1. Impact of public appeals
Dr. Karen Shalev Greene
University of Portsmouth
With financial support from the "Rights, Equality and Citizenship " Programme of the European Union

2. Project background > Public appeals by hotlines
2014: Public appeals launched in 45% of the cases (12 hotlines)
2015: Public appeals launched in 71% of the cases (19 hotlines)

3. Project background
2014:
Websites
Posters
Social media

4. Project background
2015:
Social media
Websites
Posters

5. “YOU ARE WHAT GOOGLE SAYS YOU ARE” (Ambrose, 2013)
Project background
“YOU ARE WHAT GOOGLE SAYS YOU ARE” (Ambrose, 2013)
Megan Stammers

6. Previous research about missing children and reports in media
Project background
Previous research about missing children and reports in media
Missing children and media bias (missing white girl syndrome) (Machados & Santos, 2009; Gilchrist, 2010; Shalev Greene & Reddin, 2017)
Child alert systems (Zgoba, 2004; Griffin, 2010; Levine, & Manning, 2013; Shalev Greene & Hedges, 2016)
Facial recognition and effectiveness of publicity appeals (Lampinen et al., 2012, 2014, 2015; Levine, & Manning, 2013)

7. Project background
Privacy issues often only become apparent when it is already too late (Ausloos, 2012)

8. Survey results 105 staff from 19 hotlines responded:
50 % case managers
33 % management staff,
17 % frontline staff, volunteers, communication officers, project
managers
4 parts of the survey on public appeals:
Decision-making process
Running a public appeals campaign
Effectiveness
Impact

9. Presentation of survey results
1. Decision-making process

10. Presentation of survey results
1. Decision-making process
Relates to risk for child
Risk assessment proces
Always: 9 = 47,4 %
Most of the time: 5 = 26,3 %
Sometimes: 4 = 21 %
Don’t know: 1 = 5,2 %
Always: 8 = 47,0 %
Most of the time: 4 = 23,6 %
Sometimes: 2 = 11,8 %
Don’t know: 3 = 17,6 %
Criteria used
Main criterion: Safety of the child
Also: Impact on privacy, effectiveness/usefulness

11. Presentation of survey results
1. Decision-making process
Most public appeals launched for
Runaways
Lost, injured or otherwise missing cildren
Criminal abductions
Reasons for NOT launching a public appeal:
When it is an immigration case
When a person is ‘wanted’ by authorities rather than ‘missing’
When there is a suspected crime involved (such as homicide)
When asked not to launch an appeal
When not asked to launch an appeal

12. Presentation of survey results
1. Decision-making process
Impact of public appeal mostly taken into consideration while child is missing, rather than upon
return (short term and long term impact). Discussed more with family than with police.
Requests refused if:
Negative impact on child and/or investigation
Child not in danger/no parental authority (parental abductions)
Requests refused if:
Negative impact on child
If not in line with hotline criteria

13. Presentation of survey results
1. Decision-making process
Best practices:
Collecting and analysing specific information about the child from family, friends, guardians,
prosecutor, LEA
Discussing impact of publicity with family as well as police
Challenges and concerns:
Best interest of the child: Balance between life threat versus negative impact (further victimisation,
CSE, mocking by peers upon return, mental health issues, stigmatising the child or siblings/family)
If LEA plays the main role, decision not up to the hotline
Hotline’s limited ability to distribute appeals

14. Presentation of survey results
2. Running a publicity appeal
10 hotlines (66 %) uses same wording.
Varying wording due to the fact that
cases are different.
Photos mainly obtained from police and family.
Criteria for photos:
Image quality
Recent photo
Not embarrassing to child

15. Presentation of survey results
2. Running a publicity appeal
National appeals most frequently used
Other: Logo, app

16. Presentation of survey results
2. Running a publicity appeal
Stop criteria:
Child found
New risk assessment (appeal no longer in the best
interest of the child)
If reporting family members wish to stop appeal
If obliged to stop by police
Summary of actions taken top stop appeal:
Police/family notify of change of status (child found)
Hotline case database is updated (case closed)
Information removed from hotline’s own channels
All associates are informed of the changed status
and asked to remove information (family, police,
cross-border partners, the public)

17. Presentation of survey results
2. Running a publicity appeal
Channels chosen mostly depend on
Accessibility of channel
Relevance to case
Most monitoring is of comments
on social media and removal of
negative ones if possible
* 17 reporting hotlines

18. Presentation of survey results
4. Impact of a publicity appeal upon return
Impact on: Children
Short term
Long term
Positive
Negative
Public support/ Encouragement to child
Gossip, threats, insults on social media
Reduced risk of running away again?
Lasting digital footprints about disappearance – the right to be forgotten
Relief and positive surprise with parents
Feeling embarrassed and exposed towards schoolmates, not wanting to return to school
More services are involved in taking care of the child
More care by third parties, eg. school administration and peers
Increased attention to the child and family from the public
They didn’t like the photo, view the appeal as annoying (don’t consider themselves as missing)
Impact on: Family
Short term
Long term
Positive
Negative
Public support/ encouragement
Gossip, threats, insults
Improved relationship among family members
Digital footprint
Gratitude/relief
Feeling of shame towards the community (mostly in small communities)
Increased attention towards the family
93% of hotlines do not systematically collect information on impact

19. Presentation of survey results
4. Impact of a publicity appeal upon return
Good practices:
Hotline helped with demand
to Google on the right to be
forgotten
General follow-up calls and counselling by hotline staff
Trial Aftercare project in the UK
Return Home interviews in the UK
Challenges:
Child’s exposure in public
places
No long term post facto
relationship with victim/
environment
Tension if family didn’t want
publicity but police did
The right to be forgotten
Eagerness by hotlines to know more about: Short and long term impact on children, good practices
across Europe, how to handle re-posting by non-sources, how to improve appeals (behavioural insights)...

20. Thanks
> >
>
+44-(0)