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

Jeff Slowikowski, Acting Administrator July 2010

Office of Justice Programs Innovation • Partnerships • Safer Neighborhoods www.ojp.usdoj.gov Effects of Federal Legislation on the Commercial Sexual A Message From OJJDP Each year, as many as 300,000 children become victims of commer- Exploitation of Children cial sexual exploitation in the United States. Such victimization can have devastating effects on a child’s physi- cal and mental health and well-being. William Adams, Colleen Owens, and Kevonne Small In an effort to stop the commercial In the United States, estimates suggest that [CSEC] comprises sexual abuse by sexual exploitation of children (CSEC), as many as 300,000 children may become the adult and remuneration in cash Congress enacted the Victims of victims of commercial sexual exploitation or kind to the child or a third person Trafficking and Violence Prevention each year (Estes and Weiner, 2001). This or persons. The child is treated as a Act (TVPA) in 2000. As the seminal bulletin describes the findings of a study sexual object and as a commercial legislation in America’s efforts to end that the Urban Institute conducted to exam- object. The commercial sexual exploi- CSEC, the Act criminalizes human ine the effects of the passage of the Victims tation of children constitutes a form trafficking on a federal level. of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of coercion and violence against chil- This bulletin describes the results of of 2000 (TVPA) on the federal prosecu- dren, and amounts to forced labour a study funded by OJJDP to examine tion of commercial sexual exploitation of and a contemporary form of slavery. TVPA’s impact on the prosecution of children (CSEC) cases. It discusses U.S. TVPA (Public Law 106–386) is considered CSEC cases. The authors draw on enforcement of TVPA and succeeding laws to be the seminal piece of U.S. legisla- CSEC cases processed in federal enacted to strengthen penalties against courts between 1998 and 2005 to tion in the fight against CSEC. As the first CSEC, describes features of success- take a look at how current laws ad- comprehensive law to combat human ful prosecutions, and examines how the dressing CSEC are enforced, indicate trafficking, TVPA criminalizes human traf- legislation has affected court penalties and key features of successful CSEC ficking on a federal level. Section 112 of service providers. The authors also discuss prosecutions, and describe how TVPA states that sex trafficking of children recommendations for policymakers and legislation has affected sentences involves a commercial sex act in which practitioners who work with children and imposed on CSEC perpetrators, as the victim is younger than 18 years old. youth who have been the victims of com- well as legislation’s effects on the Traffickers who exploit children younger mercial sexual exploitation. provision of services to victims. The than age 14 for the purposes of a com- bulletin concludes with a discussion mercial sex act can be sentenced to up to of how the juvenile justice community Background life in prison (18 U.S.C. § 1591(b)(1)).1 If and policymakers could improve the the victim is between 14 and 18 years old, prosecution of CSEC crimes. The 1996 Declaration and Agenda for the trafficker is eligible for as much as 20 Action for the First World Congress The information provided in these years in prison under TVPA (18 U.S.C. § Against the Commercial Sexual Exploita- pages should inform our efforts to 1591(b)(2)); subsequent federal legislation tion of Children provided the first working develop policies and practices to has increased this penalty to life imprison- definition of the commercial sexual exploi- combat CSEC more effectively. To ment (pursuant to the Adam Walsh Act of this end, the authors call for compre- tation of children and youth: 2 2006). hensive data collection at the state level, increased training opportunities, and more consistent definitions of this heinous crime. Access OJJDP publications online at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ojjdp Several events following TVPA’s passage Practitioner meeting. The Urban Institute also helped combat CSEC. In 2003, Con- hosted a half-day practitioner meeting in gress passed the Prosecutorial Remedies June 2007 for eight CSEC service providers and Other Tools to End the Exploitation and advocates. These experts discussed is- of Children Today (PROTECT) Act (Public sues related to the Urban Institute’s study Law 108–21) to help the government fight and answered the following questions: child sexual exploitation. The PROTECT ◆ Act expanded territorial jurisdiction so Was information missing in the litera- that Americans abroad who commit CSEC ture review? may be prosecuted. It also increased ◆ Did any information in the literature maximum incarceration sentences from 15 review need clarification? to 30 years for U.S. citizens or permanent ◆ How could findings from the statistical residents convicted of child sex tourism analysis inform practice? and for persons convicted of transporting a minor in interstate or foreign commerce ◆ What practical lessons did the data with the intent that the minor engage in provide? prostitution or other commercial sex acts ◆ How could the data generate future (PROTECT Act, Public Law 108–21; Shared research? Hope International et al., 2006; Fraley, Statistical analysis. The secondary analy- 2005). Additionally, since its launch in sis of federal CSEC defendants relied on 2003, the FBI’s Innocence Lost National data obtained from the Federal Justice Initiative has become the largest U.S. Statistics Resource Center (FJSRC), a proj- government initiative against child sex ect that the Bureau of Justice Statistics trafficking. The Innocence Lost Initiative sponsors and the Urban Institute operates. operates task forces and working groups The researchers used the FJSRC database in 28 U.S. cities.3 As a part of the initia- to examine the prevalence and character- tive, the National Center for Missing & Research Methods istics of CSEC offenses and offenders in Exploited Children (NCMEC) and U.S. The Urban Institute researchers used a the federal criminal justice system. This Attorneys’ offices involved in the task variety of methods to answer the four re- included criminal suspects investigated forces or working groups train local and search questions and provide guidance for by U.S. Attorneys, persons arrested by federal law enforcement and social service policy and practice. Their methods includ- federal law enforcement, defendants providers on multidisciplinary approaches ed a literature review, interviews with four prosecuted and adjudicated in U.S. district to addressing the prostitution of children federal prosecutors, a focus group with courts, and offenders who had been sen- in the United States. eight Washington, DC-area CSEC service tenced and imprisoned. providers and advocates, and statistical The Urban Institute downloaded the analyses of federal CSEC cases filed by U.S. The Urban Institute’s following datasets from the FJSRC Web Attorneys from 1998 through 2005. Study site (http://fjsrc.urban.org): Literature review. The researchers To assess the impact of TVPA on the pros- ◆ U.S. Marshals Service (USMS), Arrests examined past publications on CSEC and ecution of CSEC cases in the United States, for Federal offenses, annual file, FY1998– published definitions of CSEC. In addition, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin- 2005. quency Prevention (OJJDP) commissioned researchers examined: ◆ Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys the Urban Institute to conduct a study to ◆ Past international actions concerning answer four research questions: (EOUSA), Suspects in criminal matters CSEC. opened, annual file, FY1997–2005. ◆ Is the United States enforcing existing ◆ United Nations actions concerning ◆ EOUSA, Suspects in criminal matters federal laws against CSEC? CSEC. concluded, annual file, FY1997–2005. ◆ What are key features of successful ◆ Major conventions and meetings on ◆ Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts CSEC prosecutions? What factors pre- CSEC. (AOUSC), Defendants in criminal cases dict convictions in cases? What factors ◆ U.S. legislation on CSEC. filed, annual file, FY1998–2005. predict sentence length? ◆ Governmental and nongovernmental ◆ AOUSC, Defendants in criminal cases ◆ Have U.S. courts increased penalties as- organization actions related to CSEC. terminated, annual file, FY1998–2005. sociated with commercial sexual crimes against children? Interviews with prosecutors. The resear- ◆ U.S. Sentencing Commission (USSC), chers conducted 1-hour interviews with Defendants sentenced, annual file, ◆ What are the effects of CSEC legislation four federal prosecutors who worked on FY1998–2005. on service providers who work with CSEC cases. Researchers asked about the these victims? The Urban Institute examined all stages prosecutors’ experience, collaborations, of case processing for defendants’ cases The Urban Institute partnered with the data collection methods, decisionmaking filed in U.S. district courts from 1998 to Polaris Project4 to carry out this research.5 processes, and the definitions of CSEC 2005. To identify CSEC defendants in the they used in daily practice. FJSRC database, the Institute relied on the

