Child's physical
description and clothing?
(4)
Whether child has
medical conditions,
disabilities? (5)
Whether child had cell
phone? (6)
Any mode of travel for
child (walking, bicycle,
motor vehicle)? (7)
MC23 How did your agency respond to this incident? (Please answer all options.)
Yes (1)
No (2)
Don't know/Cannot
determine (3)
Sent officers to a child's
household or to the
scene (1)
Interviewed household
members (2)
Got child photos (3)
Collected other evidence
(4)
Conducted a search (5)
Secured the scene (6)
Investigated or
responded in other ways
(Describe) (7)
NISMART-4 D raft LES-MC Questionnaire
1 5 -9
MC24 Did your agency bring other agencies into an investigation or refer the case to another agency?
Yes, brought other agency or agencies into the investigation (1)
Yes, referred the case to another agency (2)
No (3)
Don't know/Cannot determine (4)
Box 5
If MC24 = 3 (did not bring in/refer to other agencies) or MC24 = 4 (don’t know) and respondent has no
additional surveys, go to ENDSURVEY3. If MC24 = 3 or MC24 = 4 and respondent has additional surveys, go to
ENDSURVEY4.
MC25 What agencies were brought into the investigation or did you refer the case to? Please list each
agency by name, county and state.
[TEXT ENTRY]_________________________________________________
Box 6
If MC24 = 1 or MC24 = 2 (brought in or referred to other agencies), and respondent has no additional surveys,
go to ENDSURVEY3. If MC24=1 or MC24 = 2 and respondent has additional surveys, go to ENDSURVEY4.
We would now like to ask you just a few questions about your experiences answering questions about
this case.
MC26 First, did you find any questions difficult to answer? If so, which ones and what them difficult?
MC27 Are there any questions I should have asked about this case but didn’t? If yes, what other parts
of the case should we know about?
MC28 How did you feel about the length of the survey?
ENDSURVEY1 We are only including certain incidents in this study and this case does not qualify. There
are no further questions about this case. Thank you for your time.
ENDSURVEY2 We are only including certain incidents in this study and this case does not qualify. Please
use this link to access questions about your next case that may qualify for this study: [To be added].
NISMART-4 D raft LES-MC Questionnaire
1 5 -1 0
ENDSURVEY3 Thank you for completing this survey. We appreciate your help and your contribution to
understanding the problem of children reported missing.
ENDSURVEY4 Thank you for completing this survey. We appreciate your help and your contribution to
understanding the problem of children reported missing. Please use this link to access questions about
your next case that may qualify for this study: [To be added].
NISMART-4 D raft LES-MC Questionnaire
1 5 -1 1
Attachment B
Web Survey Email Invite for Telephone Interview (10 Cases)
NISMART-4 Web Survey Email Invite for
Telephone Interview (10 Cases)
1 5 -1 2
Attachment B: Web Survey Email Invite for Telephone Interview (10 Cases)
National Law Enforcement Survey on Missing Children and Recovery
Dear Det/Inv/Lt XXXXX,
We are conducting the pilot study for the National Law Enforcement Survey on Missing Children and
Recovery. Chief XXXX from your agency completed a mail survey for us gave us your name and email
address so you could complete an online survey about Case #####. The survey will take approximately
30 minutes to complete as a computerized telephone interview.
This study is part of the Fourth National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and
Thrownaway Children (NISMART-4). The ultimate study will update the national estimates of the
number of children who go missing and the number recovered over the course of one year as well as
determine whether there have been any changes in the overall number of victims or in specific
categories of victims. This study will limit the scope of events to those known to law enforcement and so
we are relying on law enforcement agencies as the source of data.
Your participation is voluntary and will not affect your status in your agency in any way. The study avoids
asking for identifying information about cases, such as victims’ names. Throughout the research, all
information that would link an agency with any specific case details will be kept under lock and key or in
secure computer files, accessible to authorized study staff only. Finally, federal law requires that all
information be used for statistical purposes only—no specific agencies or cases will be identified in any
publicized materials.
