U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

J. Robert Flores, Administrator December 2004

Of fice of Justice Pr ograms • Par tnerships for Safer Communities • www.ojp.usdoj.gov Child Pornography: Patterns From NIBRS A Message From OJJDP The validity of research findings often depends on the quality of the available data. The redesign of the FBI’s Uniform David Finkelhor and Richard Ormrod Crime Reporting system has resulted in the National Incident­Based Repor t­ The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) is committed to ing System (NIBRS), which could be­ improving the justice system’s response to crimes against children. OJJDP recognizes come a helpful tool in efforts to control the dissemination and sale of por nog­ that children are at increased risk for crime victimization. Not only are children the vic­ raphy depicting juveniles. By collecting tims of many of the same crimes that victimize adults, they are subject to other crimes, data on pornography/obscene material like child abuse and neglect, that are specific to childhood. The impact of these crimes offenses from law enforcement juris­ on young victims can be devastating, and the violent or sexual victimization of children dictions, NIBRS enables researchers to draw conclusions about the num­ can often lead to an intergenerational cycle of violence and abuse. The purpose of ber, locations, and characteristics of OJJDP’s Crimes Against Children Series is to improve and expand the nation’s efforts these crimes. to better serve child victims by presenting the latest information about child victimization, NIBRS data suggest that approximate­ including analyses of crime victimization statistics, studies of child victims and their spe ­ ly 2,900 crime incidents of pornogra­ cial needs, and descriptions of programs and approaches that address these needs. phy with juvenile involvement were known to state and local police in 2000; these offenses most often were Concerns about pornography and child allows for the first time the tracking of committed by a lone adult male offend­ exploitation have increased in recent years crimes that involve pornography and as new electronic and imaging technology child exploitation. Ultimately, by using er, occurred in a residence, and did not involve a computer. Data from two facilitate its production and dissemina­ NIBRS, law enforcement will be able to major investigators of Internet crime, tion. Such concerns have led to legisla­ follow the numbers, locations, and char­ the FBI and the U.S. Postal Service, acteristics of such crimes over time and tion, and to additional initiatives involving are not included in the NIBRS data­ federal and local law enforcement, aimed across the nation to monitor their trends and their potentially changing nature. base. Thus, evidence from NIBRS at inhibiting the production, sale, and dis­ may be skewed toward family abuse semination of pornography depicting juve­ Currently, NIBRS data are available from and noncommercial production of niles. These measures are also directed at only a small fraction of the law enforce­ pornography. the dissemination and sale of pornogra­ ment jurisdictions in the country (covering The related apparent increase in por­ phy to minors (Klain, Davies, and Hicks, about 14 percent of the population). The nography crime involving children may 2001). system has already cataloged a substan­ indicate more offenses, greater aware­ One of the tools that may help law en­ tial number of pornography offenses; how­ ness, or better recordkeeping. Cur­ forcement control this problem is the ever, some questions exist about the accu­ rently, NIBRS data represent about Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI’s) racy and reliability of how police report 14 percent of the population. As more National Incident­Based Reporting System child pornography offenses within NIBRS. jurisdictions support uniform reporting (NIBRS). NIBRS, the crime statistics Nonetheless, given the increased interest of accurate data to NIBRS and as its system designed to replace the present in this crime and the limited amount of in­ codes become more refined, NIBRS will become even more useful in iden­ Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) system, formation currently available from other tifying and tracking trends in child pornography. Access OJJDP publications online at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ojjdp The National Incident­Based Reporting System Terminology The U.S. Department of Justice is replacing its long­established Uniform Crime Adult pornography. Incidents involv­ Reporting (UCR) system with a more comprehensive National Incident­Based ing obscene pornography but not child Reporting System (NIBRS). Whereas UCR monitors only a limited number of pornography and not in conjunction index crimes and gathers few details on each crime event (except in the case of with any identified crime against a homicide), NIBRS collects a wide range of information on victims, offenders, and juvenile. circumstances for a greater variety of offenses. Offenses tracked in NIBRS include violent crimes (e.g., homicide, assault, rape, robbery), property crimes (e.g., theft, Child exploitation pornography. arson, vandalism, fraud, embezzlement), and crimes against society (e.g., drug Incidents primarily involving the pos­ offenses, gambling, prostitution). Moreover, NIBRS collects information on