2 appropriate criminal statutes in the United States Code, mainly those from chap- A History of Commercial Sexual Exploitation of ter 110 (“Sexual Exploitation and Other Children Legislation in the United States Abuses of Children”) of Title 18.6 The researchers used these data to measure Before passage of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 and assess trends in federal prosecution (TVPA), prosecutors primarily used the Mann Act of 1910 (18 U.S.C. § § 2421– of CSEC offenders. FJSRC data factored 2424) and the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (also known prominently in answering the study’s key as the Crime Bill) to address crimes involving the commercial sexual exploitation of questions. children. The Mann Act, commonly called the White Slave Traffic Act, was enacted in 1910 to fi ght against forced prostitution as required by the Thirteenth Amendment to the Research Findings U.S. Constitution (Katyal, 1993). However, the Act did not explicitly protect minors from slavery-like practices until it was amended in 1978 and again in 1986 and Findings From the 1994. As currently written, the Mann Act makes it a felony to knowingly transport Literature Review “an individual who has not attained the age of 18 years in interstate or foreign com- Analysis of the literature revealed that merce, or in any Territory or Possession of the United States, with intent that such CSEC remains a major focus of the criminal individual engage in prostitution, or in any sexual activity for which any person can justice community. Key findings include: be charged with a criminal offense” (18 U.S.C. §§ 2421–2424). Currently, the FBI investigates possible Mann Act violations and refers them directly to U.S. Attorneys. ◆ The Declaration and Agenda for Action The U.S. Department of Justice’s Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section super- for the First World Congress Against vises the prosecution of these cases (United States Attorneys Manual, 1997). the Commercial Sexual Exploitation of The Mann Act was not originally intended to prosecute cases of child sex trafficking Children created a widespread, formal or general sex trafficking, but it has been, and still is, used to do so. Rather, TVPA definition of CSEC in 1996. was the fi rst comprehensive law intended to combat human trafficking. It criminal- ◆ Each year in the United States, as many ized human trafficking in the United States and focused efforts on prevention, pro- as 300,000 children are at risk for sexual tection, and prosecution. Unlike the Mann Act, TVPA does not require transportation exploitation (Estes and Weiner, 2001). across state lines to prove human trafficking. ◆ The average age a child first falls victim In addition to actions prosecuted through TVPA, the 1994 Crime Bill includes a pro- to CSEC is 13 or 14 (Barnitz, 2001; Fried- vision, known as the Child Sexual Abuse Prevention Act, which states that travel- man, 2005). ing outside of the United States with the intent of engaging in sexual activity with a minor is a crime. This provision represented a signifi cant step toward fi ghting child ◆ Victims are becoming younger, largely sex tourism, but few cases have been prosecuted using this law (Andrews, 2004). because exploiters are concerned As a result, the Sex Tourism Prohibition Improvement Act of 2002 was passed to about victims having HIV or AIDS address these concerns. Perhaps most signifi cantly, the 2002 Act removed the (Friedman, 2005; Spangenberg, 2001; intent requirement and criminalized the actions of sex tour operators (Fraley, 2005). Barnitz, 2001). These acts help provide the basis for CSEC arrests and prosecution. ◆ Victims cite the presence of existing For more comprehensive information on the federal laws used to prosecute CSEC, adult prostitution markets and their or see the Urban Institute’s full research report: An Analysis of Federally Prosecuted their family members’ drug dependency CSEC Cases since the Passage of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protec- as leading factors contributing to their tion Act of 2000, available at www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/222023.pdf. involvement in CSEC in the United States (Estes and Weiner, 2001). ◆ Few CSEC studies focus on perpetrators (Barnitz, 2001; Estes and Weiner, 2001; Andrews, 2004; Gragg et al., 2007; Song, 2007). ◆ The majority of child sexual exploiters are men between the ages of 20 and 65 (Barnitz, 2001; Estes and Weiner, 2001). ◆ Prior to the passage of TVPA (2000) and the PROTECT Act (2003), prosecutors addressed crimes involving CSEC by using the Mann Act of 1910 (18 U.S.C. § § 2421–2424) and the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Katyal, 1993). However, TVPA is considered the seminal piece of U.S. legislation on CSEC.