An interviewer will be contacting you shortly to complete the interview. If you have any questions about
this project, please call us at our toll free number, 1-XXX-XXX-XXXX, or send an e-mail to survey director
Kimberly Mitchell at [email protected]. Thank you so much for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Andrea Sedlak, Ph.D.
Westat
Co-Principal Investigator
NISMART-4 Web Survey Email Invite for
Telephone Interview (10 Cases)
David Finkelhor, Ph.D.
University of New Hampshire
Co-Principal Investigator
1 5 -1 3
FEDERAL ASSURANCES OF CONFIDENTIALITY AND OTHER NOTICES
This data collection is authorized under the Missing Children's Assistance Act (see, 34 U.S.C. §
11293(c)). NIJ, OJJDP, its employees, and its data collection agents will use the information you
provide for statistical or research purposes only, and will not disclose your information in
identifiable form without your consent to anyone outside of the research team. All personally
identifiable data collected are protected under the confidentiality provisions of 34 U.S.C. § 10231,
and any person who violates these provisions may be punished by a fine up to $10,000, in addition
to any other penalties imposed by law. Further, under the Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2015,
your data are protected from cybersecurity risks through screening of the systems that transmit your
data. Your compliance with the request for information is entirely voluntary, and if you choose to
provide information, you may discontinue at any time without penalty of any sort.
Under the Federal Paperwork Reduction Act, a person is not required to respond to a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. We try to create forms and
instructions that are accurate, can be easily understood, and which impose the least possible burden
on you to provide us with information. We estimate that it will take 0.5 hours to complete this
questionnaire. This estimate includes time for reviewing the instructions, searching for and gathering
the data, completing the form, and reviewing answers.
If you would like more information concerning this authorization, the confidentiality guarantee,
have comments regarding the accuracy of the burden estimate, or suggestions for making the form
simpler, please contact Benjamin Adams, Social Science Analyst, at [email protected] or
202-616-3687. If you need assistance regarding your submission, please contact the survey director,
Kimberly Mitchell at [email protected] or call the project’s toll free number: xxx-xxxxxxx.
NISMART-4 Web Survey Email Invite for
Telephone Interview (10 Cases)
1 5 -1 4
Attachment C
Telephone Case Interview Introduction (10 Cases)
NISMART-4 Telephone C ase Interview
Introduction (10 Cases)
1 5 -1 5
Attachment C: Telephone Case Interview Introduction (10 Cases)
Hi, my name is XXXXX and I am part of the research team conducting the pilot study for the National Law
Enforcement Survey on Missing Children and Recovery. Chief XXXX from your agency completed a mail
survey for us gave us your name and telephone number so we could follow-up with you about Case #####.
Is now a good time to talk?
Let me just take a minute to let you know how this interview works. This interview is run through a
computer system which only allows me to see one question at a time. Most questions require a simple
Yes or No answer, while others are more detailed. If at any time during this interview you do not want to
answer any question, you are free to decline to answer. Also, if at any time during this interview you think
of something relevant to something mentioned earlier, just let me know and I will make a note.
Also, you should be aware that our research reports will not contain any information that could identify
you or your agency, or any suspects or victims in this case.
In 3 or 4 sentences, can you give me a brief description of what happened in this case?”
TAKE NOTES BY HAND.
See Attachment A for the computerized survey.
NISMART-4 Telephone C ase Interview
Introduction (10 Cases)
1 5 -1 6
Attachment D
Web Survey Email Invite (20 Cases)
NISMART-4 Web Survey Email Invite (2 0 C ases) 1 5 -1 7
Attachment D: Web Survey Email Invite (20 Cases)
National Law Enforcement Survey on Missing Children and Recovery
Dear Det/Inv/Lt XXXXX,
We are conducting the pilot study for the National Law Enforcement Survey on Missing Children and
Recovery. Chief XXXX from your agency completed a mail survey for us gave us your name and email
address so you could complete an online survey about Case #####. The survey will take approximately
15 minutes to complete and you will be able to pause the survey and go back to it at any time. After the
survey is completed, we will follow up with a phone call at a time of your convenience to talk about the
survey experience. For example: Did the survey allow you to say everything you wanted to say about this
case? Were there questions that were confusing because of how they were worded? This follow up
conversation should take about 20 minutes.
