Professional Documents
Culture Documents
OF CRIMINOLOGY
No. 144
Missing Persons:
Incidence, Issues and
Impacts
trends
&
issues
in crime and criminal justice
Adam Graycar
Director
January 2000
ISSN 0817-8542
ISBN 0642 24145 7
Incidence
Unfortunately, statistics on the incidence of missing persons
reported to police across Australia are not routinely compiled, and
there is no reliable national trend information available. The rate of
missing persons reported to police over the study period 1995-97
was constant at 1.55 per 1,000 people in the general population each
year, but varied between jurisdictions and according to age and
Australian Institute
of Criminology
GPO Box 2944
Canberra ACT 2601
Australia
Tel: 02 6260 9221
Fax: 02 6260 9201
For a complete list and the full text of the
papers in the Trends and Issues in
Crime and Criminal Justice series, visit
the AIC web site at:
http://www.aic.gov.au
Table 1: Rates of Missing Persons Reported to Australian Police Services in 1997 (per 1,000 People)
All Persons
Adult Males
Adult Females
Male Children
Female Children
and Young
and Young
Persons
Persons
NSW
1.18
0.96
0.61
1.77
2.63
Vic
1.51
0.94
0.60
3.60
4.23
Qld
1.52
1.15
0.77
2.71
3.60
WA
1.67
1.17
0.94
3.47
3.65
SA
3.20
2.46
1.36
8.33
6.21
Tas
0.46
0.38
0.28
0.63
1.15
ACT
3.55
2.26
1.31
8.93
8.21
NT
1.04
0.83
0.60
1.69
1.82
Australia
1.55
1.14
0.73
3.15
3.62
Age
Total
5
62
13
8
8
5
101
Total
86
10
4
100
Total
19
11
60
10
100
Total
87
9
3
1
100
Total
78
15
7
100
18
66
8
8
100
Australia
Other English-speaking Country
Non-English-speaking Country
Country of Birth
Currently Employed
Unemployed
Full-time Student
Not EmployedOther Reason
Never Married
Married or Defacto Relationship
Divorced or Separated
Widowed
Marital Status
Where Living
Own Home
Other Persons Home
School or Travel to/from School
A Public Place (including public transport)
Other
Not Known/Not Stated
Total
Morning (6-11am)
Afternoon (12-5pm)
Evening (6-11pm)
Night (midnight-5am)
Daytime (exact time not known)
Night-time (exact time not known)
Not Known/Not Stated
Relationship of Person
M aking Report
M issing in Company
Total
23
18
20
2
10
3
24
100
Total
20
20
43
17
100
Total
72
4
18
3
3
100
Saturday or Sunday
Friday
Other Weekday
Not Known/Not Stated
Parent
Spouse
Other Relative
Other Person
Not Known/Not Stated
Percentage
54
6
14
9
7
10
100
16
16
Reason/Explanation for
Going Missing
The survey asked families and
friends why they believed, at the
time, the person went missing,
and what explanation was given
for the disappearance when the
missing person was located. The
responses were content analysed,
then grouped into four discrete
categories, and classed into a
miscellaneous other group, a
non-specific group where there
was not enough information to
discriminate between categories,
and none given/not known
group (see Table 4).
The most common reason
families and friends believed at
the time to be the reason for
going missing, and the most
common explanation given
afterwards, was conflict about
authority, rules, or independent
behaviour. At the time the person
went missing, there were often
fears about safety, but the explanation given after being located
rarely supported those concerns,
and often fell into the unintentional category.