3 ◆◆ Several major initiatives in 2003—the passage of the PROTECT Act, the Figure 1: Case-Processing Trends for Federal CSEC Cases, 1998–2005 reauthorization of TVPA, the start of the Innocence Lost National Initiative, Passage of Passage of the and the “Breaking the Silence” national 2,000 TVPA PROTECT Act summit—successfully enhanced CSEC prosecution. 1,800 1,600 endants Highlights From 1,400 Prosecutor Interviews 1,200 Interviews with federal prosecutors high- 1,000 lighted several key issues in the field that needed improvement. 800 600 Definitions of CSEC. Prosecutors used 400 different definitions of what constitutes CSEC. For example, many felt that CSEC 200 involved U.S. citizen victims, whereas Number of Suspects/Def 0 human trafficking involved foreign na- 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 tional victims. These differing definitions Year affected which legislation they thought Suspects in matters investigated Defendants in cases filed pertained to CSEC-related crimes. Defendants convicted Defendants sentenced to prison Task forces. Task forces need further de- Note: CSEC investigations at the federal level have increased since the Victims of Trafficking and velopment, particularly at the local level. Violence Protection Act of 2000 (TVPA) and the Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today (PROTECT) Act were passed. Prosecution. Prosecutors disagreed as to whether certain cases should be pro- cessed at the state or federal level. In addi- tion, researchers learned that prosecutors spectrum of CSEC cases being investi- offered services (see section 4.1.4 in the preferred to plea bargain rather than bring gated nationally. Data collection efforts, full report). cases to court. particularly at the state level, need Data collection. Prosecutors need to improvement (see section 4.1.1 in the Answers to Key Questions improve their methods of collecting data full report). Researchers analyzed statistical data from on CSEC. Currently, their agencies do not ◆◆ Children can become overwhelmed as the FJSRC Web site to answer the study’s prioritize data collection, and they have witnesses. The investigation process key questions (p. 2). These data were no automated systems for this purpose. can make CSEC victims feel criminal- placed in context with information gath- ized, making them reluctant to testify. ered from the literature review, prosecu- Prosecutor interviews helped researchers Preparing a child to participate in tor interviews, and practitioner meeting to develop advice on policy and practice (see prosecution should be only one of provide the following answers. sidebars “Recommendations for Practice” several methods of handling this type 1. Is the United States enforcing existing and “Recommendations for Policy”). of criminal case. Prosecutors should federal laws against CSEC? also focus on other types of corrobo- Findings From the rating evidence that can substantiate a Although legislation existed before 2000 Practitioner Meeting victim’s claim (see section 4.1.2 in the to address criminal acts associated with Researchers convened a focus group full report). CSEC, specific federal laws such as TVPA meeting attended by CSEC service provid- ◆◆ Language used to discuss CSEC affects (2000) and the PROTECT Act (2003) were ers and advocates to elicit feedback on how victims are characterized. For passed to address this crime. At the fed- preliminary research findings and to iden- example, U.S. child victims may be eral level, the U.S. Department of Justice tify issues that had not been addressed referred to as “prostitutes” and foreign is using these laws. previously. Practitioners identified a num- national child victims may be referred The numbers of CSEC investigations, ber of key issues and discussion points to as “sex trafficking victims.” This lan- case filings, convictions, and sentences and made recommendations for policy guage difference creates a dichotomy to prison have increased each year since and practice (see sidebars “Recommenda- between these two groups of victims. these laws were passed (see figure 1). The tions for Practice” and “Recommendations Other considerations include confusion average number of case filings increased for Policy”):7 over the terms “pimp,” “commercial,” the most in the following federal judicial ◆◆ Current federal CSEC data do not rep- and “sex trafficker” (see section 4.1.3 in districts: the eastern and central districts resent the full range of CSEC offenders. the full report). of California, the Utah district, the north- Practitioners had concerns about the ◆◆ U.S. citizen and foreign national CSEC ern district of Ohio, the northern district types of CSEC cases included in federal victims are treated differently when of Georgia, and the southern district of data sources and suggested that state they are identified, characterized, and New York (see figure 2). data might better represent the full