This study is part of the Fourth National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and
Thrownaway Children (NISMART-4). The ultimate study will update the national estimates of the
number of children who go missing and the number recovered over the course of one year as well as
determine whether there have been any changes in the overall number of victims or in specific
categories of victims. This study will limit the scope of events to those known to law enforcement and so
we are relying on law enforcement agencies as the source of data.
Your participation is voluntary and will not affect your status in your agency in any way. The study avoids
asking for identifying information about cases, such as victims’ names. Throughout the research, all
information that would link an agency with any specific case details will be kept under lock and key or in
secure computer files, accessible to authorized study staff only. Finally, federal law requires that all
information be used for statistical purposes only—no specific agencies or cases will be identified in any
publicized materials.
CLICK HERE to access the survey.
We will be happy to answer your questions about this project. Please call us at our toll free number,
1-XXX-XXX-XXXX, or send an e-mail to survey director Kimberly Mitchell at [email protected].
Thank you so much for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Andrea Sedlak, Ph.D.
Westat
Co-Principal Investigator
NISMART-4 Web Survey Email Invite (2 0 C ases) 1 5 -1 8
David Finkelhor, Ph.D.
University of New Hampshire
Co-Principal Investigator
FEDERAL ASSURANCES OF CONFIDENTIALITY AND OTHER NOTICES
This data collection is authorized under the Missing Children's Assistance Act (see, 34 U.S.C. §
11293(c)). NIJ, OJJDP, its employees, and its data collection agents will use the information you
provide for statistical or research purposes only, and will not disclose your information in
identifiable form without your consent to anyone outside of the research team. All personally
identifiable data collected are protected under the confidentiality provisions of 34 U.S.C. § 10231,
and any person who violates these provisions may be punished by a fine up to $10,000, in addition
to any other penalties imposed by law. Further, under the Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2015,
your data are protected from cybersecurity risks through screening of the systems that transmit your
data. Your compliance with the request for information is entirely voluntary, and if you choose to
provide information, you may discontinue at any time without penalty of any sort.
Under the Federal Paperwork Reduction Act, a person is not required to respond to a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. We try to create forms and
instructions that are accurate, can be easily understood, and which impose the least possible burden
on you to provide us with information. We estimate that it will take 0.25 hours to complete this
questionnaire. This estimate includes time for reviewing the instructions, searching for and gathering
the data, completing the form, and reviewing answers.
If you would like more information concerning this authorization, the confidentiality guarantee,
have comments regarding the accuracy of the burden estimate, or suggestions for making the form
simpler, please contact Benjamin Adams, Social Science Analyst, at [email protected] or
202-616-3687. If you need assistance regarding your submission, please contact the survey director,
Kimberly Mitchell at [email protected] or call the project’s toll free number: xxx-xxxxxxx.
NISMART-4 Web Survey Email Invite (2 0 C ases) 1 5 -1 9
Attachment E
Invitation Letter for Web Survey, Investigating Officer
NISMART-4 Invitation Letter for Web Survey,
Investigating Officer
1 5 -2 0
Attachment E: Invitation Letter for Web Survey, Investigating Officer
[F_NAME L_NAME]
[DEPT NAME]
[ADDRESS]
[CITY, STATE ZIP]
[DATE OF MAILING]
Dear [INSERT TITLE, L_NAME]:
Your agency is participating in the National Law Enforcement Survey on Missing Children and Recovery,
a study designed to estimate the number of children who go missing in the U.S. as well as the number
who are recovered.