multiple session or distribution of pornogra­ victims, multiple offenders, and multiple crimes that may be part of the same phy that depicts underage juveniles. episode. Juvenile victim pornography. In­ Under the new system, as with the old, local law enforcement personnel compile cludes the production of child pornog­ information on crimes coming to their attention, and this information is then aggre­ raphy and the use of pornography in gated at the state and national levels. For a crime to be counted in the system, it the seduction of a child. only needs to be reported and investigated. The incident does not need to be Pornography with juvenile involve­ cleared or an arrest made, although unfounded reports are deleted from the record. ment. Either child exploitation pornog­ NIBRS holds great promise, but it is still far from a national system. The Federal raphy or juvenile victim pornography. Bureau of Investigation began implementing the system in 1988; participation by Known to police. The offenses being states and local agencies is voluntary, and the pool of agencies contributing data to counted are those that have been NIBRS has increased each year. By 1995, jurisdictions in 9 states were contributing reported to the police or discovered data; by 1997, 12 states were contributing data; and by the end of 2000, jurisdic­ by the police as part of an investiga­ tions in 19 states submitted data, thus providing co verage for 14 percent of the tion or routine policing. They do not nation’s population and 11 percent of its cr ime. Participation by all local jurisdic­ presume an arrest, indictment, or tions occurs in only 3 states (Idaho, Iowa, and South Carolina), and only 3 cities conviction for the crime. with populations greater than 500,000 (Austin, TX; Memphis, TN; and Nashville, TN) are reporting. Thus, the crime experiences of large urban areas are particular­ For more information, see sidebar on ly underrepresented. The system, therefore, is not yet nationally representative nor page 4. do its data represent national trends or national statistics. Nevertheless, NIBRS is assembling large amounts of crime information and providing a richness of detail about juvenile victimizations that was previously unavailable. The patterns ❒ Of the juvenile victims identified in and associations these data reveal are real and represent the experiences of a conjunction with pornography crimes, large number of youth. For 2000, the 19 participating states 1 reported a total of 62 percent were female, 25 percent 2,115,980 crimes against individuals, with at least 215,030 of these crimes occur­ were members of the offender’s family, ring against juveniles. However, these patterns may change as more jurisdictions 59 percent were teens (12–17 years join the system. old), 28 percent were elementary Using NIBRS to analyze child pornography has limitations because NIBRS is not school age (6–11 years old), and 13 truly national and excludes federal agencies that are active in pursuing this crime. percent were preschoolers (younger However, there have been few other sources of statistical information about child than 6 years old). pornography. Moreover, NIBRS includes a number of offenses involving pornogra­ Better national data on child pornography phy and juveniles from a considerable variety of jurisdictions; for this reason, and are needed to analyze trends and char­ because NIBRS will eventually become a national system, it is useful as a tool for acteristics. NIBRS, with improved local analysis at its current stage of de velopment. More information about NIBRS data collection can be found at the following Web sites: www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm, www.search.org/nibrs/default.asp, and 1 The offense category in NIBRS is called “pornography/ www.jrsa.org/ibrrc/. obscene material.” Normally, pornography is only criminal when it is deemed obscene. In this Bulletin 1 Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nebraska, the term “pornography” is generally used to mean North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia. obscene pornography or material that is criminal. See discussion in footnote 2. 2 With regard to child pornography, state statutes vary sources, these cases merit examination incidents of pornography with child/ in their age definitions of a “child” or “juvenile,” with to provide a rudimentary profile of the juvenile2 involvement3 were known to some states designating younger than 18 years old, nature and extent of this crime as known state and local police in 2000. younger than 17 years old, or even younger than 16 years old as their thresholds (U.S. Department of to police. ❒ The proportion of all pornography inci­ Health and Human Services, National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect Information, and National NIBRS data for 1997–2000 on 2,469 crime dents with child/juvenile involvement Center for Prosecution of Child Abuse, 1999). In this 1 increased from 15 percent in 1997 to 26 incidents involving pornography reveal Bulletin the terms “child” and “juvenile” refer to legal­ percent in 2000. that: ly underage people. ❒ A lone adult offender most often com­ ❒ Approximately 2,900 (based on extrapo­ 3 Possession, distribution, or production of child mitted pornography offenses with lations from the data) nationwide crime pornography or use of pornography in the seduction child/juvenile involvement. of a child.