4 Although the number of suspects in crimi- nal CSEC matters that the federal govern- Figure 2: Change in the Number of Defendants in Cases Filed in U.S. ment investigated and referred to U.S. District Court Charged With a CSEC Offense, 1998–2005, Attorneys increased substantially each After Implementation of TVPA year between 1998 and 2005, federal pros- ecutors declined to prosecute more than half of those criminal matters each year Northern Utah (20) District in U.S. district courts. Federal prosecu- of Ohio tion was most frequently denied because (18) the case was referred to other authori- ties (e.g., the states), there was weak or insufficient evidence for prosecution, or Southern no federal offense was evident.8 Nonethe- District of N.Y. less, prosecutors brought a fairly steady (19) proportion of CSEC cases (usually 40 to 45 percent) to federal court, despite a case- load that more than doubled in volume Northern between 1998 and 2005. Therefore, the Eastern District of District number of defendants in CSEC cases filed California (33) of Georgia Central District (18) in U.S. district courts more than tripled of California (21) between 1998 and 2005 (from 412 to 1,512 cases). CSEC investigations at the federal level have increased since TVPA and the Change in mean number of cases PROTECT Act were passed. From 1998 -5 to 1 1 to 7 8 to 17 18 to 33 to 2005, the number of CSEC suspects in criminal cases that U.S. Attorneys investi- Note: Districts not shown on map include the District of Columbia (5), district of Guam (1), gated and concluded more than doubled district of the Northern Mariana Islands (0.2), district of Puerto Rico (7), and district of the (see figure 3). Increases in the number of U.S. Virgin Islands (0.6). child pornography suspects accounted Source: Federal Justice Statistics Resource Center, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts for most of this growth. The number of criminal master files, annual, 1998–2005. suspects investigated for child prostitution or sex trafficking experienced the great- est proportional growth during this time period, nearly tripling. These increases in case investigations occurred mostly after 2003, when efforts Figure 3: Suspects Investigated in Federal Criminal Matters converged (i.e., legislation, creation of 9 task forces) to bring greater awareness 2,000 to CSEC and to prosecute its perpetrators by using a collaborative, victim-centered 1,800 approach (Office of Juvenile Justice and 1,600 Delinquency Protection, 2002). 1,400 To assess the impact of federal legislation 1,200 (e.g., TVPA) and federal initiatives on the 1,000 prosecution of CSEC cases over time, the Urban Institute constructed a time series 800 regression model.10 This model used 600