This study is part of a larger study, sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention (OJJDP) and managed by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), which seeks to design and test
methodologies to produce accurate estimates on the number and characteristics of missing children
reported to law enforcement. The study will update the national estimates of the number of children
who go missing and the number recovered over the course of one year as well as determine whether
there have been any changes in the overall number of victims or in specific categories of victims. This
study will limit the scope of events to those known to law enforcement and relying on the law
enforcement agencies as the source of data.
The following case has been identified by your agency as an episode of a missing child: [CASE ID]
We are asking you (or the most knowledgeable investigator) to answer questions about this case on a
web survey. In order for the results of this study to truly represent the experience of all law
enforcement agencies across the country, it is important that every questionnaire be completed. The
web survey is hosted on our secure website and will take about 30 minutes. It may be completed in one
sitting or in parts. You may go to the website at any time and enter your personal and confidential user
login and password (below) to begin the survey. We ask you to please complete the web survey by
Month, XX, 20XX.
Survey address: https://www.XXXXXXXX
User Login: «uID»
Password: «Password»
Your agency’s participation is voluntary and will not affect the status of your agency in any way.
Responses will be confidential and will be used for statistical purposes only, as required by federal law.
Your name and the name of your agency will remain confidential and will not be used in any of the
results from the study. We greatly appreciate your assistance in this important project. If you have
questions about the operation or content of the web survey, have difficulty accessing the survey, or
need further assistance, please call our toll free number, 1-xxx-xxx-xxxx, or email our survey director
Kimberly Mitchell at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Andrea Sedlak, Ph.D.
Westat
Co-Principal Investigator
NISMART-4 Invitation Letter for Web Survey,
Investigating Officer
David Finkelhor, Ph.D.
University of New Hampshire
Co-Principal Investigator
1 5 -2 1
FEDERAL ASSURANCES OF CONFIDENTIALITY AND OTHER NOTICES
This data collection is authorized under the Missing Children's Assistance Act (see, 34 U.S.C. §
11293(c)). NIJ, OJJDP, its employees, and its data collection agents will use the information you
provide for statistical or research purposes only, and will not disclose your information in
identifiable form without your consent to anyone outside of the research team. All personally
identifiable data collected are protected under the confidentiality provisions of 34 U.S.C. § 10231,
and any person who violates these provisions may be punished by a fine up to $10,000, in addition
to any other penalties imposed by law. Further, under the Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2015,
your data are protected from cybersecurity risks through screening of the systems that transmit your
data. Your compliance with the request for information is entirely voluntary, and if you choose to
provide information, you may discontinue at any time without penalty of any sort.
Under the Federal Paperwork Reduction Act, a person is not required to respond to a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. We try to create forms and
instructions that are accurate, can be easily understood, and which impose the least possible burden
on you to provide us with information. We estimate that it will take 0.25 hours to complete this
questionnaire. This estimate includes time for reviewing the instructions, searching for and gathering
the data, completing the form, and reviewing answers.
If you would like more information concerning this authorization, the confidentiality guarantee,
have comments regarding the accuracy of the burden estimate, or suggestions for making the form
simpler, please contact Benjamin Adams, Social Science Analyst, at [email protected] or
202-616-3687. If you need assistance regarding your submission, please contact the survey director,
Kimberly Mitchell at [email protected] or call the project’s toll free number: xxx-xxxxxxx.
NISMART-4 Invitation Letter for Web Survey,
Investigating Officer
1 5 -2 2
Attachment F
Frequently Asked Questions
NISMART-4 F requently Asked Questions
1 5 -2 3
Attachment F: Frequently Asked Questions
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
PHASE 2: SURVEY
What is NISMART-4?
NISMART-4 is a research study created by the federal
Missing Children’s Assistance Act. Its goal is to estimate
the number of missing children. NISMART-4 is the fourth
in a series of studies conducted between 1988 and 2011.
It will update numbers from the three previous studies to
determine whether there have been increases or
decreases in the number of missing or abducted children.
The findings will be reported to Congress and will guide
the development of policies and programs for missing
children. This study is sponsored by the Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) and managed
by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), at the U.S.