2 that approximately 8,900 pornography of­ forces, whose goals included increased Types of Pornography Incidents fenses were known to state and local police law enforcement activity against child Reported by NIBRS nationwide in 2000; approximately 2,900 of pornography found on the Internet these incidents would have involved juve­ (Medaris and Girouard, 2002). nile victims or child exploitation (Federal By the end of 2003, the CyberTipline was Bureau of Investigation, 1997–2000). receiving more than 1,500 reports on child 23% Because NIBRS is expanding, accurately pornography per week (National Center 4% gauging real increases in the pornography for Missing & Exploited Children, retrieved problem across time is not feasible. How­ 2004 from the Web). However, in the ab­ ever, for those law enforcement agencies sence of more recent NIBRS data, the effect 73% that reported NIBRS data for both 1997 of these reports on the number of cases and 2000, the total number of crime of­ known to state and local police cannot be fenses recorded decreased 2 percent from determined. Much of what is reported to 1997 to 2000, while pornography offenses the CyberTipline involves Web sites or increased 68 percent and juvenile victim/ communications of uncertain origin and N=2,469 Incidents child exploitation pornography offenses results in referrals to federal rather than jumped 200 percent. In addition, the pro­ local law enforcement agencies. portion of all pornography offenses involv­ Adult ing child exploitation or juvenile victims Juvenile victim increased from 15 percent in 1997 to 26 Pornography Incidents percent in 2000. (The increase occurred Child exploitation With Juvenile regardless of whether jurisdictions that Involvement were added to NIBRS during the 3­year Two types of pornography episodes in­ period were included in or excluded fr om training and participation, could be an comparisons.) This disproportionate in­ volved juveniles (see sidebar on page 4). important source of these data. Juvenile victim pornography offenses (pri­ crease supports the notion that more such marily the production of child pornogra­ crimes are coming to police attention. However, the increase does not necessari­ phy) tended to be different from other Pornography Offenses pornography incidents, including pornog­ ly mean that there is more of such criminal raphy offenses with child exploitation only Known to Police activity (for example, as a result of the (those that had no identifiable juvenile vic­ Pornography offenses come to police atten­ Internet) because such an increase could tim, i.e., possession and distribution). For tion infrequently, comprising less than stem simply from more aggressive police example, all juvenile victim pornography 0.03 percent of all crimes known to police efforts against these crimes or from the incidents included other offenses in addi­ during 1997–2000. In only 4 percent (111) improvement of recordkeeping within tion to illegal pornography; the great major­ of the 2,469 incidents containing a pornog­ NIBRS. For example, the late 1990s saw ity of them were sexual or violent offenses raphy offense was there an identifiable ju­ the inauguration of the CyberTipline and (see table 1). Adult pornography incidents venile victim (see figure). However, “child the Internet Crimes Against Children task exploitation” was coded in an additional 23 percent (566) of these incidents, indicat­ ing that the pornography likely involved Table 1: Pornography Offense and Any Accompanying Offense, depictions of juveniles. The remaining 73 by Incident Type percent of pornography incidents known to police (those that did not involve a juvenile Type of Incident (%) victim or record child exploitation, i.e., adult pornography) concerned the illegal Juvenile Victim Child Exploitation Adult possession, manufacture, sale, or distribu­ Accompanying Pornography Pornography Pornography tion of non­child­related forms of obscene Offense (n=111) (n=566) (n=1,792) material (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1997–2000). Any accompanying NIBRS is far from a nationally comprehen­ offense? Yes 100 4 4 sive data set, and the jurisdictions cover ed No 0 96 96 exclude most major urban areas of the Total 100 100 100 United States. Nonetheless, it is possible and useful to make some preliminary extra­ Any violent or polations based on NIBRS in light of the sexual offense? virtual absence of information about the Yes 95 1 1 scope of the problem. In 2000, NIBRS was No 5 99 99 estimated to include jurisdictions contain­ Total 100 100 100 ing about 11 percent of all national crime. If pornography offenses are assumed to Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation. 1997–2000. National Incident­Based Reporting System. be distributed in rough proportion to Computer file. Compiled by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Department of Justice. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter­University Consortium for Political and Social Research (producer and distributor). other crimes, the implication would be