monthly data on the number of federal Number of Suspects 400 CSEC prosecutions from 1998 to 2005 and measured the effect of several occurrences: 200 0 ◆◆ TVPA—enacted in 2000. 1998 2000 2002 2004 ◆◆ The 9/11 terrorist attacks. Fiscal Year ◆◆ The PROTECT Act, Trafficking Victims Sexual exploitation Child pornography Child prostitution/ Protection Reauthorization Act, and of children sex trafficking the FBI’s Innocence Lost National Initia- tive—enacted in 2003. Note: Between 1998 and 2005, the number of suspects investigated in federal criminal matters related to commercial sexual exploitation crimes against children more than doubled. The model showed a statistically signifi- cant effect of the 2003 initiatives on the number of CSEC prosecutions brought to

5 federal court, and the other two occur- 2. What are key features of successful more likely to result in conviction than rences had no statistically significant CSEC prosecutions? What factors predict cases that the FBI investigated. effect on the number of CSEC prosecutions convictions in cases? What factors pre- ◆◆ Case processing time. Cases with long- brought to court (see figure 4). The fact dict sentence length? er processing times were more likely to that enacting TVPA in 2000 was not statis- end in conviction. tically significant does not mean that the Analysis of FJSRC data showed that the fol- Act was ineffective; it took a few years for lowing factors are important in predicting ◆◆ Presence of codefendants. Cases this legislation to take effect and for feder- conviction in a CSEC case: with one defendant had greater convic- ally funded task forces to form and come ◆◆ When the case was filed. Defendants tion rates than cases with multiple into operation throughout the United in cases filed after the passage of TVPA defendants. States. These task forces consisted of of 2000 had a greater chance of being ◆◆ Type of CSEC charge. Offenders federal, state, and local law enforcement; convicted than defendants in cases charged with possessing or distribut- victim service providers; and prosecutors filed prior to the enactment of TVPA. ing child pornography were more likely who worked together and shared informa- ◆◆ Investigative agency. Cases that the to be convicted than those charged tion that helped identify CSEC victims and U.S. Customs Service investigated were with child prostitution or child sexual prosecute offenders in their communities. exploitation.

Figure 4: Time Series Regression Model Measuring the Impact of Federal Initiatives on CSEC Prosecutions in U.S. District Courts

TVPA passed 2003 (2000) 9/11 Initiatives* 180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40 Number of CSEC Defendant Cases Filed Cases Number of CSEC Defendant

20

0 Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Year Number of defendant cases filed Predicted value without 2003 changes Predicted value (line of best-fit)

* Federal efforts implemented in early 2003 include the FBI’s Innocence Lost National Initiative, the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, and the Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today (PROTECT) Act.