Department of Justice. Westat and the Crimes against
Children Research Center (CCRC) at the University of New
Hampshire are conducting the study.
What is the National Law Enforcement Survey on Missing
Children and Recovery?
NISMART includes a number of different studies. The
National Law Enforcement Survey on Missing Children will
estimate the number of missing children between [time
period]. Data are being be collected in two phases from all
law enforcement agencies with authority to investigate
missing children. In Phase 1, Law Enforcement Agencies
completed a mail survey screener to identify relevant
cases. Now in Phase 2, we are asking investigators of
missing child cases to complete a self-administered web
survey or telephone interview to provide details about
specific cases investigated.
How did you choose this agency?
The initial mail survey screener was sent to 30 law
enforcement agencies across the U.S. Because your agency
investigated a missing child case, you are being asked to
provide some case details.
Why is my participation important? Participation is
voluntary, and will not affect the status of your agency in
any way. However, the information you provide in testing
this survey will help us design the best instrument for the
national study. This will lead to more accurate and reliable
NISMART-4 F requently Asked Questions
final study estimates about missing children. Participating
in this research will not entail any particular risks or
benefits to you but it will greatly contribute to our
knowledge about missing children.
What will the survey involve?
We are asking the investigator who is most knowledgeable
about a relevant case to respond to a telephone interview
or a web survey on a secure site to provide details about
the characteristics of offenders, victims, and cases
investigated, as described in the survey invitation letter. If
you complete the web survey, we will followup up by
telephone to ask about your experience. The survey and
followup will take about 35 minutes.
What about security and confidentiality protections? In
accordance with 28 CFR Part 22, the research team will
provide administrative and physical security of
identifiable data and preserve the anonymity of private
persons participating in this project. The study avoids
asking for identifying information about cases, such as
victims’ names. Throughout the research, all information
that would link an agency with any specific case details
will be kept under lock and key or in secure computer
files, accessible to authorized study staff only. Finally,
federal law requires that all information be used for
statistical purposes only—no specific agencies or cases
will be identified in any publicized materials.
What if I have questions?
If you have questions about the research, please contact
the
survey director, Kimberly Mitchell at
[email protected] or the study’s toll-free
number at 1-XXX-XXX-XXXX. If you have any questions
about your rights as a research subject, you may contact
the Westat Human Subjects Protection Office at 1-888920-7631. Please leave a message with your full name,the
name of the study (NISMART-4) and a phone number,
beginning with the area code. Someone will return your
call as soon as possible.
1 5 -2 4
GLOSSARY OF STUDY TERMS
Child. Person under the age of 18.
Family abduction: The taking or keeping of a child by a family member in violation of a court order,
written agreement or mutual understanding about custody or visitation rights
Family member: A biological, adoptive, step- or foster family member; someone acting on behalf of
such a family member; or the romantic partner of a parent
Missing child: A child whose caregiver contacted the police in order to recover or locate the child.
Whereabouts unknown: The person who reported this incident did not have an address, telephone
number or other information that works to contact the child or the perpetrator.
Endangerment: Caregiver believed that child was at risk of physical assault, sexual abuse, physical
injury, or health problem in the company of the perpetrator.
Recovery: Child was returned or came back to the custody of the aggrieved caregiver
Violation of custody agreement: An aggrieved parent is stating that a specific part of a court order,
written agreement or mutual understanding about custody or visitation rights has been violated
NISMART-4 F requently Asked Questions
1 5 -2 5
Attachment G
Web Survey First Reminder Email
NISMART-4 Web Survey F irst Reminder Email 1 5 -2 6
Attachment G: Web Survey First Reminder Email
Dear [TITLE L_NAME]:
On [DATE] we sent you a letter asking you to participate in the National Law Enforcement Survey on
Missing Children and Recovery. Your agency is one of a number of agencies being asked to participate in
a national study to estimate the number of children who go missing in the U.S.