3 Pornography Involving Child Exploitation and Juvenile Victims Much pornography is not criminal and is protected by the first NIBRS collects victim information that can reveal the pres­ amendment to the Constitution. Its possession, production, ence of juvenile victims in a pornography incident. distribution, or sale only becomes criminal when the pornogra­ phy is considered obscene. Obscene pornography involves The authors have labeled the latter cases—those in which a more extreme depictions of sexual activity, generally described pornography offense is reported to NIBRS in conjunction with in statutory language with the following criteria: (1) to the aver­ another criminal offense against a juvenile—as “juvenile victim 2 age person, applying contemporary statewide standards, it pornography” incidents. Such incidents can include several appeals to the prurient interest; (2) taken as a whole, it depicts types of criminal circumstances; for example, pornography or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way; and involving a child is being produced and the child can be (3) it lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value specifically identified (and thus recorded as a victim with a (e.g., California Penal Code, section 311). Because of statuto­ specified age and relationship to the offender), or pornogra­ ry vagueness and because community standards and law phy is being used as part of the seduction and molestation of enforcement practices vary, the definition of “obscene” pornog­ a child. A variety of other complex crimes can also be includ­ raphy may differ considerably from community to community. It ed in this category, such as a child molester (or a child abus­ can involve depictions of bestiality, incest, sadomasochistic er) who, on arrest, is found to be in possession of criminal practices, or many other things. When law enforcement acts pornography, even though the pornography may not be direct­ on pornography, the National Incident­Based Reporting Sys­ ly involved in the offense against the child. tem (NIBRS) has a category—pornography/obscene material For purposes of analysis, this Bulletin distinguishes three offenses—for such crimes. types of pornography incidents, two of which involve juveniles: Pornography that depicts actual juveniles has a very different ❒ Juvenile victim pornography incidents. These inci­ status under the law than other types of pornography. It is not dents, described above, include an identifiable victim. subject to first amendment protection and the more contentious Cases involving the production of child pornography standards that apply to other types of pornog raphy (Klain, using identifiable children are included in this category Davies, and Hicks, 2001). It is also regarded as having vic­ (the child victimization is usually regarded as sexual tims—the children who are depicted. Although such material abuse and is recorded in NIBRS as a forcible sex is usually referred to as “child pornog raphy,” the criminalization offense). applies to depictions of all underage juveniles, including teenagers. ❒ Child exploitation pornography incidents. This cate­ gory involves pornography incidents in which child NIBRS treats child pornography within its general category of exploitation is recorded but additional offenses against pornography offenses that are deemed crimes against society specified juvenile victims are not included. It is assumed (rather than crimes against persons or property), and there is that these pornography offenses involve the depiction of no option in the system to designate individual pornography juveniles who cannot be identified or recorded as individ­ victims. However, NIBRS collects incident information that ual victims3—for example, the confiscation of a mag azine enables two types of juvenile involvement with pornography containing sexual depictions of children or a computer offenses to be recognized. with such images downloaded from the Internet. This First, police can code several types of criminal activities in­ category includes most incidents involving the posses­ corporated in the pornography offense, one of which is child sion, distribution, and sale of child pornography. (When exploitation. In NIBRS, “child exploitation” denotes pornogra­ an incident is recorded in NIBRS as child exploitation phy in which children are depicted, including commercially and also includes victimization against an identifiable distributed magazines, home videos, personal photographs, juvenile victim, it is counted as “juvenile victim pornogra­ phy” and not as “child exploitation pornography.” The lat­ and computer images.1 In principle, this category of child exploitation includes the sexual depiction of any underage ter category is reserved for child exploitation alone with juvenile; however, it is probably skewed toward depictions of no identifiable victim.) preadolescents and young adolescents because judgments ❒ Adult pornography incidents. These pornography about precise age and hence criminality are more difficult in offenses do not indicate juvenile involvement (either as portrayals of older teens. identifiable victims or with the code for child exploita­ Second, NIBRS allows the coding of multiple offenses that are tion). They include cases of obscene pornography and part of the same criminal incident. Thus, crimes against per­ may include violations of “harmful to minors” laws found sons (individual victims) can occur in the same incident in in many states that make it illegal to provide pornogra­ which a pornography offense was recorded. For these crimes, phy to minors, even though the material may be legal for adults.4