Table 4: Reasons Believed and Explanations Given for Persons Going Missing Based on Survey
Category
Reason
Explanation
Believed
Given
(percentage)
(percentage)
Independence/Rebellion (for example, rebellion against parental
21
24
authority, wanting to be independent, responding to peer pressure,
conflict over family rules)
Safety Concerns (for example, suicide, abduction, accident, or nonspecific concerns over self-harm or harm by others)
19
22
11
12
Other
Non-specific
None Given/Not Known
11
15
17
100
14
8
19
100
Total
How Located
Where Located
Total
Percentage
35
27
24
7
6
1
100
Total
42
18
33
6
99
47
10
20
19
4
100
emotional, relationship,
economic, and other impacts
associated with the missing
person incident. For every case of
a missing person, an average of at
least 12 other people are affected
in some way. Based on the annual
number of reported missing
person cases, a very conservative
estimate of the number of people
affected each year is over
one-third of a million. For some
of these people, the impact is
ongoing for years and even
decades.
The economic cost to the
Australian community was
estimated using a range of information sources. Full details of the
methodology applied and the
sources used are provided in
Henderson and Henderson
(1998). Unit cost was calculated
per missing person incident by
apportioning estimated costs in
each category across the missing
person population, using the
national survey as a basis for
determining the distribution of
Relationship
58
-
Table 7: Estimated Costs per Missing Person Incident Reported to Police (at 1997 dollars)
Estimated Cost
Per Case ($)
LOCATION COSTS
Police Location Costs
351.00
National Missing Person Unit Costs
6.49
Search Costs Directly Incurred by Families and Friends
128.15
Other Agency Search Costs in Assisting Police
401.05
Additional Costs of Australians Missing Overseas
2.11
Search Costs by Departments with Specific Client Responsibilities
not costed
Costs of Inquiries into Agency Records
not costed
Business and Community Contributions
not costed
Costs of Return of the Missing Person When Located
not costed
Media and Publicity Costs
not costed
EMPLOYMENT RELATED COSTS
Loss of Earnings for Time Off Work or Business
Industry and Public Sector Costs of Lost Work Days
Productivity Loss Through Impaired Work Performance
Costs Associated with Loss or Change of Employment
Lifetime Earnings Lost Through Missed Education
Costs of Government Benefits and Revenue Loss
Lost Opportunity Costs by Organisations Assisting with Searches
272.05
425.23
13.20
44.02
654.33
not costed
not costed
HEALTH COSTS
Medical Services (Consultation, Hospitalisation, Prescriptions)
Costs of Counselling Services
Pain and Suffering
Ongoing Health Vulnerability
235.92
16.87
not costed
not costed
25.00
not costed
not costed
not costed
not costed
not costed
not costed
160.70
277.78
not costed
not costed
not costed
not costed
Service Effectiveness
The national survey asked a
series of questions about satisfaction with the services provided
by police and any other agencies
associated with locating the
missing person, as well as experiences with services providing
support to the families and
friends of missing people.
Most people reported they
were satisfied with the service
provided by police at each of
three stagesinitial reporting,
investigation, and outcome
advice/follow-up stage (83%,
73%, and 71% of relevant cases
respectively). Specific areas for
improvement most commonly
identified were perceived delays
before taking action (in particular,
there was a misconception that
police policy required a 24-hour
wait before a missing person
report could be made) and more
contact and feedback to families.
A sympathetic and understanding approach at the time of taking
the initial report was the most
commonly identified positive
feature. Existing support services
were not used by a large proportion of people, most often because
people did not feel the need,
but there was strong support for
the establishment of a specialised
missing person support service.
However, the sorts of services
people considered it should
provide varied and included
direct search assistance,
emotional and practical support,
information provision, and
support after the missing person
was located.
Areas of Need
Information from the national
survey, interviews with other
families and friends of missing
people, consultation with govern-
References
Henderson, M. and Henderson, P.
1998, Missing People: Issues for the
Australian Community, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra,
also available at
www.missingpersons.info.au
Mukherjee, S. and Graycar, A. 1997,
Crime and Justice in Australia,
Hawkins Press, Sydney.
Monika Henderson
and Peter Henderson
are consultants at M.& P.
Henderson & Associates.
Carol Kiernan is the National
Coordinator of the National
Missing Persons Unit,
Australian Bureau of Criminal
Intelligence.