In the letter we sent on [DATE], we identified the case ID of the victim(s) in the missing child case
identified by your agency. The survey was due on [SURVEY DUE DATE] but we have not received your
completed survey. (If you are still filling it out or have recently submitted it, please disregard this notice).
If you need information to identify this case, or you are not the right person to complete the survey,
please contact the survey director, Kimberly Mitchell at [email protected] or call the project’s
toll free number: xxx-xxx-xxxx.
The web survey is available on our secure website. You may go to the website at any time and enter
your personal and confidential user login and password (below) to begin the survey. The survey should
only take about 30 minutes. We ask you to complete the web survey by Month, XX, 20XX.
Survey address: https://www.XXXXXXXX
User Login: «uID»
Password: «Password»
We know you are extremely busy, but your participation in this study will help law enforcement in the
future.
Sincerely,
Andrea Sedlak, Ph.D.
Westat
Co-Principal Investigator
NISMART-4 Web Survey F irst Reminder Email 1 5 -2 7
David Finkelhor, Ph.D.
University of New Hampshire
Co-Principal Investigator
Attachment H
Web Survey Third Reminder Email
NISMART-4 Web Survey Third Reminder Email 1 5 -2 8
Attachment H: Web Survey Third Reminder Email
Dear [TITLE L_NAME]:
On [DATE] we sent you a letter asking you to participate in the National Law Enforcement Survey on
Missing Children and Recovery. You were selected to participate because of your investigation of a
missing child that fits our study. This research is designed to help generate estimates of the number of
children who go missing each year in the U.S. and is mandated by Congress.
In the letter we sent, we identified the case ID of the victim(s) in the missing child case investigated by
your agency. The survey was due on [SURVEY DUE DATE]. We will be very grateful if you could help us
with this important research and complete the survey today.
The web survey is available on our secure website. You may go to the website at any time and enter
your personal and confidential user login and password (below) to begin the survey. The survey should
only take about 30 minutes. We now ask you to complete the web survey by Month, XX, 20XX.
Survey address: https://www.XXXXXXXX
User Login: «uID»
Password: «Password»
If you need information to identify this case, or you are not the right person to complete the survey,
please let us know by contacting the survey director, Kimberly Mitchell at [email protected]
or call the project’s toll free number: xxx-xxx-xxxx. If you have questions about the operation or content
of the web survey, have difficulty accessing the survey, or need further assistance, please call our toll
free number at xxx-xxx-xxxx.
We know you are extremely busy, but your participation in this study will help law enforcement and
abducted children in the future.
Sincerely,
Andrea Sedlak, Ph.D.
Westat
Co-Principal Investigator
NISMART-4 Web Survey Third Reminder Email 1 5 -2 9
David Finkelhor, Ph.D.
University of New Hampshire
Co-Principal Investigator
Attachment I
Web Survey Second Reminder Email
NISMART-4 Web Survey Second Reminder Email 1 5 -3 0
Attachment I: Web Survey Second Reminder Email
Dear [TITLE L_NAME]:
Westat and the University of New Hampshire’s Crimes against Children Research Center are conducting
the Fourth National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children
(NISMART-4). The study is sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
(OJJDP) and managed by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), at the U.S. Department of Justice. The
study seeks to update national estimates of the number of children who go missing and the number
recovered over the course of one year as well as determine whether there have been any changes in the
overall number of victims or in specific categories of victims.
On [DATE] the research team sent you a letter asking you to participate in the web survey component of
the study by providing details about a specific case of a missing child. You were selected as the
investigator most knowledgeable about the case. The research team has not yet heard from you and I
wanted to reach out to urge you to respond.
In the original letter sent, the research team identified the case ID of the victim(s) in the missing child
case investigated by your agency. If you no longer have the letter and need information to identify this
case, please contact the survey director, Kimberly Mitchell at [email protected] and she can
help you. If you have questions about the operation or content of the web survey, have difficulty
accessing the survey, or need further assistance, please call the project’s toll free number at xxx-xxxxxxx.