1 Child exploitation is also used in other contexts to refer to children involved in prostitution. Here it refers only to children involved in sexual depictions. 2 For these cases, a juvenile is any person younger than 18 years old. 3 New graphic technology as used in pornography permits the creation of simulated childr en who may be difficult to distinguish from real childr en. Such images were previously criminalized by the federal Child Pornography Pr evention Act, but those provisions have been invalidated by the Supreme Court. Authorities ar e uncertain about the amount of child pornography that may have involved such simulated images but believe it is not extensive. NIBRS has no provision for distin ­ guishing such simulated child pornography from other child pornography. 4 Juvenile recipients of such materials would not be identified as victims unless they were the targets of another crime, such as sexual molestation.

4 Pornography Involving Child Exploitation and Juvenile Victims (continued) These categories reflect, but do not systematically record, spouses, or other private citizens; or victims of sexual abuse, some of the different ways in which pornography crimes are sexual assault, or prostitution may disclose that they were detected. For example, police can conduct undercover opera­ photographed in the course of their victimization. In addition, tions in which they purchase or obtain illegal pornography illegal pornography may be identified when searches are con­ from adult stores, mail order outlets, Internet sites, or Internet ducted as part of a police investigation of crimes as diverse correspondents; suspicious images can be reported to the as stolen property or securities fraud. police by photo developers, computer repair personnel, abused

and child exploitation pornography inci­ and female offenders were included in percent of incidents) (Federal Bureau of dents rarely included additional crimes. each category. In cases where females Investigation, 1997–2000). participated in child exploitation pornog­ The frequency of arrest for juvenile victim A great deal of interest has been focused raphy incidents, however, the incidents pornography incidents was substantially on the use of computers and the Internet occurred in conjunction with a male of­ higher than for other pornography inci­ in conjunction with pornography offenses fender 45 percent of the time; this was dents; this may be connected to the pres­ because computers can facilitate both the also the case in 32 percent of the adult ence of additional violent offenses. More dissemination and the detection of such pornography incidents. This collaborative than half (55 percent) of these incidents material (Wolak, Mitchell, and Finkelhor, pattern on the part of female offenders resulted in an arrest, which is much high­ 2003). NIBRS enables the police to indi­ also appears to be true for juvenile victim er than the arrest frequencies for adult cate whether computers were used in the pornography incidents (50 percent), but pornography incidents (24 percent) or commission of criminal acts, but the data there are too few cases (only 16) for a child exploitation pornography incidents show that a small minority of all pornogra­ reliable conclusion. In addition, in cases (27 percent). It was also higher than the phy offenses known to police were coded where a juvenile victim was identified, typical arrest rate for all violent crimes as involving computer use (see table 4). female perpetrators were more likely to against juveniles (32 percent). When sex This may indicate that the majority of participate in incidents with family offend­ offenses occur and there is pornography pornography crimes through 2000 had no ers (23 percent of incidents) and less like­ that documents them, police may be par­ computer or Internet connection, or it ly to be part of nonfamily incidents (11 ticularly confident about the crime. Juvenile victim pornography incidents occurred in various locations but over­ Table 2: Location of Pornography Offenses, by Incident Type whelmingly in private residences and homes, which is also where sexual abuse Type of Incident (%) tends to occur (see table 2). In contrast, other pornography incidents often oc­ Juvenile Victim Child Exploitation Adult curred outside, in stores, in schools and Location Pornography Pornography Pornography colleges, and in other buildings. Child exploitation pornography incidents were All (n=111) (n=566) (n=1,792) more residence based than adult pornog­ Residence/home 83 61 45 raphy incidents, but less so than juvenile Outside 5 10 17 victim pornography incidents. Store 0 7 12 Other building 3 6 11 Since pornography is often sold in stores, School/college 2 7 8 examining the types of commercial estab­ Other/unknown 7 9 7 lishments associated with pornography Total 100 100 100 offenses is informative (see table 2). Not surprisingly, specialty stores and conven­ Stores (n=0) (n=38) (n=206) ience stores accounted for about half of Specialty store — 21 30 the adult pornography incidents. The Department/ higher association of child exploitation discount store — 37 22 pornography incidents with department Convenience store — 8 19 and discount stores and supermarkets Grocery/supermarket — 16 11 may be because such businesses often Drug store/doctor’s have discount film­processing centers, office/hospital — 10 9 whose employees can identify and report Service station — 5 6 suspicious photographs to police. Liquor store — 3 3 Total — 100 100 Pornography incidents of all types were likely to involve a lone offender, typically Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation. 1997–2000. National Incident­Based Reporting System. an adult male (see table 3). In contrast, Computer file. Compiled by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Department of Justice. Ann only a small number of juvenile offenders Arbor, MI: Inter­University Consortium for Political and Social Research (producer and distributor).