6 Figure 5: Mean Prison Sentence for Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Recommendations for Children (CSEC) Offenses, 1998–2004 Practice 200 The authors analyzed the study’s find- ings and provided several recommen- 180 dations for practice: 160 ◆◆ Federal prosecutors should examine 140 the reasons why so many cases are 120 declined for federal prosecution and 100 determine whether some declined

Months 80 cases could be brought forward with different policies or better training and 60 resources. 40 ◆◆ Practitioners and prosecutors should 20 support task force participation. If 0 jurisdictions do not have task forces 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 or collaborations, federal and state prosecutors, law enforcement, and Fiscal Year service providers should coordinate Child sexual exploitation Child prostitution their efforts to ensure that cases are Child pornography All CSEC offenses brought to court. Note: The mean prison sentence for CSEC offenders increased to 80 months in 2004. ◆◆ Training opportunities for law enforce- ment, prosecutors, and judges should be uniform nationwide in terms of content but also tailored to local needs. Training topics should include For example, the mean sentence imposed The following factors helped predict the how to define CSEC, how to decide on offenders convicted and sentenced prison term imposed on CSEC offenders: whether a CSEC case should be increased from 53 months in 1999 (before tried at the federal or state level, and ◆◆ Case disposition (plea vs. trial). Offend- TVPA went into effect) to 80 months in 2004 how to conduct an effective CSEC ers who went to trial received longer (see figure 5). sentences (61 months longer, on aver- investigation. age) than those who pled guilty. 4. What are the effects of CSEC legisla- ◆◆ The U.S. government should clearly tion on service providers who work with ◆◆ Race. Nonwhite offenders received define CSEC at the federal and state these victims? longer prison terms (about 16 months levels. It should develop a universal longer) than white offenders. Service providers and advocates reported definition of CSEC so that charging decisions are more uniform. ◆◆ Education. Offenders with lower levels that federal CSEC legislation often focuses of education (high school diploma or on foreign or noncitizen victims, leaving less) received longer sentences than service gaps and questions about the identity of U.S. citizen victims. Providers offenders with at least some college more difficult time identifying themselves education. often have difficulty securing social ser- vices for U.S. citizen victims because the as victims. U.S. citizen victims may feel ◆◆ Type of CSEC charge. Offenders charged legislation focuses on victims from other “criminalized” by the process of case with child sexual exploitation received countries who do not have status in the investigation and prosecution and opt to longer sentences (47 months longer, on United States. drop out of prosecutions. average) than those charged with child prostitution or child pornography. The service providers and advocates participating in the practitioner meeting12 Conclusion ◆◆ Offense seriousness and criminal his- reported that there is an assumption that tory. As an offender’s federal guidelines Key findings from the Urban Institute’s U.S. citizen CSEC victims have access to scores11 on offense seriousness and study suggest that current federal CSEC- specialized services simply because of criminal history increased, so too did focused legislation is sufficient to address their citizenship status but suggested that the average sentence imposed on the these crimes and that task force efforts this is not really the case. For example, offender. are an important component in successful many juvenile victims do not have access prosecution. 3. Have U.S. courts increased penal- to secured housing.13 Practitioners also ties associated with commercial sexual suggested that federal CSEC legislation Although considerable progress has been crimes against children? shapes the identity of victims. Foreign made in CSEC prosecution, more improve- and noncitizen victims may have an easier ments can be made: Laws associated with CSEC passed since time identifying themselves as victims 2000 have increased the penalties associated ◆◆ Maintain consistent definitions of because of how the laws are worded and with CSEC-related offenses. Prosecutors use CSEC. Greater consistency will help interpreted, but U.S. citizen victims have a these laws to secure harsher punishments. identify victims (both U.S. citizens and