The web survey is available on the project’s secure website. You may go to the website at any time and
enter your personal and confidential user login and password (below) to begin the survey. The survey
should only take about 30 minutes. I ask you to please complete the web survey by Month, XX, 20XX.
Survey address: https://www.XXXXXXXX
User Login: «uID»
Password: «Password»
I can appreciate the many demands on your time, but please know that your participation in this study
will help law enforcement in the future.
Sincerely,
Benjamin Adams
Social Science Analyst
National Institute of Justice
NISMART-4 Web Survey Second Reminder Email 1 5 -3 1
Attachment J
Script for Telephone Follow-up Interviews
NISMART-4 Script for Telephone Follow-up
Interviews
1 5 -3 2
OMB No. XXXX-XXXX
Approval Expires XX/XX/20XX
Attachment J: Script for Telephone Follow-up Interviews
INTRODUCE SELF, CONFIRM SPEAKING TO SURVEY RESPONDENT
First, I want to thank you for taking time out of your very busy schedule to
participate in the NISMART pilot. As you may recall, we wanted to talk with you a
little about your experience taking the survey and possible reactions you may have
had to any of the questions.
Is this a good time to ask you a few questions about the pilot survey? We estimate
this call will take about 20 minutes.
[IF NOT A GOOD TIME, SCHEDULE CALL BACK APPOINTMENT]
First, I’d like to ask your reaction to the amount of time it took for you to complete
this survey online. I see from our management system that it looks like you
completed the survey in [1/MORE THAN 1 SESSION] and the total amount of time
it took was ___ minutes. Thinking back, what was your impression about the
length of the survey?
Did the amount of time seem about appropriate or right to you?
Was it hard to find time to take the survey?
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, we cannot ask you to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control
number. Public reporting burden for this collection is estimated to average 20 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions,
searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send
comments regarding this burden estimate or any aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the
National Institute of Justice, 810 Seventh Street NW, Washington, DC 20531.
NISMART-4 Script for Telephone Follow-up
Interviews
1 5 -3 3
We know that with our schedules it’s not always possible to do a task from
beginning to end without interruption. Did you take any breaks or have any
interruptions?
[QUESTIONS ABOUT DATA RETRIEVAL SHOULD BE ASKED IN LINEAR ORDER AND
INTEGRATED INTO THE DISCUSSION AND COLLECTION OF OTHER COMMENTS. DO
NOT JUMP BACK AND FORTH IN THE INSTRUMENT.]
I want to ask you about this question [which was not answered or appears
inconsistent].
[IF EMBEDDED COMMENTS REQUIRE CLARIFICATION] Comment fields were
programmed into the survey to allow you to comment on the elements of any
given question. Your comments were very helpful and I’d like to follow up on a
comment/couple comments you left.
[GIVE OR DESCRIBE QUESTION TO HELP RESPONDENT RECALL] you wrote [READ
RESPONDENT’S COMMENT AND YOUR CLARIFYING QUESTION].
Thank you!
As researchers, we spend a great deal of time on the development of
questionnaires, scrutinizing the wording of questions and anticipating possible
responses and the information we need to capture by our questions. Despite our
best efforts, sometimes people have difficulties answering a question.
Were any questions confusing because of how they were worded?
NISMART-4 Script for Telephone Follow-up
Interviews
1 5 -3 4
A number of survey questions ask you to select from multiple choice answers. In
multiple-choice questions, did you always find the response category you needed
to answer the question accurately or did you feel like we missed a response
category?
Were any questions left out of the survey that you expected to be asked and think
are important to add in order for people to understand the case and its outcome?
Finally, when you completed the survey, did you feel you had the opportunity to
say everything you wanted to say about this case?
Anything else?
Thank you again for being part of our pilot. We’re learning a lot and appreciate
your participation. Goodbye.
NISMART-4 Script for Telephone Follow-up
Interviews
1 5 -3 5
| File Type | application/pdf |
| File Modified | 0000-00-00 |
| File Created | 0000-00-00 |