5 State­to­State Table 3: Offender Patterns in Pornography Offenses, by Incident Type Disparities Type of Incident (%) There is reason to believe that states and local jurisdictions may vary a great deal Juvenile Victim Child Exploitation Adult in the number of pornography offenses Offender Pattern Pornography Pornography Pornography coming to police attention. Factors such as state statutes,4 community standards, ( =108) ( =428) ( =1,201) Age and number n n n availability of pornography, and initiatives Lone adult 71 81 76 undertaken by police and prosecutors all Multiple adults 12 9 8 play a role in explaining these differences. Multiple mixed age 3 2 2 NIBRS does reveal considerable variability Multiple juveniles 4 1 3 at the state level (see table 5). For exam­ Lone juvenile 10 7 11 ple, South Carolina and Vermont recorded Total 100 100 100 less than 1 juvenile involvement porno­ Gender and number (n=108) (n=452) (n=1,291) graphy offense for every 100,000 offenses Lone male 75 81 80 of all types reported to NIBRS during Multiple males 10 5 7 1997–2000. In contrast, Utah recorded Multiple mixed gender 7 6 4 more than 12 such pornography offenses Multiple females 1 0 1 for every 100,000 offenses reported, and Lone female 7 8 8 Idaho, Iowa, and Michigan also had rates Total 100 100 100 well above the average.

Note: Data are based on incidents with offender information only. Implications Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation. 1997–2000. National Incident­Based Reporting System. Crimes involving pornography and juve­ Computer file. Compiled by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Department of Justice. Ann nile victims or child exploitation are rela­ Arbor, MI: Inter­University Consortium for Political and Social Research (producer and distributor). tively infrequent in the NIBRS data and comprise a minority of all pornography­ related crimes. Moreover, the estimated may reflect a lack of police familiarity perspective of rather than victims incidents, 2,900 incidents in 2000 are dwarfed by with some of the coding options NIBRS half (50 percent) of the victims experienced reports of overall sex crimes against juve­ provides. In addition, a considerable incidents that involved additional victims. niles, which can be roughly estimated at amount of the activity surrounding Inter­ Of the juvenile victims identified in pornog­ 269,000 for the same period. Nonetheless, net pornography has occurred within fed­ raphy incidents, 62 percent were females the data showing a rise in the numbers of eral agencies such as the FBI and the U.S. and 38 percent were males. For juvenile such crimes between 1997 and 2000 ar e Postal Inspector’s Office, whose data are victims whose offender could be identi­ consistent with perceptions that more of not currently included in NIBRS. fied, 25 percent were members of the of­ these crimes are being uncovered, either fender’s family, 64 percent were acquain­ because they are increasing or because tances, and 11 percent were strangers. police are cracking down on them, or pos­ Juvenile Victims in Fifty­nine percent of the victims were teens sibly both. If the Internet was a major fac­ (12–17 years old), 28 percent were elemen­ Pornography Incidents tor in such an increase or in greater detec­ tary school age (6–11 years old), and 13 Most pornography incidents with identifi­ tion, it was not yet clearly reflected in the percent were preschoolers (younger than able juvenile victims involved a single vic­ 2000 NIBRS data, which showed a small 6 years old) (Federal Bureau of Investiga­ tim rather than multiple victims (71 per ­ number of pornography offenses involving tion, 1997–2000). cent of incidents). However, from the the use of a computer. The rise in juvenile­ related pornography is notable because it occurred in the context of an overall de­ Table 4: Computer Use in Pornography Offenses, by Incident Type cline in reported cases of sexual abuse of children and sex crimes in general that Type of Incident (%) occurred during the middle and late 1990s (Finkelhor and Jones, 2004). Juvenile Victim Child Exploitation Adult Pornography Pornography Pornography The data suggest only a modest associa­ Computer Use (n=111) (n=566) (n=1,792) tion of general pornography crimes with child victimization. In 73 percent of all Computer used 7 13 7 pornography incidents known to police, No computer used 93 87 93 Total 100 100 100 4 For example, in some states simple possession of Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation. 1997–2000. National Incident­Based Reporting System. child pornography is not a crime or is just a misde ­ Computer file. Compiled by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Department of Justice. Ann meanor, whereas in others it is a felony (Klain, Davies, Arbor, MI: Inter­University Consortium for Political and Social Research (producer and distributor). and Hicks, 2001).