7 olp/pdf/adam_walsh_act.pdf. The William Recommendations for Policy Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 also refined The authors analyzed the study’s findings and provided a number of policy the language of this section. For full text of recommendations: the legislation, see www.usdoj.gov/olp/pdf/ ◆◆ Prosecutors use current federal laws against commercial sexual exploitation of wilberforce-act.pdf. children (CSEC). Practitioners and prosecutors agree that these laws sufficiently 2. The Prosecutorial Remedies and Other address CSEC at the federal level, and additional legislation is not needed. Tools to End the Exploitation of Children ◆◆ Congress should continue to fund CSEC-specific initiatives such as task forces Today (PROTECT) Act of 2003 increased and the national conference in 2003. Without this coordinated strategy focusing on this penalty to 40 years. Subsequently, the CSEC legislation, CSEC prosecutions probably would not have increased as much. Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety ◆◆ Task force participation is key to success in prosecuting CSEC perpetrators. Act of 2006 (Public Law 109–248) strength- ened penalties under 18 U.S.C. § 1591(b)(1) ◆◆ Service providers, advocates, researchers, and policymakers must agree on terms to life imprisonment (also see endnote 1). used in the CSEC field. This will help identify victims and cases. 3. For more information about the Inno- ◆◆ Everyone involved in working with CSEC should use language that qualifies U.S. cence Lost National Initiative, see citizen CSEC victims as “real” victims (e.g., as sex trafficking victims and not as www.fbi.gov/innolost/innolost.htm. prostitutes) so that the criminal justice process will not make these victims feel criminalized and so that they will be more willing to participate in prosecutions. 4. The Polaris Project is an international ◆◆ Victims must have access to specialized services. The U.S. government should organization, based in the United States conduct a review of services provided to U.S. citizen and foreign national CSEC and Japan, committed to combating hu- victims exploited in the United States to ensure that both populations receive the man trafficking and modern-day slavery. services they need. 5. For more detailed and comprehensive ◆◆ Policymakers and practitioners must support and fund data collection efforts at background information on CSEC, see the the state and local levels. Prosecutors and practitioners see the value in collect- full research report, An Analysis of Federal- ing and analyzing data but do not make it a current practice for their agencies and ly Prosecuted CSEC Cases since the Passage organizations. Congress should make reporting data on CSEC incidents, arrests, of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence prosecutions, and sentences a requirement. Data on CSEC crime victims also Protection Act of 2000, at www.ncjrs.gov/ should be collected and reported. pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/222023.pdf. 6. See exhibit 3.1 on p. 14 in the full report for the list of the specific statutes that were included. This list was informed by several interviews conducted with federal foreign nationals), inform how the legal to prosecute CSEC offenders pursuant prosecutors who routinely prosecute and social services communities can to state laws. This study focused solely CSEC cases for the U.S. Department of help them, and determine how the legal on the prosecution of CSEC offenders by Justice and by advice from the Polaris system should handle offenders. federal authorities, but these efforts con- Project. ◆◆ Provide better training. Law enforce- stitute only part of the law enforcement 7. The practitioner focus group made sug- ment, prosecutors, and judges who efforts in the United States to apprehend gestions for future research. See pp. 66–68 handle or encounter CSEC cases should and prosecute CSEC offenders. The efforts of the full report for more information. receive more training. of state and local law enforcement should also be examined. 8. See figures 3.4 and 3.5; appendix B; and ◆◆ Improve data collection. Researchers tables 3, 3a, 3b, and 3c in the full report should improve efforts to collect and for a more detailed description of reasons use data to understand what works in For More Information why cases were not prosecuted, as listed preventing and combating CSEC and To find out more about the study de- by CSEC offense. what helps to identify victims and pros- scribed in this bulletin, read the full ecute cases. 9. Legislation addressing CSEC in 2003 in- report, An Analysis of Federally Prosecuted cluded the PROTECT Act and the 2003 re- The findings of this study shed light on CSEC Cases since the Passage of the Victims authorization of TVPA (Trafficking Victims some important research questions re- of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act Protection Reauthorization Act, 2003). The garding the handling and outcome of CSEC of 2000, at www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/ FBI, in collaboration with the National Cen- cases in the federal system, but many grants/222023.pdf. ter for Missing & Exploited Children and questions remain unanswered. Continued the Department of Justice’s Child Exploita- research on CSEC is needed to create Endnotes tion and Obscenity Section, also launched more effective guidelines for policy and the Innocence Lost National Initiative in practice. 1. 18 U.S.C. § 1591(b)(1) was strengthened 2003, which created national task forces under Section 208 of the Adam Walsh Child In particular, studies should be under- to address the domestic sex trafficking of Protection and Safety Act of 2006. For full children. In addition to legislative efforts, taken to collect state-level data and assess text of the legislation, see www.usdoj.gov/ the efforts of state and local authorities anti-human-trafficking and anti-CSEC