6 about pornography involving juveniles is Table 5: Pornography Offenses With Juvenile Involvement Reported to clearly, accurately, and uniformly recorded NIBRS, per 100,000 Offenses of All Types, by State, 1997–2000 in NIBRS as it becomes the major national source of crime information. Clearer proto­ State Offenses State Offenses cols and examples of how to report and code a variety of complicated episodes in­ Utah* 12.8 West Virginia* 5.5 volving juveniles and pornography could Michigan* 10.3 Texas‡ 5.3 be very helpful for local law enforcement. Idaho† 9.9 Kentucky‡ 4.5 This will certainly enhance NIBRS’s utility Iowa† 9.7 Connecticut‡ 4.3 as a tool for identifying and combating Virginia* 9.5 Colorado* 3.9 crimes against children in the future. Ohio‡ 9.4 Nebraska‡ 2.1 North Dakota* 9.4 South Carolina† 0.8 Finally, the analyses presented in this Bul­ Massachusetts‡ 8.6 Vermont* 0.0 letin point to the need for more and better Tennessee* 7.8 All states 7.3 research in regard to child pornography. The expansion of Internet access has Notes: Arkansas and Kansas are excluded because their recent addition to NIBRS creates uncertain­ raised concerns about increasing numbers ty about the stability of their rates. For all states: total offenses, N=8,794,296; pornography offenses and possibly a changing profile of con­ with juvenile involvement, N=646. sumers and producers of child pornogra­ * More than 50 percent of population represented by NIBRS data (as of October 2000). phy, as well as the increased involvement of child pornography in conventional † One hundred percent of population represented by NIBRS data (as of October 2000). child­molesting activities. It is important for law enforcement to have the tools to ‡ Less than 50 percent of population represented by NIBRS data (as of October 2000). monitor these trends. In addition, many Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation. 1997–2000. National Incident­Based Reporting System. questions exist about the effect of child Computer file. Compiled by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Department of Justice. Ann pornography on young people, both those Arbor, MI: Inter­University Consortium for Political and Social Research (producer and distributor). exposed to and those portrayed in its imagery. Although research on such questions raises difficult ethical issues, there was no child involvement—neither because of some uncertainty about the thoughtful social scientists, clinicians, and child pornography nor child victimization. full reliability of NIBRS data in this crime representatives from the juvenile justice Even in a majority (92 percent) of the domain, in which police information has field should collaborate to see what types child exploitation pornography offenses, not previously been aggregated across of investigations are possible. These inves­ police were unable to link the offender jurisdictions. The data are derived from tigations may lead to new approaches to with an identifiable victim. This means a group of jurisdictions that may not be combating pornography. that in most of the cases in which police representative of the nation as a whole. were investigating an offender for posses­ In particular, they do not include reports sion or distribution of child pornography, from federal agencies that have been References they were unable to connect the offender active in combating child pornography Federal Bureau of Investigation. 1997–2000. to a crime against an actual child. Of and that tend to be involved in cases with National Incident­Based Reporting System. course, offenders may have committed a larger scale and more commercial dimen­ Computer file. Compiled by the Federal such crimes or may have been at risk to do sions. It is possible that the cases current­ Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Department so, but police were unable to detect them. ly in NIBRS are thus skewed in the direc­ of Justice. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter­University tion of family abuse and noncommercial Pornography offenses with juvenile in­ Consortium for Political and Social production. Research (producer and distributor). volvement tend to occur in homes and residences more often than in commercial The analysis is also limited by some of the Finkelhor, D., and Jones, L.M. 2004. Expla­ establishments; the offenders are usually data categories in NIBRS, which do not nations for the Decline in Child Sexual lone adult males. When victims are identi­ capture distinctions that are generally Abuse Cases. Bulletin. Washington, DC: fied, they comprise a slight preponder­ considered to be important by researchers U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Jus­ ance of girls and teens with both family in the field of child pornography. For ex­ tice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and nonfamily relationships to the offend­ ample, it would help future efforts if the and Delinquency Prevention. er. The variability in state identification of NIBRS codes could be developed to better crimes involving pornography with juve­ delineate juvenile victims’ exact connec­ Klain, E.J., Davies, H.J., and Hicks, M.A. 2001. nile involvement suggests that states could tion in pornography crimes—as subjects Child Pornography: The Criminal­ Washington, DC: increase identification of such crimes by in images or as victims in sex crimes in Justice­System Response. American Bar Association Center on making concerted efforts to do so, such as which pornography was used. Children and the Law. establishing special­mission investigative units and using police and prosecutors Caution is also warranted because of the Medaris, M., and Girouard, C. 2002. Protect­ who are specially trained to pursue such highly variable nature of community stan­ dards and law enforcement practices re­ ing Children in Cyberspace: The ICAC Task crimes. Bulletin. Washington, DC: garding pornography. Perhaps the most Force Program. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Jus­ Caution needs to be observed when inter­ important and practical suggestion at tice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice preting the conclusions in this Bulletin present is for increased training of law and Delinquency Prevention. enforcement officials so that information

7 U.S. Department of Justice PRESORTED STANDARD Office of Justice Programs POSTAGE & FEES PAID Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention DOJ/OJJDP *NCJ~204911* PERMIT NO. G–91 Washington, DC 20531 Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300

Bulletin NCJ 204911

National Center for Missing & Exploited Children. CyberTipline Fact Sheet. Retrieved Acknowledgments May 6, 2004, from the Web: www.ncmec. org/en_US/documents/cybertipline_ This Bulletin was written by David Finkelhor, Ph.D., Professor of Sociology, and factsheet.pdf. Director, Crimes against Children Research Center, University of New Hampshire, [email protected] (e­mail); and Richard Ormrod, Ph.D., Research Profes­ U.S. Department of Health and Human sor, Crimes against Children Research Center, University of New Hampshire, Services, National Clearinghouse on Child [email protected] (e­mail). Abuse and Neglect Information, and National Center for Prosecution of Child Abuse. 1999. Child Abuse and Neglect: State Statutes Elements. No. 30: Child Pornogra­ phy. Alexandria, VA: National Center for Prosecution of Child Abuse. Wolak, J., Mitchell, K., and Finkelhor, D. 2003. National Juvenile Online Victimiza­ tion Study (N–JOV): Methodology Repor t. Durham, NH: University of New Hampshire, Crimes against Children Research Center.

ant to know more about the issues This Bulletin was prepared under grant num­ W ber 00–JW–VX–0005 from the Office of Juvenile in this publication or related information? Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. It’s Fast Log on to www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ojjdp: Department of Justice.

Points of view or opinions expressed in this ➡ Browse titles alphabetically, chronologi­ document are those of the authors and do cally, or by topic. not necessarily represent the official position or policies of OJJDP or the U.S. Depar tment It’s Easy ➡ Discover the latest OJJDP releases. of Justice. ➡ The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinq uency Subscribe to OJJDP News @ a Glance , Prevention is a component of the Of fice of JUVJUST (OJJDP’s listserv), and the elec­ Justice Programs, which also includes the It’s Free tronic newsletter JUSTINFO. Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of ➡ Justice, and the Office for Victims of Crime. Link to the NCJRS Abstracts Database to search for publications of interest.