8 Fraley, A. 2005. Child sex tourism legisla- tion under the PROTECT Act: Does it really protect? St. John’s Law Review 79:445. Friedman, S.A. 2005. Who Is There to Help Us? How the System Fails Sexually Ex- ploited Girls in the United States: Examples From Four American Cities. Brooklyn, NY: ECPAT–USA. Gragg, F., Petta, I., Bernstein, H., Eisen, K., and Quinn, L. 2007. New York Prevalence Study of Commercially Sexually Exploited Children. Rensselaer, NY: New York State Office of Children and Family Services. Katyal, N.K. 1993. Men who own women: A Thirteenth Amendment critique of forced prostitution. Yale Law Journal 103(3):791– 826. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency organizations from across the country difficult to find them again and, if found, Prevention. 2002. Protecting Our Children: came together in 2003 to host Breaking the service providers have to rebuild their Working Together To End Child Prostitu- Silence, the first national youth summit trust and willingness to participate in the tion. Proceedings of the National Summit, on CSEC (Shared Hope International et al., case process. See chapter 4: Practitioner December 13–14, 2002, Washington, DC. 2006). Meeting in the full report (p. 60) for more Available from www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ details. 10. For an indepth description of this time ojjdp/204990.pdf. series model and its results, see section Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools 3.4.1 in the full report. References to End the Exploitation of Children Today 11. The Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety (PROTECT) Act of 2003, Public Law which federal judges were legally required Act of 2006, Public Law 109–248. 108–21. to use for determining all federal sentenc- Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. Shared Hope International, ECPAT–USA, es during the study period, consist primar- Defendants in Criminal Cases, 1998–2005. and The Protection Project of the Foreign ily of two factors: offense seriousness Available from http://fjsrc.urban.org/ Policy Institute, Johns Hopkins University and the offender’s criminal history score datadictionary.cfm. School of Advanced International Studies. category (a higher category indicates 2006. U.S. Mid-Term Review on the Com- more criminal history). For more infor- Andrews, S. 2004. U.S. domestic prosecu- mercial Sexual Exploitation of Children in mation, see the United States Sentencing tion of the American international sex America. Available from www.sharedhope. Commission Web site at www.ussc.gov/ tourist: Efforts to protect children from org/csecmtrusa/index.asp. guidelin.htm. sexual exploitation. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 94(2):415–454. Song, S. 2007. Global Child Sex Tourism: 12. Service providers who participated in Children as Tourist Attractions. Washington, the practitioner meeting work primarily Barnitz, L. 2001. Effectively responding DC: Youth Advocate Program Internation- with victims of sex trafficking. to the commercial sexual exploitation of al. Available from www.yapi.org/ children: A comprehensive approach to 13. Service providers and advocates rpchildsextourism.pdf. prevention, protection, and reintegration participating in the practitioner meeting services. Child Welfare 80(5):597–610. Spangenberg, M. 2001. Prostituted Youth in reported that during the prosecution of New York City: An Overview. Brooklyn, NY: a CSEC case, service providers have to Estes, R., and Weiner, N. 2001. The Com- ECPAT–USA. make sure the children stay in the system mercial Sexual Exploitation of Children to testify. Staying in the system entails in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. Philadel- Trafficking Victims Protection Reautho- being placed in secure housing for the phia, PA: University of Pennsylvania rization Act of 2003, Public Law 108–193, length of the prosecution. For foreign School of Social Work. Available from 117 Stat. 2875–2887. Available from national victims, this housing is often a www.sp2.upenn.edu/~restes/CSEC.htm. www.glin.gov/view.action?glinID=137996. shelter with staff trained to deal with this United States Attorneys Manual, Title 9, special population. However, for domestic First World Congress Against Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children. 1997 (June Criminal Resource Manual 2027. 1997. victims, this often means being placed in Mann Act. Available from www.usdoj.gov/ juvenile detention facilities or foster care 5). 1996 Declaration and Agenda for Action. Available from www.hartford-hwp. usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/ with limited or no services. If the children title9/crm02027.htm. leave the criminal justice or welfare